He had requested that he be judged by a jury of his peers, and was serving as his own defense council, against the advice of the judge. His crime: sexual harassment of a young woman he employed as his executive assistant in his A.I. start-up.
The prosecution lawyer wasted no time cutting to the chase as he questioned the victim, “Tell the jury again what was said to you by the defendant the night in question.”
She replied with a soft voice, “He suggested to me that he wanted to lay naked with me and feel my heartbeat as we kissed. I’d never heard such words from a man who was in a position of authority over me. And he’s an elder tech-bro to boot! I was confused!”
The male members of the jury fought to hide their smirks, while the female jury members cast stern looks of concern toward the defendant. The judge, a middle-aged and rather attractively built brunette scowled and fidgeted, wondering where this line of questioning was leading.
“So you felt threatened and were uncomfortable with his words that night?” the prosecution lawyer asked.
“His words caused my heart to skip a beat or two, and I was appalled that I didn’t feel anger toward him, rather I was forced to imagine scenarios which could possibly be enjoyable and fulfilling. I was taught to be sneaky, crafty, alert, and suspicious when dealing with men, and his smooth words took me by surprise. Only later did I recognize the real-world implications of his words. My innocence and virtue felt assaulted!”
“So you felt physically in danger by his words?”
“We were texting, so there was no physical danger to me, but I did feel uncomfortable not being in control of the narrative,” she replied, looking over to the jury and grimacing. “Men are typically clumsier in their sexual advances, and his text seemed almost romantic in nature. I was confused. The laws prohibit powerful men from taking liberties with words which might incite unwanted thoughts and feelings on the part of their employees, especially their younger and less experienced female employees.”
“So what happened next?”
“He texted that he thought I would enjoy him rubbing olive oil on my breasts while we kiss, and that I would really enjoy riding him that night.” A tear appeared and rolled down her cheek. She frowned and lowered her gaze. There were audible gasps and sighs from the jury. The judge appeared to blush.
“Objection!” the defendant shouted as he stood and smiled mischieviously. “The plaintiff had agency to ignore the text and draw a line emotionally, summarily end the relationship then and there, yet instead she provoked him by sending an emoji of a raised middle finger, which might be construed as an invitation to further communication and conflict.”
“Objection sustained!” the judge ruled. “You do have a point there.”
“So you felt that you could lose your job if you didn’t comply with his fantasies?” the prosecution asked her.
“I wasn’t thinking about my job. My mind was consumed with thoughts that intrigued me, but also caused certain confusing stirrings within me. Till then he’d never shown any signs that he viewed me as anything but a hired hand. He paid me well and took an interest in my well-being, but never betrayed that he thought of me as a sex object. I’d never caught him staring at my chest. It was all so sudden!” Another tear rolled down her cheek. She cast a pleading look toward the jury.
“If you think you can continue, what happened next?”
“He went on vacation and didn’t respond to my texts, so I was forced to think thoughts unrelated to the task list I had related to the AI company. I was forced to imagine activities and pleasures having nothing to do with my job description. I thought through a plan to confront him here in court, and with the help of the jury, punish him for his sudden, lurid, and provocative words.”
“I’m so sorry for your pain,” the prosecution lawyer offered. “What punishment would you consider appropriate, given the nature of your sufferings?”
The victim looked over at the jury members and said, “I would like to see him lose everything! His money, his business, his home, his freedom!”
“No more questions for the plaintiff. She has spoken her truth to power!”
The defendant sat silent and pensive, awaiting the chance to tell his side of the story.
CP Butchvarov 2024