10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA provision of an agreement for the victim of a crime not to press charges in return for monetary compensation is unenforceable in New York and I believe most states.
Rush Limbaugh just settled a criminal matter monetarily.
More typically, a civil settlement agreement entails that the victim will not seek to press criminal charges. The prosecutor can still attempt to pursue a criminal case, but without the victim's active cooperation, it's often futile.
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe particulars of settlements are typically not made publicly available. I'll see what I can find.
I'm not that ambitious - a handful will do.
The link you provided says nothing about entailing victims not to seek criminal charges, or even that they will be able to.
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerhttp://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012306
Do you have any examples of this?
"When civil claims for apologies, counselling and compensation are met, it's often in exchange for silence. Church lawyers regularly demand sweeping "gag" clauses that impose financial penalties if victims disclose any information about their experiences or settlement. Mayer herself has personal experience with abuse by clergy, but is prevented from publicly discussing it by legal agreement."
10 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf what you say about the unenforceability of these contracts is true, then I doubt any of them will state it.
No doubt that is true in some, perhaps many, cases. I doubt the written settlements state it in bald terms though.
Do you agree with Sribbles's assertion that the American Church (he actually said "my community" - but I'll take the broad interpretation) spends millions on such unenforceable contracts?
10 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerhttp://www.snapnetwork.org/clohessys_tough_questions/clohessy_questions_Page1.htm
Do you have any examples of this?
"5. St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough said he is uncomfortable with "settlements" that quiet victims of abuse by priests. Has SNAP lobbied for laws to end what some see as "hush money" to cover up felonious behavior? Some states require that such settlements be reported to legal authorities - what is the situation in Missouri and Illinois?
If any prosecutor or public official feels discomfort with quiet settlements, we hope they will convey their concerns to Archbishop Rigali and other church officials who routinely insist that abuse survivors sign gag orders (which are actually not legally enforceable) in order to receive funds for desperately needed therapy. It might be more constructive, however, for McCullough and his colleagues to publicly urge crime victims to disclose our experiences to prosecutors. Unlike City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and district attorneys across the country, McCullough has shown no particular interest in investigating sexual abuse by priests, which we find troubling."
How can the Church in good conscience pressure a victim into a gag order about the abuse?
10 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI can't open the link you provided. I'll try again later.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012306
"When civil claims for apologies, counselling and compensation are met, it's often in exchange for silence. Church lawyers regularly demand sweeping "gag" clauses that impose financial penalties if victims disclose any information about their experiences or settlement. ...[text shortened]... nce with abuse by clergy, but is prevented from publicly discussing it by legal agreement."
The excerpt you're provided suggests we are talking about civil settlements after the criminal statute of limitations have passed. This ties in with what I remember reading about the crisis; i.e. the vast majority of abuses occurred in the 60s and 70s.
But it's not an example of what we were talking about.
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, he's probably right. For one, I am not familiar with the laws in all 50 states; some might very well enforce it. Secondly, "gag" provisions could be artfully worded so that the victim might believe that any revelation to anybody, including a prosecutor, might be a violation of such contract.
If what you say about the unenforceability of these contracts is true, then I doubt any of them will state it.
Do you agree with Sribbles's assertion that the American Church (he actually said "my community" - but I'll take the broad interpretation) spends millions on such unenforceable contracts?
It is not particulary unusual for an individual or agency to put provisions in a contract that they know or suspect are unenforceable if they think that the other party might not know this or if the law or provision isn't entirely clear. Without actually seeing such a "gag" provision, I can't make a reasoned judgment.
10 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIn a previous job, I encountered quite a few contracts with unenforceable terms along the line of 'go away and don't complain again'. Quite a different context, but a similar principle.
No, he's probably right. For one, I am not familiar with the laws in all 50 states; some might very well enforce it. Secondly, "gag" provisions could be artfully worded so that the victim might believe that any revelation to anybody, including a prosecutor, might be a violation of such contract.
It is not particulary unusual for an individual o ...[text shortened]... clear. Without actually seeing such a "gag" provision, I can't make a reasoned judgment.
I'm aware of a couple of instances here in Australia where church leaders (Catholic and Anglican, I think) have subsequently apologised for having done the 'quiet settlement' approach. Basically they had gone along with what their lawyers told them to do, and not had the strength of conviction to say 'that might be how things are done in the business world, but the church should be different'. Until later on, they've realised the mistake.
Fear of litigation is a powerful, powerful force. People do all sorts of things because lawyers (usually meaning well) have warned them about the risk of getting sued.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe bishops in question can't.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/clohessys_tough_questions/clohessy_questions_Page1.htm
"[b]5. St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough said he is uncomfortable with "settlements" that quiet victims of abuse by priests. Has SNAP lobbied for laws to end what some see as "hush money" to cover up felonious behavior? Some states require that such settleme ...[text shortened]... w can the Church in good conscience pressure a victim into a gag order about the abuse?[/b]
Thanks for the link. Do you think such gag orders are still routine?
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have no reason to think they aren't. They're the at the essence of settlements in highly visible cases where somebody has a reputation at stake, be it the Church or any other big corporation or organization.
The bishops in question can't.
Thanks for the link. Do you think such gag orders are still routine?
10 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWe're not talking about confidentiality clauses in general - just the ones that prevent criminal prosecution. It is this specific class that goes to your assertion.
I have no reason to think they aren't. They're the at the essence of settlements in highly visible cases where somebody has a reputation at stake, be it the Church or any other big corporation or organization.
I would think that the US Church would've realised that such "gag orders" are counterproductive in the post-scandal environment and, therefore, they would not be routine now. orfeo's post suggests that's the case in other countries that have faced similar scandals.