Church to settle sex-abuse claims

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Mrs Behavin

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.55z
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles reached a settlement agreement Saturday with more than 500 people who allege they were sexually abused by clergy, the main plaintiff's attorney told The Associated Press.

Attorneys for the archdiocese, the nation's largest, and the plaintiffs will release a joint statement Sunday morning and hold a news conference Monday, said plaintiff's attorney Ray Boucher.

The deal is valued at $660 million, according to a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because the settlement had not been officially announced.

It is by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal, and it exceeded earlier reports from sources that the settlement would be between $600 million and $650 million -- between $1.2 million and $1.3 million per plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Diocese to settle sex-abuse claims for $660 million - CNN.com
 
  • 17
    Replies
  • 396
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
GraceAbounds said:
What do you suggest?
Click to expand...

I say that no justice was given out since the victims were paid off.

Let me ask you a question. How much money would you accept to let your child be sexually abused by someone? Because if you accept a settlement (payment) in a sexual molestation case and the accused does not serve any time, you basically decided that it was okay to molest your child if the price is right. You are giving the green light to anyone with enough money to molest children without fear of prosecution.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and we both agreed that if our child was molested, there is NO amount of money that would compensate it. The offender must stand up in court and face the penalty for what they have done. There will not be a payout so he can remain free to commit this crime once again. It is unthinkable to accept hush money.
 
G

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
RecklessTim said:
I say that no justice was given out since the victims were paid off.

Let me ask you a question. How much money would you accept to let your child be sexually abused by someone? Because if you accept a settlement (payment) in a sexual molestation case and the accused does not serve any time, you basically decided that it was okay to molest your child if the price is right. You are giving the green light to anyone with enough money to molest children without fear of prosecution.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and we both agreed that if our child was molested, there is NO amount of money that would compensate it. The offender must stand up in court and face the penalty for what they have done. There will not be a payout so he can remain free to commit this crime once again. It is unthinkable to accept hush money.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%, but that is what these people agree'd to.
 
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
GraceAbounds said:
I agree with you 100%, but that is what these people agree'd to.
Click to expand...

I had though the laws were changed since Michael Jackson paid off the parents that were taking him to court. That you can't do that any more... I swear there was some sort of change that prevented someone from paying off a victim. I'll have to look into this.
 
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Found it... it was a change in California's state law because of the MJ case.

"The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation," Sneddon had said. "As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California."
But Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to a change that lets prosecutors intervene in a civil action, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before deciding whether to testify in a criminal trial.
"The practical effect is that they cooperate" with prosecutors in the criminal case, he said. source...
Click to expand...
 
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
But I also see that this case was in CA... so I don't know what the heck is going on with this case... :dunno
 
T

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
RecklessTim said:
I say that no justice was given out since the victims were paid off.

Let me ask you a question. How much money would you accept to let your child be sexually abused by someone? Because if you accept a settlement (payment) in a sexual molestation case and the accused does not serve any time, you basically decided that it was okay to molest your child if the price is right. You are giving the green light to anyone with enough money to molest children without fear of prosecution.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and we both agreed that if our child was molested, there is NO amount of money that would compensate it. The offender must stand up in court and face the penalty for what they have done. There will not be a payout so he can remain free to commit this crime once again. It is unthinkable to accept hush money.
Click to expand...

Damn... I've never thought about it like that. I agree 100%
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top