淘客熙熙

主题:【原创】猥亵?我还搂个腰,摸个手,亲个小脸呢!官字两个口 -- 阳明

共:💬181 🌺293
全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖
家园 好吧,我好好的回帖,来弥补我犯得错误

美国对于性骚扰(成人之间)规定如下

Title VII does not proscribe all conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace. Thus it is crucial to clearly define sexual harassment: only unwelcome sexual conduct that is a term or condition of employment constitutes a violation. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). The EEOC's Guidelines define two types of sexual harassment: "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment." The Guidelines provide that "unwelcome" sexual conduct constitutes sexual harassment when "submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment," 29 C.F.R § 1604.11 (a) (1). "Quid pro quo harassment" occurs when "submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual," 29 C.F.R § 1604.11(a)(2).1 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(3).2 The Supreme Court's decision in Vinson established that both types of sexual harassment are actionable under section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), as forms of sex discrimination.

Although "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment" harassment are theoretically distinct claims, the line between the two is not always clear and the two forms of harassment often occur together. For example, an employee's tangible job conditions are affected when a sexually hostile work environment results in her constructive discharge.3 Similarly, a supervisor who makes sexual advances toward a subordinate employee may communicate an implicit threat to adversely affect her job status if she does not comply. "Hostile environment" harassment may acquire characteristics of "quid pro quo" harassment if the offending supervisor abuses his authority over employment decisions to force the victim to endure or participate in the sexual conduct. Sexual harassment may culminate in a retaliatory discharge if a victim tells the harasser or her employer she will no longer submit to the harassment, and is then fired in retaliation for this protest. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to conclude that both harassment and retaliation in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII have occurred.

Distinguishing between the two types of harassment is necessary when determining the employer's liability (see infra Section D). But while categorizing sexual harassment as "quid pro quo," "hostile environment," or both is useful analytically these distinctions should not limit the Commission's investigations,4 which generally should consider all available evidence and testimony under all possibly applicable theories.

*source http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html

我没找到针对未成年人的独立法案,从我找到的源来看,是比照上述法案来的,姑且认为凡是关于性骚扰的问题,都依照上面的法案来吧.从上述法案里,你能看出几种被法律明确定义为"性骚扰"的行为?如果你连一种也看不出来,能不能问问,你对美国立法机关不出台一部解释性法案的看法?

至于你提到的家长监护责任,跟这事完全无关,所以我觉得无需讨论.

你说的

把同样的场景搬到美国,林高官除了要面对对陈MM的罪行,还要面对对陈父身体接触的罪行.

前一个,我不认为在美国一定会被判有罪(其实我觉得有很大可能被判无罪),后一个,我觉得肯定不会被判有罪,因为这仅仅是违法行为(可能要面对2500美金的罚款,或14天监禁,相当于我国的行政拘留),而上升不到犯罪的高度(按美国的说法,就是区分重罪(Felony)与轻罪(Misdemeanor)).这就是我说,你要分清罪和非罪再谈的原因

全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河