11-22-2005, 09:31 PM | #11 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
Just because a tragedy happened, that doesn't mean it needs to have been someone's fault (aside from the step-father's in this case). Just because something bad happens to someone, that doesn't mean they deserve to get paid for it. o
__________________
Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt. -J. W. v. Goethe (OTOH, just because you screw up, that doesn\'t mean you\'re getting somewhere.) The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - W. Churchill |
|
11-22-2005, 09:44 PM | #12 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
To me, without knowing the facts, but knowing the
caution exercised by the Church, I would vehemently disagree with the verdicts.
First, the facts were disputed. The bishop stated he could not verify that there was abuse. Von Keetch's recitation of the facts was enlightening. The current Catholic priest situation is probably contaminating the jury pool. Second, we're speaking about lay persons over a long period of time. Nobody at the Church benefits from concealing information. The Church does not promote abuse. The Church does not condone abuse. What the jury apparently did was reward the gals to send a message to the abuser. However, you have a lay church, with non-compensated lay priests doing the best they can to provide ecclesiastical guidance. Now this non-profit organization is carrying the blame for the acts of others over which it had no control? There were no professional counselors. It sounds as if the Court there made a legal mistake in advising the jury to treat the Church as professional counselors. Third, the jury imposed contemporary standards for a period apparently dating back many years. These lay priests are in between a rock and hard place: report or be sued, or report and be sued for false reporting. Damned no matter which way. There is no justice in condemning the Church for acts which it could not control. This is the 20-20 perfect hindsight approach.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
11-23-2005, 01:24 AM | #13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
without any training, I'm trying to think of what I would do as a Bishop.
A young girl tells me her stepfather is sexually abusing her. I cannot for the life of me imagine ignoring this. I am an exec. secretary and I know that my bishop agonizes over the youth in our ward, even to the point of whether the parents are supporting their schooling vigorously enough. But to have a youth come in, and do nothing? You don't bring the wife in and ask her? You don't bring the man in and ask him? You dont' ask your counselors if they have ever seen anything suspicious or untoward? Of course this is all hypothetical. We dont' know what these bishops did or didn't do exactly. But if they just walked away from it and didn't tackle it head on, then I have little respect for them. I don't care what the law says or doesn't say. That bishop had the duty to protect his flock, and he failed. |
11-23-2005, 04:33 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
|
Re: To me, without knowing the facts, but knowing the
Quote:
|
|
11-23-2005, 04:58 AM | #15 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
The only time I can recall a church official suggesting that people get professional therapy was in stake priesthood and was about porn.
I know that bishops can refer people for counseling to LDS social services. If I were to be a practicing psychiatrist, I would be the only LDS one in Dallas-Fort Worth. A lot of mental illness appears on a bishops doorstep. It would be advisable to learn some basics about major mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders. |
11-23-2005, 05:02 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
That is very well put. You have verbalized how I feel about many(but not all) of the outrageous pi case verdicts that we see in the news. So many time you have a relatively 'poor' person/family and an apparently rich corporation(or church) being presented to the jury. After days and weeks of browbeating by both attorneys the thoughts start to creep in about how this poor family needs a break in life and before you know it, *bam* McDonald's is paying a lady millions of dollars because her coffee was too hot. |
|
11-23-2005, 05:09 AM | #17 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
there was much, much more to the coffee case
than of which you are aware.
However, the law has an axiom that applies, "there's not always a remedy for every harm." If I were on the jury, I would have awarded the woman an award in McDonalds. McDonalds knew that the coffee was too hot, but for convenience kept it too hot. They had plenty of notice. If you had been on the jury and known the true facts you would have sided for her as well.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
11-23-2005, 05:21 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
|
Re: there was much, much more to the coffee case
Quote:
Perhaps I would have...but probably not how the jury ended up siding with her. Maybe McDonald's did keep it too hot on purpose but I fail to see how exactly that translates into millions of dollars. |
|
11-23-2005, 05:32 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
Quote:
1. The woman received 3rd degree burns in her genital area. 2. McDonald's knew that the coffee was too hot, and that it would lead to injuries, but they weighed the potential injuries as inconsequential in relation to the marketing benefits they would receive (I've read their explanation for the temperature, and I don't remember it offhand right now, but the bottom line is, they received a benefit from keeping it that hot). 3. The woman offered to settle for much less, and asked for much less at trial. During litigation, McDonalds used strong-arm tactics and interfered with her ability to conduct discovery in the case, and its representatives acted so arrogant about the whole thing at trial that the jury became furious at the McDonald's people. 4. The punitive damages (the bulk of the award) equated to something like one week's profit from McDonald's coffee sales. Not as outrageous a penalty as the dollar amount seems when standing alone.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug |
|
11-23-2005, 06:43 AM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
All of this is interesting but doesn't really change my opinion of the situation. I understand that the settlement doesn't really hurt McDonald's much. The way that I, and I think most people, think of it is 'what happened to this woman where she needs or deserves millions of dollars?' And yes, I am familiar with the concept of punitive damages. But, as you just stated, the damages weren't very punitive in this case anyways. |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|