The Bullitt County trial of the lawsuit brought by a young woman who was strip-searched and sexually assaulted at the McDonald's restaurant where she worked didn't provide uplifting glimpses into corporate management or human nature.
The C-J allows for NO personal responsibility with respect to Ms. Osburn's actions (or lack thereof). It should say "a young woman who allowed herself to be..."-- implying responsibility for her and the perpetrators.
Nonetheless, we found it easy to spot the lowest moment even in such tawdry proceedings. That was when a forensic psychologist hired by McDonald's Corp. testified that the employee, Louise Ogborn, has "grown in some ways" because of the ordeal.
Now, we understand why lawyers do what they do. In a case that involved a huge demand for damages (Ogborn sued for more than $200 million), part of their mission was to plant the idea that the lasting harm done to the plaintiff wasn't severe.
But we also understand that paid experts are recruited to say what their clients want them to, and this was stomach-turning. Yes, people are resilient and can demonstrate strength, even in the wake of humiliation, violence or tragedy.
That doesn't make the wrong done to them a silver lining.
Right, as I noted yesterday, it's a gold lining...The C-J is wrong to imply that there cannot be silver linings to dark clouds. In fact, oftentimes, people will say they have some of their best and most important experiences in the midst of turmoil. But the C-J is correct in implying that the perpetrators and their defense attorneys should not be the ones pointing to personal growth as a part of their defense strategy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment