WA State LDS Sexual Abuse Case - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

outlier · 11-22-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Do you dispute the assertion that the bishop failed to report the abuse?

I have no idea what *really* happened. I know that the dude is a good person, not the sort of guy who spent his whole life aspiring to be a bishop, etc., and it bothers me that he's getting his name dragged through this. Whatever it was that happened, I'm confident that the bishop did what he thought was best for the family based on the information he had available to him. I think it's unreasonable for any court to expect anyone to do anything else. Everything looks clear after it happens, but he was making decisions without the benefits of hindsight.

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

Archaea · 11-22-2005, 09:44 PM

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.

MikeWaters · 11-23-2005, 01:24 AM

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.

non sequitur · 11-23-2005, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of the case. If a bishop is acting as a counselor, does it matter whether he is paid or not? At what point does a bishop have the obligation to tell someone that they are not trained to counsel in a certain situation and that a professional counselor should be sought? I would imagine that the Church will continue to outline to bishops exactly what the scope of their counsel should be.

MikeWaters · 11-23-2005, 04:58 AM

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.

realtall · 11-23-2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outlier

Just because something bad happens to someone, that doesn't mean they deserve to get paid for it.

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.

Archaea · 11-23-2005, 05:09 AM

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.

realtall · 11-23-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

SoCalCoug · 11-23-2005, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Maybe McDonald's did keep it too hot on purpose but I fail to see how exactly that translates into millions of dollars.

This case continues to be the poster child for the runaway jury verdict complainers. Here are just a few of the facts about that case that don't get publicized:

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.

realtall · 11-23-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Quote:

Maybe McDonald's did keep it too hot on purpose but I fail to see how exactly that translates into millions of dollars.

This case continues to be the poster child for the runaway jury verdict complainers. Here are just a few of the facts about that case that don't get publicized:

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.

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.

11-22-2005, 09:44 PM	#12
Archaea 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, 05:09 AM	#17
Archaea 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, 01:24 AM	#13
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	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, 04:58 AM	#15
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	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.