This does not improve on the present rule. It's too broad in that it literally would prevent a lawyer from using peremptory challenges to get various groups of people off a jury. Perhaps it would have other unintended consequences as well. It's too narrow in that it is restricted to a legal setting.
I agree with Christopher, too.
Christopher G. Chapman - 8 years ago
The issue that our committee has discussed has been limited solely to the quite serious matter of sexual harassment, not other kinds of harassment or discrimination. The new language waters down the issue. It shouldn't. It forces a complainant about sexual harassment or assault to go to the length of establishing the behavior as harassment in the complaint process. GIven the ample evidence provided recently to us by staff in a lengthy list of complaints recorded around the country, our state should put the issue forward and settle it with language specific to sexual behavior. Therefore, Vermont should not adopt the national language.
This does not improve on the present rule. It's too broad in that it literally would prevent a lawyer from using peremptory challenges to get various groups of people off a jury. Perhaps it would have other unintended consequences as well. It's too narrow in that it is restricted to a legal setting.
I agree with Christopher, too.
The issue that our committee has discussed has been limited solely to the quite serious matter of sexual harassment, not other kinds of harassment or discrimination. The new language waters down the issue. It shouldn't. It forces a complainant about sexual harassment or assault to go to the length of establishing the behavior as harassment in the complaint process. GIven the ample evidence provided recently to us by staff in a lengthy list of complaints recorded around the country, our state should put the issue forward and settle it with language specific to sexual behavior. Therefore, Vermont should not adopt the national language.