Church settles sex-abuse lawsuit

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:30 pm

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A federal lawsuit filed by an American Indian man who accused a Mormon missionary of sexually abusing him in the 1960s has been resolved before going to trial.
Ferris Joseph, 53, filed the civil case in federal court in South Dakota against the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church, both of Utah.
Joseph said that around 1968, when he was 11 or 12 years old, he was sexually abused by church missionary Robert Lewis White.
Joseph is an American Indian who lived with his family in Sioux Falls from 1966 to 1968, according to the lawsuit. The abuse happened at White's apartment in Flandreau, it states.
- The Associated Press

I wonder if this is a sign of things to come...

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:51 pm

I have to wonder, how in the heck can lawsuits like this go forward on such flimsy evidence.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:13 pm

Sethbag wrote:I have to wonder, how in the heck can lawsuits like this go forward on such flimsy evidence.

Never underestimate the power of trial by mob--er jury. Laypeople are easily swayed by emotions and in today's world after the Catholic clergy abuse scandal, the public is easily persuaded that the church is guilty, especially and unpopular group like Mormons.

Also, there are different standards for civil and criminal suits. OJ got off the hook on the criminal trial, but was found guilty in the civil court. Go fig.

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:21 pm

Because children who are being sexually abused by adult role models should do a better job documenting their abuse as it happens and gather evidence...

Right...

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:34 pm

GoodK wrote:Because children who are being sexually abused by adult role models should do a better job documenting their abuse as it happens and gather evidence...

Right...

Nobody's blaming the kids here. It's not about saying it's the kids' fault that they didn't document their abuse better, so that 40 years later they could prove their case in court. It's totally not about punishing the kids for their lack of good evidence.

It's about how in the heck some former LDS missionary is supposed to defend himself against charges 40 years later made by someone with no more evidence than their claim in court that something happened. Seriously, how do you defend against that? Do we really want a legal system where almost anyone can make claims about someone they knew 40 years ago, cry in court, show some dysfunction in their life, and walk out with a cool million?

Part of justice being served is confidence by the public that the guilty people are being convicted, and the innocent people are being aquitted. On such flimsy evidence as "when I was 11 or 12 this guy touched me on my weewee", how can we have such confidence? I really do feel bad for people who were actually abused, who might not be able to get their justice 40 years later if courts agree with attitudes like mine. It sucks for them, to be sure. But in order to not suck for supposed victims, we can't eviscerate the notion of justice in this country and just starting throwing the book at anyone unlucky enough to be named decades and decades later.

Can we really be sure that someone isn't just making up the accusation in order to get some money? You don't suppose there's any chance that in America in 2008 anyone would stoop to that, do you? Nah, couldn't happen...

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:53 pm

Sethbag wrote:Nobody's blaming the kids here. It's not about saying it's the kids' fault that they didn't document their abuse better, so that 40 years later they could prove their case in court. It's totally not about punishing the kids for their lack of good evidence.

Because nobody would try and "punish" a victim of childhood abuse for lack of good evidence...

It's about how in the heck some former LDS missionary is supposed to defend himself against charges 40 years later made by someone with no more evidence than their claim in court that something happened.

I'm not sure that we know what the evidence is.

If it were you, how would you prove that an LDS missionary molested you years 40 years ago?
I wonder if it ever crosses through the abusers head, "Hey, I am a bishop/priest/scout master/missionary/home teacher/etc... and this is an 8 year old kid. Who will they believe? I'll tell this kid not to say anything, and in a few years, he probably won't even remember. Even if he does, who will they believe?"

Seriously, how do you defend against that? Do we really want a legal system where almost anyone can make claims about someone they knew 40 years ago, cry in court, show some dysfunction in their life, and walk out with a cool million?

I don't think that is a fair assesment of the situation, but no, I don't want that.

Part of justice being served is confidence by the public that the guilty people are being convicted, and the innocent people are being aquitted. On such flimsy evidence as "when I was 11 or 12 this guy touched me on my weewee", how can we have such confidence?

Again, what do you suppose a child that is being molested do? Take pictures? Contact the Feds and go in wearing a wire?

Can we really be sure that someone isn't just making up the accusation in order to get some money? You don't suppose there's any chance that in America in 2008 anyone would stoop to that, do you? Nah, couldn't happen...

Of course it happens. All the time. But then again, you don't suppose there is any chance that some sick bastard would touch a little kid and lie about it, do you? Nah, couldn't happen...

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:08 pm

How many innocents should we punish just to make sure that a sicko doesn't get off free?

If our rate of error is 1 innocent per 1000 sickos, is it good? 1 to 10? 1 to 1? What if the 1 innocent man is you?

Secondly, once we have our desired ratio, what standards are the best way to insure this? Trial by jurymob? Statute of limitations?

Post by **_moksha** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:33 pm

Sethbag wrote:I have to wonder, how in the heck can lawsuits like this go forward on such flimsy evidence.

Do we actually know the evidence was flimsy?

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:33 pm

asbestosman wrote:How many innocents should we punish just to make sure that a sicko doesn't get off free?

You must be opposed to capital punishment, then. That is good.

If our rate of error is 1 innocent per 1000 sickos, is it good? 1 to 10? 1 to 1? What if the 1 innocent man is you?

This former missionary is not facing jail time. His punishment, whatever it is, would be miniscule compared to the damage done to the child.

There is a difference, as you pointed out, between civil and criminal court.

Secondly, once we have our desired ratio, what standards are the best way to insure this? Trial by jurymob? Statute of limitations?

I think the current legal system is capable of handling this.

I still don't understand what is expected of victims of childhood sexual abuse?

Should we teach children how to secretly collect forensic evidence? Should we give them rape kits?

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:47 pm

If the case is 40 years old, the plaintiff claims abuse and the defendant denies abuse, what policy should you propose to protect the innocent and reward the victim?

I take it from your post that the plaintiff wins, automatically. Or is it because the defendant is a Mormon, the plaintiff wins, automatically.

Please don't sue me for suggesting that you are naïve in a politically correct sort of way.