Out of court settlements should be illegal.

[Duty]

Money owning the law...and yet media says it's all well and good, I've never despised my establishment quite like this before, nor the BBC for colluding in this.  Rich enough? Buy off justice. UK Prince Andrew millionaire alleged rapist.

[onlinebiker]

Money owning the law...and yet media says it's all well and good, I've never despised my establishment quite like this before, nor the BBC for colluding in this.  Rich enough? Buy off justice. UK Prince Andrew millionaire alleged rapist.

You do realize that this only applies to civil law - and the PLAINTIFF ( alleged victim) has the say of settling or going to court?

The defendant has no choice.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Money owning the law...and yet media says it's all well and good, I've never despised my establishment quite like this before, nor the BBC for colluding in this.  Rich enough? Buy off justice. UK Prince Andrew millionaire alleged rapist.

It depends on what’s being settled, I think. If you and a neighbour are have a spot over a fence line or something, that can probably be settled without the expense of a court trial.

Statutory rape, not so much.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Money owning the law...and yet media says it's all well and good, I've never despised my establishment quite like this before, nor the BBC for colluding in this.  Rich enough? Buy off justice. UK Prince Andrew millionaire alleged rapist.

You do realize that this only applies to civil law - and the PLAINTIFF ( alleged victim) has the say of settling or going to court?

The defendant has no choice.

Actually, the defendant DOES have a choice. Both parties do. In point of fact, it is the defendant who almost always makes the offer of a settlement. The plaintiff can either accept or reject the settlement. It’s also important (as Lawz implied) to take into consideration the amount of pressure that a wealthy defendant can bring to bear to get a settlement accepted.

But I think the chief point being made is that, in certain instances (like, you know, rape), the law should be changed to disallow out of court settlements.

Boru

[Duty]

I'm in a lot of psychological pain over this right now....any chance of a typed internet "hug?"

---

---

The grand old duke of York, he had ten thousand men, he marched them up to the top of the hill then he raped them down again.

[onlinebiker]

You do realize that this only applies to civil law - and the PLAINTIFF ( alleged victim) has the say of settling or going to court?

The defendant has no choice.

Actually, the defendant DOES have a choice. Both parties do. In point of fact, it is the defendant who almost always makes the offer of a settlement. The plaintiff can either accept or reject the settlement. It’s also important (as Lawz implied) to take into consideration the amount of pressure that a wealthy defendant can bring to bear to get a settlement accepted.

But I think the chief point being made is that, in certain instances (like, you know, rape), the law should be changed to disallow out of court settlements.

Boru

They must do law different where you are from.


Rape - is criminal law. Money is not going to be an issue.

In civil law - where the objective is to provide a monetary remedy - the plaintiff ( the person suing) gives a number that they will consider just.

The defendant ( person being sued) generally does NOT make an offer. If they did - it would be pre- court. They CAN make offer at any point - but generally don't..

The plaintiff can accept any offer at any time. Otherwise it generally goes to a jury to decide in favor of either party - and decides a dollar value at the same time. ( unlike criminal cases - where sentancing is separate from guilt phase.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, the defendant DOES have a choice. Both parties do. In point of fact, it is the defendant who almost always makes the offer of a settlement. The plaintiff can either accept or reject the settlement. It’s also important (as Lawz implied) to take into consideration the amount of pressure that a wealthy defendant can bring to bear to get a settlement accepted.

But I think the chief point being made is that, in certain instances (like, you know, rape), the law should be changed to disallow out of court settlements.

Boru

They must do law different where you are from.


Rape - is criminal law. Money is not going to be an issue.

In civil law - where the objective is to provide a monetary remedy - the plaintiff ( the person suing) gives a number that they will consider just.

The defendant ( person being sued) generally does NOT make an offer. If they did - it would be pre- court. They CAN make offer at any point - but generally don't..

The plaintiff can accept any offer at any time. Otherwise it generally goes to a jury to decide in favor of either party - and decides a dollar value at the same time. ( unlike criminal cases - where sentancing is separate from guilt phase.)

(Bold mine)

Wrong.

Statutory offer of settlement is a monetary offer extended to a plaintiff by a defendant to  all disputes before trial.

Source:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutor...settlement

Boru

[brewer]

Out of court settlement fine, gag order/nondisclosure................... not so much.

[onlinebiker]

They must do law different where you are from.


Rape - is criminal law. Money is not going to be an issue.

In civil law - where the objective is to provide a monetary remedy - the plaintiff ( the person suing) gives a number that they will consider just.

The defendant ( person being sued) generally does NOT make an offer. If they did - it would be pre- court. They CAN make offer at any point - but generally don't..

The plaintiff can accept any offer at any time. Otherwise it generally goes to a jury to decide in favor of either party - and decides a dollar value at the same time. ( unlike criminal cases - where sentancing is separate from guilt phase.)

(Bold mine)

Wrong.

Statutory offer of settlement is a monetary offer extended to a plaintiff by a defendant to  all disputes before trial.

Source:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutor...settlement

Boru

Google all you like matey...

You have spent HOW many hours in an American courtroom suing someone?

You spent HOW many hours discussing your case with your lawyer?

None?

Gee... How about that.

I lost several years of my life dealing with this bullshit - and spent DAYS on discussion with my lawyer talking about how these things work.

But you got google....

[Rev. Rye]

Just for the record, the case Virginia Giuffre filed was actually a civil suit, not a criminal one, therefore, that payout was probably the only thing she was ever going to get out of him. This was not an issue of Prince Andrew and his lawyers talking the courts into turning a criminal case into a civil one, or the lawyers making a plea deal where he has to pay such and such amount of money instead of going to jail.

It probably could have been a criminal suit at some point, but that would hinge on the criminal statute of limitations not passing, and due to the varying degrees of sexual assault on the books in New York, not even going into how the 2019 change to the SoL in New York changed matters, I'm not certain whether or not they even could have done it. I suspect that if a criminal case had much of a chance of going anywhere, they probably would have just extradited him to New York (bear in mind that the Royal Family appears to have washed their hands of him completely in recent years) and done that.

Feel free to say that it's shit that a rapist can settle out of court instead of going to jail (because, frankly, it is), I'm just saying there's a legal reason it ended up going that way. And, frankly, if there was no chance of a criminal case against him, the civil option at least provides some degree of justice, even if it's miniscule.