[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:05:36 EST DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>In a message dated 98-03-18 15:48:18 EST, you write:
>
><< I feel very sorry for anyone who is
> sexually harassed and does not have the solid evidence to prove it.
>But
> I don't think the answer is to simply convict people based on what
> someone accuses when there is no solid evidence.
>
> Bill >>
>
>In point of fact, one almost never has solid evidence of an individual
>act.
>That may be why the law in its wisdom takes cognizance of the hostile
>environment thing. You know -- cheesecake pix all over the walls,
>dirty jokes
>making the rounds, etc. That can be proven, but an isolated act
>usually
>cannot be.
>Fortunately the law also insists on solid evidence. If that means --
>and it
>almost certainly does -- that some incidents go unpunished, then so be
>it.
>IMO that's a lot better than blithely handing out punishments based on
>nothing
>more than a verbal accusation (even if the accusation is mine, and is
>true.)
>Doc
HI Doc,
I agree completely. I also see nothing wrong with examining the
credibility and background of the accuser to try to assess the
believability of the claims. Certainly the background and credibility of
the accused are also fair game. But you can't convict someone on
background and credibility, IMO. It's too easy to let internal bias
determine what we believe and do not believe. In the absence of solid
evidence to corroborate it is meaningless.
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
