MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W224296180

Constitution, Crime, Clergy: First Amendment Implications of Sexual Abuse Claims: Church Law and Discipline, Constitutional Limitations, Damage Caps and Statutes of Limitations Raise Perplexing Issues in These Cases

2003· article· en· W224296180 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael F. Aylward

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawStatuteConstitutionStatutory lawSexual abuseSociologyContext (archaeology)Political sciencePoison controlHistoryMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse by priests have spread from a few isolated incidents in Boston to an international controversy that has shaken the Roman Catholic Church to its foundations. The molestation claims present a complex mix of legal, psychological and philosophical problems. In evaluating and defending these cases, counsel must bear in mind certain fundamental factors that distinguish them from similar types of claims presented in the context of mass tort litigation, employment discrimination, or the day care center cases that received notoriety during the 1980s. In particular, the lawsuits now pending against various dioceses and archdioceses for failing to prevent sexual abuse by priests differ from other similar claims against employers and corporations in four key respects: * The discipline and lines of authority within the Catholic Church are different from those that are conventional inside American corporations. * The church is immune from liability for certain practices that are protected under the freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. * The liability of the church is subject to statutory monetary caps in many states. * The nature of the underlying alleged injuries presents perplexing statute of limitations issues not present in conventional cases. A SHORT HISTORY Sexual molestation suits against the clergy, particularly Catholic priests, first surfaced in the mid-1980s. The first to gain national attention involved a Louisiana priest, Gilbert Gauthe, who was arrested in 1983 and admitted to molesting dozens of victims in the confessional and elsewhere since the 1960s. After serving 10 years of a 20-year term, he moved to Texas, where he was soon arrested for fondling a three-year-old boy. In Dallas, 11 former altar boys sued the Diocese of Dallas, claiming that they had been sexually abused by a former priest, Rudolph Rudy Kos. The victims alleged that several diocese officials, including two bishops, knew of the events but did not take appropriate action. During an 11-week trial, witnesses testified that the sexual abuse occurred at three Dallas area churches between 1981 and 1992. Kos was ultimately sent to prison for life. In 1997, a jury awarded $120 million in damages against the Diocese of Dallas, including $18 million in punitive damages. In a 33-item questionnaire, the jury answered that the diocese had been negligent in its handling of Kos, had lied about him, had inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiffs, and had committed fraud. The jury of 10 women and two men also wrote a separate statement directed to the diocese, which the judge read from the bench, asking church officials to change the way that they investigated allegations of child abuse by priests. The claims were eventually settled for $23.4 million. In Stockton, California, two brothers who were molested for more than a decade by a priest, Oliver Francis O'Grady, won $30 million in damages from the diocese in 1998. Four bishops were among the clergy accused of failing to disclose evidence of abuse. The claims ultimately were settled for $7.65 million. Many of these claims have involved allegations that, rather than turning criminal priests over to law enforcement authorities, local dioceses dealt with complaints by either moving the priests to new parishes or sending them to church-operated treatment facilities, such as the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico; the St. Luke Institute near Washington, D.C.; the Institute of Living in Hartford, Connecticut; and the Southdown Institute in Canada. The Servants of the Paraclete was formed in 1947 to provide care and treatment for priests with substance abuse problems. Its mission was expanded in the 1960s to include pedophilic and ephebophilic disorders. The center claims to have provided effective treatment. An internal study undertaken by the Servants of the Paraclete concluded that of the 2,000 priests who were treated at Jemez Springs from 1947 to 1968, only 10 committed criminal acts after leaving. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,085
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,168

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0210,023
Communication savante0,0130,008
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0280,021
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207