absolutely wrong. when significant damages are given in a settlemnet as in the rigpa case then there has been an admission of culpability. it is childish to maintain that anyone pays damages when they are not culapible. most groups have insurance, their insurers would breach them for paying damages for things they were not culpible of. these arguments are tiresome and show real ignorance of the legal system(i used to be a lawyer). in addition criminal prosecutors may have evidence of criminal acts but often do not act if significant damages have been paid out for several reasons. first the complainant is no longer co-operative because they signed a non disclosure agreement, therefore the prosecutor would have to supbonae the complainant or secure a detention of witness order--which they will only rarely do, second, the witnesses have been intimidated by abuse of religious and moral suasion from giving testimony, and third they are reluctant untill recently to get into religious cases. the last is changing. the case og msgr willian lynne in pennsylvannia is on appeal. the msgr was convicted of felony child endangerment not for any abuse he committed but for having swx abusing priests in his diosess and not warning the parments of children in the diossess. so american authorities are not going to tolerate this sort of thing much longer.
↧