(Non)existent Laws of Workplace Cyberbullying

This chapter chronicles the legislative and jurisprudential history of workplace bullying and analyzes new frameworks for applying employee harassment laws to the digital era. Part I considers the sociolegal underpinnings of workplace harassment found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The authors discuss how Title VII and its legal progeny gave way to “hostile work environment” claims. Part II discusses leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the creation of an affirmative defense for employers, and the limitations of that defense, including those developing in state and local jurisdictions. Part III discusses prevailing solutions and raises questions not yet addressed in the legal literature. Findings reveal that American jurisprudence is ill-set to protect or compensate workers injured by bullying—either cyber or physical.

Actus Reus

Actus reus is an area of substantive criminal law and is an act by an individual that is deemed to be improper by societal laws. It is one of the elements of a crime and works in connection with mens rea or criminal intent. Illegal or immoral thoughts cannot be legally punished, but once those thoughts are put into action, there is a concurrence between the two elements. There are three types of actus reus, which include a voluntary act, possession, and omission. Within actus reus voluntariness is presumed on the part of the actor. If an accused party wishes to claim an action was involuntary, then an excuse defense would be necessary in criminal court. Possession is also a type of actus reus when an individual is in the possession of or has the possession of an item that is known by the individual to be illegal under the law. As an example, if a person is wearing a jacket that contains a bag of marijuana in the pocket and the person knows that the substance is illegal, then even if the marijuana is not the wearer’s marijuana, the action of possession is fulfilled due to the marijuana being an illegal substance. Omission is the third type of criminal act. Omission is satisfied when a person does not act when that person is required under law to do so. A person would be required to act when there is a contractual obligation to act or a duty to act, such as would be the case of a parent and a child. The parent has a duty to act to protect the child from harm. A defense to possession or omission is possible. Defenses include an alibi or an affirmative defense. A justification defense is one type of an affirmative defense where the accused party claims the action was not criminal given the circumstances of the situation such as duress, etc. An excuse defense is the second type of an affirmative defense in which the accused claims they should not be held accountable for the improper conduct for a reason such as age, intoxication, or insanity. Incomplete offenses, known as inchoate crimes, have their own section within criminal law but are treated similarly to completed offenses.

(Non)existent Laws of Workplace Cyberbullying

This chapter chronicles the legislative and jurisprudential history of workplace bullying and analyzes new frameworks for applying employee harassment laws to the digital era. Part I considers the sociolegal underpinnings of workplace harassment found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The authors discuss how Title VII and its legal progeny gave way to “hostile work environment” claims. Part II discusses leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the creation of an affirmative defense for employers, and the limitations of that defense, including those developing in state and local jurisdictions. Part III discusses prevailing solutions and raises questions not yet addressed in the legal literature. Findings reveal that American jurisprudence is ill-set to protect or compensate workers injured by bullying—either cyber or physical.

Justifications, Excuses, and Affirmative Defenses

A defendant who admits to having committed an offense may nevertheless be acquitted if he can provide a legally cognizable justification or excuse for his actions by raising an affirmative defense. This article explains how affirmative defenses generate social benefits in the form of avoided unnecessary punishment. It then asks what kind of evidentiary standards must be used in order to balance these benefits against potential social costs arising from frivolous defense claims. It thereby provides an economic rationale for the uniformity across US jurisdictions in allocating the burden on the prosecution to prove the commission of the offense, as well as the variation across states in the standards of proof they use in determining the validity of affirmative defenses. The analysis also explains why mere assertions of undeterrability should not be considered as affirmative defenses. (JEL K00, K14, K40, K41, K42)

Marital Rape: The Long Arch of Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls

If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, 62 (1874)Prologue: The ContextSadly, sexual violence against women and girls remains deeply entrenched and politicized around the globe. Perhaps no other allegation of crime exposes a woman’s credibility to such intense hostility and imposes the penalties of shame and stigma to a more severe degree than alleging rape. Factors irrelevant to sexual violence, including the victim’s choice of clothing, hairstyle, and time of the attack frequently serve as points of searching inquiry, and scrutiny. Such extraneous points of critique further compound an atmosphere of shaming and stigmatization associated with sexual violence, but are seen as crucial in bolstering an affirmative defense and inevitably building the case against rape victims.