I\’m an attorney who has represented a number of individuals abused by priests. I think there is some valid reaction from \”both sides\” of this thread. The monetary amounts in this case are very large, much larger than the average case (typical payouts in \”classes\” of abused people usually in the 200,000 or 300,000 range). However, I think that those who minimize the effects of this type of abuse just have no idea what they\’re talking about. The people I\’ve met (and they are several) who have been subject to this kind of abuse are, in my opinion, greatly harmed for life. One of the most insidious effects of long term abuse starting in a persons teens, and continuing, is that the person feels (quite unfairly) that they have been complicit/guilty in their own abuse. It also happens that the typical victim is selected by a calculating pedophile as a vulnerable teen (e.g. not the brightest kid, broken home, poor) and then showers them with attention, gifts, etc. that makes them feel \”special\” for the first time in their lives, and then typically terrorizes them as well with threats of what will happen if exposed.
Long term sexual abuse like this almost always results in a person who feels like s*** about themselves generally, with almost no ability to form long term romantic relationships, complete lack of faith in religion, institutions, and often a substance abuse problem to boot. Yes, you can\’t guarantee that a given person wouldn\’t have turned out that way without abuse. But if you actually meet real people in this position, its amazing how much their problems correlate with each other, particularly for people who you know are not even sophisticated enough to have tried to make this up, even if they were so inclined.
In looking at a Jury verdict in a case like this, you have to understand that money is a great motivator, and only one aspect of a verdict is compensation to the victim, the other is creating a deterrent that is proportionate to the bad actor (sufficient to motivate them). If you\’d seen the real indifferenct to the worst forms of child molestation that I have (or that the Jury apparently saw in this case) then you might find that $5M or so per victim is not an unreasonable amount, in terms of what it takes to make an irresponsible Diocese sit up and take real notice of who it is hiring, or retaining (often after several well supported complaints of abuse).
Bill and KLS, I completely agree with you. They say it isn\’t about the money but we all know it is. They can lie through their teeth but it\’s about money. There are other religions out there being sued under molestion charges but they depth of those allegations do not run at deep as the Catholic Church. It\’s actually nice to see the Catholic Church knocked down a peg ot two.
Mr. Atty, you are dead on correct but it\’s still about the money. These alleged victims do face a serious battle but they could have turned out like this or worse regardless of the alleged molestation.
Unattractive — completely hilarious and thanks for the laugh. I have said similiar words to friends about how left out and ugly I felt as a child because I was never molested by a neighbor, priest, coach, teacher, etc. But it is in jest.
Mcheck57 – p!ss off. you are completely useless on this board. you obviously have no insurance background. why are you even on this board.
This subject deserves some pointed hilarity. \”Recovered memories\” indeed…it\’s as loaded with junk science as any other personal injury lawsuit in this country, and it contributes to making the U.S. a laughinstock in every other nation on earth. Our courtrooms are crowded with experts of every stripe spouting their drivel about every subject from horses (savage stallion syndrome) to post-traumatic stress to recovered memories. They take legitimate injuries and turn them into courtroom weapons for the purpose of extracting cash from otherwise worthwhile organizations and corporations, and they apply them in cases where there isn\’t a remote possibility that such \”injuries\” actually exist. What is truly amazing is that Juries of our peers actually buy into this crap.
How can Mary B., who says she understands the seriousness of being sexually abused, over a period of years, by a priest, go on to say: \”they [the victims] say it isn\’t about the money but we all know it is… they can lie through their teeth but it\’s all about the money…\”?
\”We all know it is…\” Where do you get your superior knowledge? Is it from reading the occasional news story about the aberrational verdict?
I\’ve had many people want to bring cases against priests who abused them, though time barred by the Statute of Limitations, just so they could \”make a point\” and bring an ugly situation to light –clearly not motivated by money.
I\’ve had other litigants in more than one case (like wrongful death cases) literally donate the settlement to charity.
I\’ve had a plaintiff in a pharmacy malpractice case (resulting in death of a daughter) jeapardize the ability to obtain a monetary settlement (which was also donated) so they could negotiate the head of a geographic division of a major pharmacy giving a personal apology, and agreeing (under confidentiality) to have additional training on error avoidance given to their pharmacists.
I\’ve had a victim of church sexual abuse also potentially jeapardize his settlement by insisting on a term that the involved priests be monitored by their Diocese on an ongoing basis, and require that these priests go for psychiatric evaluations, when the Diocese was very reluctant to agree to such a term. This is far from being money motivated, but being willing to put a substantial amount of money at risk because they wanted to do the right thing.
Also, as the ad says: \”For everything else there\’s Master Card.\” There are situations in which money in a civil case is quite deserved, and is necessary to ameliorate the actual injury. For the more typical jury verdicts or settlements in the clergy abuse area (more like a few hundred thousand, if that) is probably a drop in the bucket compared to actual lost income, and real costs of ongoing psychiatric/psychologic care –if you accept that the person was in fact abused and has actually suffered some significant (usually permanent) psychiatric damage.
The article mentioned above has nothing to do with \”recovered memories\” or \”raging stallion syndrome\” or any of the \”experts of all stripes\” that appear to so upset \”Unattractive.\” This was a case about ADMITTED abuse, for which criminal charges were also sustained, i.e. about which there was no dispute whether it happened. The central issue in the case is the extent to which the Rockville Diocese, which has a terrible record in this area, allowed the priests to remain in their posts despite repeated, substantiated complaints, and in many cases choosing to relocate \”problem\” priests to avoid scandal (while putting new, unsuspecting communities at risk).
Whatever the source of obvious anger and resentment that \”Unattractive\” may have with the civil law, in general, it apparently has nothing to with this case.
Similarly, Mary B\’s comment that \”we all know\” about an exclusively financial motivation for civil cases against the Church also fails to square with the facts. This is the most intellectually shallow type of generalization that in a former era was used to support all types of racists e.g. \”we all know what THOSE people are like…\” How can Mary B. \”know\” what other people, with whom she apparently has no direct experience, are thinking? Probably because Mary B., and many like her, assume that the most sensational news stories, about the most unusual cases and atypical jury verdicts are \”typical.\” Add to this some unexplained bitterness with one\’s own life, and you have the worst recipe to hate \”all those people\” who a writer thinks are getting some type of \”break\” that they never got.
Money can and does play a role in many of these cases. Some plaintiffs are unscrupulous, but it is just those types of plaintiffs (and cases where the settlement or verdict seems out of proportion) that tend to garner 99% of the coverage. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is still true that \”Dog bites man\” is not newsworthy, but \”Man bites dog\” is. You\’ll never see a news story titled: \”Grieving family in wrongful death case gets compensated for lost wages only, New York law does not allow compensatoin for Grief.\” Happens all the time. Or, \”Case of Merit Against Pedophile Priest in New Jersey Dismissed on Statute Of Limitations, As Plaintiff, Like Most Plaintiff\’s Who Suffered Teenage Sexual Abuse\” Was Willing To Go Public Only Once They Reached Their Middle Twenties.\”
This too is very typical, and will never make your newspaper.
These screeds against \”all\” people who dare to use the civil courts display only that some people will always refuse to consider what the real facts of a situation are, and are incapable of changing their perceptions once they have a strongly held opinion.
Do I personally make money from civil cases? Yes, and I also invest a lot of time and money in cases about which there is no guarantee, even when all the merits/truth/you-name-it, are on the side of the plaintiff. Sometimes, the B.S. a jury will believe is the B.S. DEFENSE, including getting a jury to \”resent\” all plaintiffs, by implying that the \”McDonalds coffee\” type case is typical, and inflaming the types of attitudes displayed by \”Unattractive.\”
I also consider that the money I make is an honest living, and that I provide a real service to the plaintiff, and often (corny as it sounds) a somewhat larger group who gain some good from these types of cases.
I probably have to stop using this board, because the outrageousness of many comments here could turn it into a full time job; and I already have one representing people who would MUCH rather not have a civil claim than to have gone through what they have.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I\’m an attorney who has represented a number of individuals abused by priests. I think there is some valid reaction from \”both sides\” of this thread. The monetary amounts in this case are very large, much larger than the average case (typical payouts in \”classes\” of abused people usually in the 200,000 or 300,000 range). However, I think that those who minimize the effects of this type of abuse just have no idea what they\’re talking about. The people I\’ve met (and they are several) who have been subject to this kind of abuse are, in my opinion, greatly harmed for life. One of the most insidious effects of long term abuse starting in a persons teens, and continuing, is that the person feels (quite unfairly) that they have been complicit/guilty in their own abuse. It also happens that the typical victim is selected by a calculating pedophile as a vulnerable teen (e.g. not the brightest kid, broken home, poor) and then showers them with attention, gifts, etc. that makes them feel \”special\” for the first time in their lives, and then typically terrorizes them as well with threats of what will happen if exposed.
Long term sexual abuse like this almost always results in a person who feels like s*** about themselves generally, with almost no ability to form long term romantic relationships, complete lack of faith in religion, institutions, and often a substance abuse problem to boot. Yes, you can\’t guarantee that a given person wouldn\’t have turned out that way without abuse. But if you actually meet real people in this position, its amazing how much their problems correlate with each other, particularly for people who you know are not even sophisticated enough to have tried to make this up, even if they were so inclined.
In looking at a Jury verdict in a case like this, you have to understand that money is a great motivator, and only one aspect of a verdict is compensation to the victim, the other is creating a deterrent that is proportionate to the bad actor (sufficient to motivate them). If you\’d seen the real indifferenct to the worst forms of child molestation that I have (or that the Jury apparently saw in this case) then you might find that $5M or so per victim is not an unreasonable amount, in terms of what it takes to make an irresponsible Diocese sit up and take real notice of who it is hiring, or retaining (often after several well supported complaints of abuse).
Bill and KLS, I completely agree with you. They say it isn\’t about the money but we all know it is. They can lie through their teeth but it\’s about money. There are other religions out there being sued under molestion charges but they depth of those allegations do not run at deep as the Catholic Church. It\’s actually nice to see the Catholic Church knocked down a peg ot two.
Mr. Atty, you are dead on correct but it\’s still about the money. These alleged victims do face a serious battle but they could have turned out like this or worse regardless of the alleged molestation.
Unattractive — completely hilarious and thanks for the laugh. I have said similiar words to friends about how left out and ugly I felt as a child because I was never molested by a neighbor, priest, coach, teacher, etc. But it is in jest.
Mcheck57 – p!ss off. you are completely useless on this board. you obviously have no insurance background. why are you even on this board.
This subject deserves some pointed hilarity. \”Recovered memories\” indeed…it\’s as loaded with junk science as any other personal injury lawsuit in this country, and it contributes to making the U.S. a laughinstock in every other nation on earth. Our courtrooms are crowded with experts of every stripe spouting their drivel about every subject from horses (savage stallion syndrome) to post-traumatic stress to recovered memories. They take legitimate injuries and turn them into courtroom weapons for the purpose of extracting cash from otherwise worthwhile organizations and corporations, and they apply them in cases where there isn\’t a remote possibility that such \”injuries\” actually exist. What is truly amazing is that Juries of our peers actually buy into this crap.
How can Mary B., who says she understands the seriousness of being sexually abused, over a period of years, by a priest, go on to say: \”they [the victims] say it isn\’t about the money but we all know it is… they can lie through their teeth but it\’s all about the money…\”?
\”We all know it is…\” Where do you get your superior knowledge? Is it from reading the occasional news story about the aberrational verdict?
I\’ve had many people want to bring cases against priests who abused them, though time barred by the Statute of Limitations, just so they could \”make a point\” and bring an ugly situation to light –clearly not motivated by money.
I\’ve had other litigants in more than one case (like wrongful death cases) literally donate the settlement to charity.
I\’ve had a plaintiff in a pharmacy malpractice case (resulting in death of a daughter) jeapardize the ability to obtain a monetary settlement (which was also donated) so they could negotiate the head of a geographic division of a major pharmacy giving a personal apology, and agreeing (under confidentiality) to have additional training on error avoidance given to their pharmacists.
I\’ve had a victim of church sexual abuse also potentially jeapardize his settlement by insisting on a term that the involved priests be monitored by their Diocese on an ongoing basis, and require that these priests go for psychiatric evaluations, when the Diocese was very reluctant to agree to such a term. This is far from being money motivated, but being willing to put a substantial amount of money at risk because they wanted to do the right thing.
Also, as the ad says: \”For everything else there\’s Master Card.\” There are situations in which money in a civil case is quite deserved, and is necessary to ameliorate the actual injury. For the more typical jury verdicts or settlements in the clergy abuse area (more like a few hundred thousand, if that) is probably a drop in the bucket compared to actual lost income, and real costs of ongoing psychiatric/psychologic care –if you accept that the person was in fact abused and has actually suffered some significant (usually permanent) psychiatric damage.
The article mentioned above has nothing to do with \”recovered memories\” or \”raging stallion syndrome\” or any of the \”experts of all stripes\” that appear to so upset \”Unattractive.\” This was a case about ADMITTED abuse, for which criminal charges were also sustained, i.e. about which there was no dispute whether it happened. The central issue in the case is the extent to which the Rockville Diocese, which has a terrible record in this area, allowed the priests to remain in their posts despite repeated, substantiated complaints, and in many cases choosing to relocate \”problem\” priests to avoid scandal (while putting new, unsuspecting communities at risk).
Whatever the source of obvious anger and resentment that \”Unattractive\” may have with the civil law, in general, it apparently has nothing to with this case.
Similarly, Mary B\’s comment that \”we all know\” about an exclusively financial motivation for civil cases against the Church also fails to square with the facts. This is the most intellectually shallow type of generalization that in a former era was used to support all types of racists e.g. \”we all know what THOSE people are like…\” How can Mary B. \”know\” what other people, with whom she apparently has no direct experience, are thinking? Probably because Mary B., and many like her, assume that the most sensational news stories, about the most unusual cases and atypical jury verdicts are \”typical.\” Add to this some unexplained bitterness with one\’s own life, and you have the worst recipe to hate \”all those people\” who a writer thinks are getting some type of \”break\” that they never got.
Money can and does play a role in many of these cases. Some plaintiffs are unscrupulous, but it is just those types of plaintiffs (and cases where the settlement or verdict seems out of proportion) that tend to garner 99% of the coverage. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is still true that \”Dog bites man\” is not newsworthy, but \”Man bites dog\” is. You\’ll never see a news story titled: \”Grieving family in wrongful death case gets compensated for lost wages only, New York law does not allow compensatoin for Grief.\” Happens all the time. Or, \”Case of Merit Against Pedophile Priest in New Jersey Dismissed on Statute Of Limitations, As Plaintiff, Like Most Plaintiff\’s Who Suffered Teenage Sexual Abuse\” Was Willing To Go Public Only Once They Reached Their Middle Twenties.\”
This too is very typical, and will never make your newspaper.
These screeds against \”all\” people who dare to use the civil courts display only that some people will always refuse to consider what the real facts of a situation are, and are incapable of changing their perceptions once they have a strongly held opinion.
Do I personally make money from civil cases? Yes, and I also invest a lot of time and money in cases about which there is no guarantee, even when all the merits/truth/you-name-it, are on the side of the plaintiff. Sometimes, the B.S. a jury will believe is the B.S. DEFENSE, including getting a jury to \”resent\” all plaintiffs, by implying that the \”McDonalds coffee\” type case is typical, and inflaming the types of attitudes displayed by \”Unattractive.\”
I also consider that the money I make is an honest living, and that I provide a real service to the plaintiff, and often (corny as it sounds) a somewhat larger group who gain some good from these types of cases.
I probably have to stop using this board, because the outrageousness of many comments here could turn it into a full time job; and I already have one representing people who would MUCH rather not have a civil claim than to have gone through what they have.