Settlements for rape and sexual abuse should be either

[Lint Head]

outlawed or not come with nondisclosure. It's totally wrong that rich sexual predators can just pay millions, as Bill O'Reilly did, to hide an abuse and some non wealthy pervert down the street has to do time. They both should have to pay with jail time. Rape is rape and sexual abuse is sexual abuse.

[Jim Lane]

1. A settlement provides financial compensation to the victim(s).

If the only possible outcome were jail time, then the victims would be left out in the cold.

A settlement of a civil suit doesn't bar a criminal prosecution. Even a nondisclosure provision wouldn't prevent a prosecutor from compelling the testimony of any witnesses (including the victim) who weren't criminal defendants.

One big problem with prosecution (even assuming the prosecutor really wanted to pursue the case) is that, although the victim can prevail in a civil suit on a standard of preponderance of the evidence, the prosecutor can't get a criminal conviction except by proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The nature of on-the-job sexual harassment is that proof is often hard to come by. Prosecutors don't like to bring cases that will result in acquittal and lower their conviction rate.

[Lint Head]

4. A settlement should always provide financial compensation to the victim(s). But the perpertrator

should not be able to be anonymous just because they're rich. Compensation to the victim "should be" logical and a a part of the law.

[metalbot]

6. But the settlement claims are large in part because the perpetrator wants to avoid the publicity

If you eliminate the possibility of an undisclosed settlement, then you may actually end up with much less money being paid to victims. If victims wanted less money but the right to shame their perpetrators, they can do that today: refuse to settle and head to trial.

[AngryAmish]

11. You have to pay income taxes on the hush-money aspect (as the victim).

Old Denis Rodman kicking the photographer in the balls case.

[bluepen]

2. Why would you deny the victim the right to settle, if they wish

and the right to anonymity, if they wish?

[Lint Head]

3. The victim should have all the rights they deserve. Anonymity. Settlement money and more. BUT...

It's the 'nondisclosure' issue. Currently, if a poor person is raped the perpetrator is know and the victim is anonymous If they want to or need to be. The same thing should apply to the rich.
The perpetrator should not be allowed to be anonymous. Jail time should be a part of the penalty. Rich pricks can buy themselves out of anything.

[bluepen]

8. Eliminate the confidentiality and you eliminate the settlement.

The accused would let it go to a civil suit and force the alleged victim to lose anonymity.

[Lint Head]

10. The point of my post is that the law should be changed. Settlement is the wrong word.

Compensation maybe a better word. Damages may be an even better word and should probably not fall into the category of civil litigation no more than murder, bank robbery, or any other type of assault. Those are prosecutable crimes. Even when the perpetrator is not an adult there is anonymity. So the same should happen for the victim. Keeping the integrity of anonymity is not foreign to the law. Currently if you're rich you can buy your way out of just about any crime. And after damages have been paid and compensation to the victim related to a crime then the victim could even seek civil penalties. That would take changing the law.

If you have a better idea as to how to keep rich sexual predators from buying their way out of there predilection then let's hear it. It would be welcomed. Otherwise the Bill O'Reilly's of the world and the Donald Trump's of the world will continue to buy their way out of rape.

[bluepen]

15. Post #13 explains it perfectly.

[uponit7771]

5. RIGHT !!! They should go to jail AND pay the victim ... period

[bluestarone]

12. this

1000%

[Jim Lane]

14. Nothing in the current law prevents that result. (n/t)

[Lint Head]

17. If there's nothing in the law that prevents that result, then

how did Bill O'Reilly pay 32 million dollars to shut up his rape victims? There needs to be a change. Go ahead flame away, but how can you disagree with rich people buying their way out of rape?

[Jim Lane]

19. Because you need to distinguish between civil and criminal.

I'm not flaming; I'm just trying to understand.

There is nothing in O'Reilly's payment of $32 million, or in any settlement agreement he reached with any victim, that would prevent the district attorney from bringing charges against him. I haven't read the settlement agreement(s), but I know this to be true, because, as a matter of law, there is nothing in a contract between or among private citizens that could block a criminal prosecution.

There can be many reasons why an allegation of rape or sexual assault doesn't result in a criminal prosecution, but a legal immunity conferred by the settlement of a civil suit isn't one of them.

[Lint Head]

20. The settlement stopped the prosecution using legal bribery.

I can understand your premise but I do not agree. So we will have to agree to disagree. When a man can spend 32 million dollars and shut up a woman who has been sexually abused that is not Justice. The law is skewed toward the rich man. The women working at Fox News made a lot of money. Do you think a woman of little means raped by Bill O'Reilly would necessarily be believed? In this country presently I doubt it though it could happen. Even OJ was found not guilty.
This is nothing more than slavery. There's a reason there is no Equal Rights Amendment for women. There is a reason women do not have equity in pay.
In the case of O'Reilly the settlement came first. Unlike OJ the civil case did not happen until after a criminal prostitution failed.

[JI7]

7. This makes it seem as if the victim is the non wealthy pervert

And you assume non wealthy perverts are doing time when more likely their victims are in the worse position since they have more to lose with risk of job loss.

[Lint Head]

9. What??? You are not understanding my posts or subsequent replies.

I'm not assuming anything. Sexual abusers and predators should be treated as criminals equally whether they are poor are rich. Bill O'Reilly should not be able to buy his way out of rape with 32 million dollars. I am not assuming non-wealthy perverts are doing time when more likely their victims are in a worse position because they're lost their jobs. the victim should be compensated monetarily and it should be illegal to seek revenge because of that. As a matter of fact that is the law. Retaliation for sexual abuse when it's reported as a crime on the job is it illegal. A victim should never be afraid to report a sexual predator or sexual abuse are rape.

[Jim Lane]

13. I'll admit that I'm not understanding what specific change you want

It's crucial to remember that, currently, the civil and criminal cases would be handled separately. The civil case is controlled by the victim (in that she can decide whether to settle or go to trial), has a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and assesses her damages (how much money the defendant should have to pay her if he's found liable). The criminal case is controlled by the prosecutor, has a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and can impose a fine or imprisonment on the defendant but doesn't usually involve any payment to the victim.

Because the cases are separate, the victim can decide to agree to a settlement that includes a substantial cash payment to her but that also includes nondisclosure. Nevertheless, that settlement doesn't affect the criminal case. The prosecutor can still compel the victim to testify at the criminal trial.

Are you suggesting a change in this procedure, so that there would be one big hybrid proceeding that would resolve the civil and criminal issues all at once? That would be a very bad idea, for many reasons.

A lesser change of prohibiting nondisclosure provisions in civil settlement agreements would, as others have pointed out, impair the condition of victims. If the victim can't bargain her silence for more of the perpetrator's money, then she won't get as much money.

You wrote in #10: "Damages may be an even better word and should probably not fall into the category of civil litigation no more than murder, bank robbery, or any other type of assault. Those are prosecutable crimes."

The same is true of sexual assaults. If a particular person's conduct is both a tort (a civil wrong) and a crime, then that person can be subjected to both criminal and civil cases. A notable example is O. J. Simpson. He was accused of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. At his criminal trial, he was acquitted. In the trial of the civil case brought by Goldman's family, the jury found against Simpson and awarded the plaintiffs damages of $33.5 million, which led to the auction of Simpson's Heisman Trophy and other possessions to pay part of that judgment. So, yes, murder is a prosecutable crime, but if the murderer has enough money to make a suit worthwhile, there can also be civil litigation for damages. There's no reason to treat sexual assault crimes any differently.

[Lint Head]

16. Very simple. I'm suggesting people like Bill O'Reilly and Donald

Trump should not be able to buy their eay out of rape or sexual abuse. A settlement should not be hush money.
OJ symptoms victims were known.

[Jim Lane]

18. I'm sorry, but you need to be more specific.

First, it is not the case under current law that an O'Reilly type can buy his way out of rape or sexual abuse, if by that you mean that the payment of money can prevent the bringing of a criminal case. It can't.

When you say, "A settlement should not be hush money," the only way I can interpret that is that you would change the law to prohibit nondisclosure agreements as part of the voluntary settlement of civil actions by victims That would reduce victims' bargaining power and would therefore reduce the amount of money they received from the perpetrators.

It may seem "[v]ery simple" to you but you need to be more specific before it's simple enough for me to understand.