成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

立即打開
“一個女孩值多少錢?”遭受性侵后還有更痛苦的后遺癥

“一個女孩值多少錢?”遭受性侵后還有更痛苦的后遺癥

Mary Pilon 2019-07-08
對于曾經(jīng)受到美國前體操醫(yī)生性侵犯的運動員和病人來說,協(xié)商和解時的估算金額導(dǎo)致了另一種創(chuàng)傷。

2018年1月24日,瑞秋·丹霍蘭德走進(jìn)密西根州的法庭,講述小時候被拉里·納薩爾性侵的經(jīng)歷。拉里·納薩爾曾經(jīng)長期擔(dān)任美國體操隊的隊醫(yī),也是密歇根州立大學(xué)的醫(yī)生,宣判聽證會上共有近150位女性宣讀了影響聲明,瑞秋最后一位出庭。

34歲的丹霍蘭德曾經(jīng)是體操運動員,目前已經(jīng)是四個孩子的母親,從事律師行業(yè),倡導(dǎo)保護(hù)兒童安全。在結(jié)束陳述時,她提出了一個問題:

“一個女孩值多少錢?”

幾十年來,納薩爾作為醫(yī)生在密歇根州立大學(xué)(MSU)為運動員提供治療,也曾經(jīng)在美國體操隊擔(dān)任隊醫(yī),因此有機會對眾多女孩實施性侵。2016年9月,丹霍蘭德第一個站出來指控納薩爾性侵,已經(jīng)有近500位女性表示曾經(jīng)受到過納薩爾的侵犯。一些專家認(rèn)為受害者可能超過1000人。2017年7月,納薩爾承認(rèn)持有兒童色情圖片,幾個月后承認(rèn)了性侵未成年人等多項指控。他很可能要在監(jiān)獄里度過余生。2018年5月,密歇根州立大學(xué)同意向起訴的受害人支付5億美元和解金,這是與性侵相關(guān)索賠金額最高的案例之一。

雖然在賠償金額方面堪稱勝利,但丹霍蘭德提出的問題真正揭示了受害人的痛苦。

和解代表著漫長而艱難的指控終于結(jié)束,也意味著另一個故事的開始。丹霍蘭德等受害人一直在跟律師和調(diào)解人深入談判和解資金支付問題。過程中,數(shù)百位女性要經(jīng)歷致歉、冷酷的數(shù)學(xué)計算,也經(jīng)常要痛苦地敘述性侵過程,尷尬之余,也在了解自己經(jīng)受的痛苦按照美元算“值多少錢”。

在調(diào)解約一年后,很多受害人通過賠償金額得出了答案。一位女性可能獲賠幾萬美元,夠還點信用卡債務(wù),然后搬個家;另一位女性可能獲賠好幾十萬美元,足夠支付看心理醫(yī)生的賬單,也能跟其他受害人一起工作。第三位女性獲賠金額可能夠向她關(guān)注的非營利組織捐贈。扣除稅費和律師費后,每位受害人拿到支票上的實際金額都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于名義獲賠數(shù)額。而且對很多人來說,這筆錢就是在不斷提醒曾經(jīng)被性侵的傷痛。

為侵犯行為估價對任何人來說都很難接受,不管在金錢、法律還是創(chuàng)傷層面都會造成糾結(jié)。積極人士和受害人首先提出,和解不是為了錢,主要是為了伸張正義。再多的錢也無法彌補受到的傷害。最糟糕的是,談判過程中感覺將成嚴(yán)重受傷的經(jīng)歷變成了固定的美元金額。“相當(dāng)于將你受到的傷害跟其他女孩相比?!备窭俳z·弗倫奇說,她也曾經(jīng)是受害者,現(xiàn)在從事市場營銷工作,是非營利組織 “受害人之軍”的聯(lián)合發(fā)起人,該組織主要幫助遭到性侵的受害人?!拔艺J(rèn)為很多女孩收到賠償金之后內(nèi)心仍然在苦苦掙扎?!?/p>

然而不可否認(rèn)的是,為傷害做系統(tǒng)性量化還是有必要的。相關(guān)的資金可以幫受害人支付各種治療的費用,或補償停工的損失,對痛苦和忍受也是一種承認(rèn)。對于被指窩藏或包庇性侵者的機構(gòu)來說,和解提供了補償?shù)臋C會。由此一來機構(gòu)承認(rèn)造成的傷害,爭取改進(jìn),尋找更好的做法,同時也了結(jié)了責(zé)任,因為收到賠償?shù)脑嬉话阃獠辉倨鹪V。

本次支付談判有個重要的不同之處,也變成了性侵案件談判最明顯的例子。很多納薩爾受害者跟之前和解案中的原告不同,并沒有簽署“沉默條款”或保密協(xié)議,以往賠償機構(gòu)經(jīng)常堅持要求簽署。(事實上,由于納薩爾承認(rèn)的罪行太過惡劣,密歇根州立大學(xué)也沒有什么立場要求簽署類似協(xié)議。)

丹霍蘭德、弗倫奇和其他很多受害人保留了各項權(quán)利,不僅可以講述曾經(jīng)遭受侵犯的經(jīng)歷,也可以討論獲得賠償多困難,而且都是自己發(fā)聲。正因如此,這群女性在#MeToo運動激發(fā)的聲討洪流中成了先鋒。不管是非營利機構(gòu)還是私營公司,公開承認(rèn)并解決內(nèi)部存在的性侵和騷擾問題壓力都越來越大。

“接受還是拒絕不是律師的決定,而是當(dāng)事人的決定?!背qv密歇根州蘭辛市的律師大衛(wèi)·米特爾曼說,密歇根州立大學(xué)和解過程中,他代表了100多名女性。“很多受害女性都更想提醒大眾?!?/p>

過去18個月里,丹霍蘭德和其他數(shù)十位納薩爾受害人向我介紹了經(jīng)歷,詳細(xì)描述了法律中常不為人知的陰暗角落。每個和解案中都有一部分內(nèi)容,包括受害者和調(diào)解人之間談話的具體細(xì)節(jié)要遵守法律上的保密規(guī)則。但將受害人的敘述拼湊起來,就能進(jìn)一步看清系統(tǒng)協(xié)議如何發(fā)揮巨大影響,身處系統(tǒng)內(nèi)的性侵受害人發(fā)現(xiàn)既受鼓舞,同時也感到不安。

“可以說密歇根州立大學(xué)的解決方案和相關(guān)訴訟都采取了法律優(yōu)先的方式?!?學(xué)校的發(fā)言人艾米麗·古蘭特在一份聲明中說?!拔艺J(rèn)為,學(xué)校在處理性侵和受害人問題上學(xué)到了很多,也意識到過去幾年里對待受害人方面犯了錯誤?!?/p>

丹霍蘭德說,她很清楚系統(tǒng)的缺陷,也意識到絕大多數(shù)性侵受害人不管在司法系統(tǒng)之內(nèi)還是之外都很少能夠獲得補償?!拔覀?nèi)鐣鉀Q的正是這種缺陷,想獲得賠償,就得付出犧牲?!彼f。“這也正是性侵受害人指控施暴者時面臨的問題?!?/p>

On Jan. 24, 2018, Rachael Denhollander walked into a Michigan courtroom to speak about the sexual abuse she suffered as a child from Larry Nassar. She was the last in an extraordinary procession of nearly 150 women to offer an impact statement at the sentencing hearing of the longtime USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor.

Standing at a podium facing Nassar as her words were beamed out worldwide, Denhollander, a former gymnast—and now herself an attorney, an advocate for child safety, and a 34-year-old mother of four—concluded her statement with a question:

“How much is a little girl worth?”

For decades, Nassar’s work as a doctor treating athletes at Michigan State University (MSU) and for USA Gymnastics helped give him unfettered access to girls and young women that he serially sexually abused. Since Denhollander became the first survivor to publicly accuse the doctor of abuse, in September 2016, an estimated 500 women have come forward saying that they, too, were abused by Nassar. Some experts on the case think that number could eventually pass 1,000. In July 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty to child pornography charges, and months later, he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault of minors. He will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. In May 2018, MSU agreed to pay a $500 million settlement to victims who had sued the university, among the largest sums ever paid in relation to sex-abuse claims.

As a consequence of that financial victory, Denhollander’s question has taken on a painfully literal meaning.

While the settlement represented the end of one long, difficult story, it signaled the beginning of another. Survivors like Denhollander have been deep in negotiations with lawyers and mediators over the disbursement of the settlement funds. In a process that involves an awkward combination of apologetic recognition, dispassionate mathematics, and, often, a torturous recounting of abuse, hundreds of women are learning what their suffering was “worth” in dollar terms.

Roughly a year into the mediation process, many of the survivors have now received their answers—in decisions about their payouts, known as allocations. For one woman, it was a low five-figure sum that will help her retire credit card debt and relocate; for another, it was an amount in the high six figures, enough to cover bills related to her mental health treatment and to enable her to work with other survivors. For a third, it’s a donation to a nonprofit she cares about. For each, the check will be worth considerably less than its face value, after taxes and attorneys’ fees. And for many, the money itself is a hurtful reminder of the abuse that took place.

The idea of a process that attaches financial value to acts of abuse is appealing to no one, presenting a challenging tangle of money, law, and trauma. Advocates and survivors are the first to say that settlements are more about a sense of justice than about money; no sum could ever compensate for the damage done. At its worst, the process can feel like an invasive haggle that reduces the experience of profound harm to a flat dollar figure. “It’s the trauma you went through, basically, being ranked against [that of] other girls,” says Grace French, a ?Nassar survivor who works in marketing and is a cofounder of the Army of Survivors, a nonprofit that helps those who have experienced abuse. “I do think a lot of girls are still struggling with that after getting that number.”

Still, there’s an undeniable need for a systematic way to quantify the harm of abuse. The funds can enable survivors to afford therapy, help with medical bills, or provide reimbursement for lost work time, as well as acknowledge pain and suffering. And for institutions accused of harboring or covering up for an abuser, settlements offer an opportunity for restitution. It’s a chance to acknowledge the harm they’ve enabled and commit to a new, better path—but also to close the book on their liability, since plaintiffs who receive disbursements generally agree not to sue again.

The disbursement talks also bear an important distinction: They’ve become arguably the most visible example to date of how the process works in sex-abuse cases. Unlike plaintiffs in past settlements, many Nassar survivors haven’t signed the “silence clauses,” or nondisclosure agreements, that are often insisted upon by the institutions making the payments. (Indeed, the magnitude of Nassar’s admitted crimes may have taken away any leverage MSU might have had to press for such clauses.)

Denhollander and French and many other survivors have retained the right to talk not only about the abuse they underwent but also about the difficulty of getting financial redress—and they’re using their voices. That, in turn, has put them in the vanguard of a broader trend catalyzed by the #MeToo movement: a growing pressure on both not-for-profit institutions and private companies to publicly acknowledge and address problems of abuse and harassment within their ranks.

“It’s not a lawyer’s decision; it’s a client’s decision whether to accept or reject an offer,” says David Mittleman, a Lansing-based lawyer who represents more than 100 of the women in the MSU settlements. “And many want to be on the side of alerting the public.”

Over the past 18 months, Denhollander and dozens of other Nassar survivors spoke with me about their experiences, offering a detailed description of a corner of the law that is often shrouded in secrecy. Some elements of any settlement process, including details of specific conversations between survivors and mediators, are shielded by legal confidentiality rules. But together, the survivors’ accounts offer a close look at the protocols of a system that can wield tremendous influence, in ways that victims of abuse can find both empowering and upsetting.

“It’s fair to say that MSU’s approach to the settlement and related lawsuits is a legal-first approach,” Emily Guerrant, a spokeswoman for the school, said in a statement. “I think we, as a university, have learned a lot about dealing with sexual assault and survivors, and realize that we’ve made mistakes during the past few years in how survivors were treated.”

Denhollander says that she’s keenly aware of the system’s flaws and equally aware that the vast majority of sexual-assault survivors seldom receive any remedy, in or out of the justice system. “That’s something that societally we need to wrestle with—that that kind of sacrifice is what it takes” to win redress, she says. “That’s what sexual-assault survivors are up against when they go to report their abuser.”

****

和解案中賠償金的分配十分混亂。“我從來沒有接過如此廣受批評的賠償案?!惫鸫髮W(xué)、哥倫比亞大學(xué)和紐約大學(xué)法學(xué)院的前副教授肯尼斯·范伯格說?!案I(lǐng)域有關(guān)?!?/p>

范伯格是全世界最了解該領(lǐng)域的院長。20世紀(jì)80年代他曾經(jīng)是橙色劑訴訟領(lǐng)域的“專家”,協(xié)助制定了現(xiàn)代和解模板,最終陶氏化學(xué)、孟山都和其他公司為受脫葉劑毒害的越戰(zhàn)退伍軍人設(shè)立基金。此后范伯格負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)管一個基金,曾經(jīng)向2001年9月11日恐怖襲擊中失去親人的家庭支付71.4億美元(2002年的《財富》雜志刊發(fā)過專題報道)。目前他正與聯(lián)合管理者卡米爾·S·比羅斯合作,補償天主教會性侵案的受害人。“用金錢補償損失沒有什么意義,但美國制度就是這樣?!彼f,“一對夫妻的兒子在世貿(mào)中心襲擊中喪生,獲得500萬美元賠償,其實毫無價值?!?/p>

范伯格指出,即便涉及無法量化的數(shù)字,調(diào)解人也希望讓受害人明確了解賠償系統(tǒng)如何運行。和解金額的范圍通常由原告和辯護(hù)律師決定,由調(diào)解人最終確定個人賠償金額范圍。比如管理“9·11”基金時,范伯格為每位受害人設(shè)定了25萬美元的統(tǒng)一賠償金額,為每位幸存的配偶和被撫養(yǎng)人設(shè)定了額外的10萬美元,避免了鑒定哪家受損失更嚴(yán)重的尷尬。然后他根據(jù)勞工統(tǒng)計局的數(shù)據(jù),為每位受害人增加了一些因素,比如估算的工資損失。他表示,最后5300起索賠沒有兩筆金額相同?!氨仨氁蟹椒ㄕ摗!彼f。

然而在性侵案件中,方法論似乎過于簡單化,甚至有些殘忍。據(jù)報道,幾十年來,羅馬天主教會的奧爾托納-約翰斯頓教區(qū)向受到神職人員和其他人員侵犯的受害人賠償了1500多萬美元。2016年,賓夕法尼亞州總檢察長辦公室強烈批評教區(qū)處理案件方式,在報告中公布了一張圖表,一位主教曾經(jīng)用該圖表確定賠償金額。報告抨擊的圖表正是“冷酷官僚作風(fēng)”的例子,其中有兩個欄目:“虐待程度”和“賠償金額范圍”。一行是“隔著衣服,撫摸生殖器,10000-25000美元”;另一行是“雞奸;性交,50000-175000美元”。

Distributing funds from a settlement is at best messy. “I don’t think I’ve ever done a compensation program where there hasn’t been some criticism,” says Kenneth Feinberg, a former adjunct professor at Harvard, Columbia, and NYU law schools. “It comes with the territory.”

Feinberg is the closest thing the world has to a dean of the subject. He was the “special master” on the case that set the template for modern settlements—the Agent Orange litigation in the 1980s, which ended with Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and other companies creating a fund for Vietnam War veterans who had been harmed by the defoliant. Since then, Feinberg has overseen a fund that distributed $7.14 billion to families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (a process Fortune documented in a 2002 feature); he’s currently working with survivors of sexual assault in cases involving the Catholic Church with co-administrator Camille S. Biros. “Money is a very poor substitute for damage, for loss, but that’s the American system,” he says. “Offering a family $5 million for the death of their son at the World Trade Center, it’s rather hollow.”

A mediator’s goals, Feinberg notes, include being transparent with survivors about the workings of that system—even when that involves assigning numbers to the immeasurable. The range of settlement sums is usually determined by plaintiff and defense lawyers, but it’s the mediator’s discretion to determine where an individual’s compensation falls. In administering the 9/11 fund, for example, Feinberg set a flat rate of $250,000 for pain and suffering for each victim and an additional $100,000 for each surviving spouse and dependent, avoiding the dilemma of determining whether one suffered more than another. For each victim, he then added factors such as likely lost wages based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The result, he says, was 5,300 eligible claims with no two identical amounts. “You have to have a methodology,” he says.

In sex-abuse cases, however, methodology can seem simplistic to the point of cruelty. The Altoona-Johnstown diocese of the Roman Catholic Church has reportedly paid out more than $15 million to survivors of abuse by its clergy and other employees over the decades. In 2016, in a blistering report criticizing the diocese’s handling of the cases, the Pennsylvania state attorney general’s office published a chart that one bishop had used to determine payouts. The chart, which the report blasted as an example of “cold bureaucracy,” featured two columns: “Level of Abuse” and “Range of Payment.” One line reads, “above clothing, genital fondling, $10,000–$25,000.” Another reads, “Sodomy; Intercourse, $50,000–$175,000.”

丹霍蘭德(左,站在講臺前)在拉里·納薩爾的宣判聽證會上宣讀“影響聲明”。圖片來源:Jeff Kowalsky—AFP/Getty Images

現(xiàn)實中,性侵的危害遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了行為本身,包括一系列情感創(chuàng)傷、身心障礙和生理疼痛。區(qū)分不同類型的痛苦確實很重要,但也對受害人造成了嚴(yán)重的后果。專家說,在某種程度上,和解談判代表必須就如何將經(jīng)歷轉(zhuǎn)化為具體數(shù)字達(dá)成一致。保險公司的精算師設(shè)計打分系統(tǒng)確定金額。系統(tǒng)通常根據(jù)“類似”案例確定,量化性侵對受害人受到的傷害,同時預(yù)測性侵的持續(xù)性影響。

在納薩爾案中,密歇根州5億美元的和解資金里有4.25億美元分給了2017年12月6日之前提出訴訟的330多位申請人。剩余的7500萬美元分給該日期之后提出訴訟的受害人。(第二波起訴中已有160人,有些人因此擔(dān)心資金是否足夠。)據(jù)知情人士透露,大約三分之一的人要支付律師費,包括和解過程中等候的時間。

安排4.25億美元資金的任務(wù)落在了加州前任法官威廉·貝蒂內(nèi)利身上,去年7月他獲得監(jiān)督此案的聯(lián)邦地方法院任命。(他的報酬也包括在和解總金額里。)根據(jù)貝蒂內(nèi)利公司的網(wǎng)站,他從事職業(yè)調(diào)解人約30年,曾經(jīng)調(diào)停災(zāi)難性人身傷害、非法死亡索賠和環(huán)境災(zāi)難等案件。幾個月來我們一直爭取采訪,但他的辦公室并未答復(fù)。

了解密歇根州立大學(xué)案件的人士稱,貝蒂內(nèi)利有權(quán)批準(zhǔn)每人不超過7位數(shù)(扣除稅費前)的賠償金。知情人士說,貝蒂內(nèi)利遵循了 “劃撥協(xié)議”,包括電話采訪受害人以評估和解金額。貝蒂內(nèi)利可能會問:性侵是否發(fā)生在未成年人身上、性侵持續(xù)的時間和頻率,以及性侵行為本身的性質(zhì)。調(diào)解人還要考慮到受害人因勇敢指控而面臨的風(fēng)險,或者因為指控而面臨的報復(fù)。

很多情況下,受害人可能提出一些審判中并未出現(xiàn)的證據(jù),例如心理評估和賬單等。一些受害人提交了記錄性侵次數(shù)的日記。新證據(jù)可以作為書面文件提交給調(diào)解人,也可以在會談時提,或者每次都說。

In practice, the harmful effects of sexual abuse spread far beyond the acts themselves, encompassing a spectrum of emotional trauma, disability, and physical pain. Distinctions among kinds of suffering do matter, with huge consequences for survivors. But at some point, experts say, settlement negotiators have to agree on how to translate those distinctions into raw numbers. Actuaries for insurers sometimes devise point systems to determine how to allocate payouts. Those systems are often determined based on “peer” cases, with criteria intended to quantify how a survivor has been affected since the assault, and to project how the assault could continue to affect that person.

The $500 million Michigan State settlement in the Nassar case allocates $425 million to more than 330 claimants who came forward to sue before Dec. 6, 2017; the remaining $75 million is set aside for survivors who came forward after that date. (There are already 160 people in that second wave, sparking concerns about whether the fund is sufficient.) Roughly one-third will pay for fees for attorneys, including for time spent in the settlement process, according to someone familiar with the matter.

The task of distributing the $425 million pool falls to William Bettinelli, a former California judge who was appointed last July by the federal district court overseeing the case. (He is being paid from the overall settlement sum, as well.) In roughly 30 years as a professional mediator, Bettinelli has mediated cases involving catastrophic personal injuries, wrongful death claims, and environmental disasters, according to his firm’s website; his office did not respond to multiple requests for interviews over several months.

According to people familiar with the MSU case, Bettinelli has authorization to approve payouts of up to the low seven figures per person (before taxes and fees). People with knowledge of the process say Bettinelli is following an “allocation protocol” that includes conducting phone interviews with survivors to assess their settlement amount. Among the questions Bettinelli may ask: whether the abuse happened to them as minors, the duration and frequency of the abuse, and the nature of the abusive acts themselves. The mediator can also take into account such factors as the risk a survivor incurred by coming forward or any retaliation she faced for blowing the whistle.

In many cases, a survivor may bring forward evidence that wasn’t used in Nassar’s trials—psychologist evaluations and bills, for example. Several survivors submitted journal entries documenting the toll of abuse. New evidence can be submitted to the mediator as paperwork, be brought up in a meeting, or both.

格雷斯·弗倫奇是納薩爾案的幾名原告之一,目前正在幫助其他遭到性侵的受害人做宣傳工作。圖片來源:Photograph by Ali Lapetina for Fortune

和解過程的目標(biāo)之一是,受害人不必為了獲得賠償重新訴訟。盡管如此,索賠人還是要經(jīng)常敘述的可怕細(xì)節(jié),特別是審判記錄里沒有的信息。即便受害人證據(jù)非常充分,復(fù)述也可能很可怕。

多位原告的律師米特爾曼表示,當(dāng)事人報告的負(fù)面影響包括自殺未遂、高昂的精神病院住院費、脫發(fā)、胃腸道問題和睡眠障礙等。性侵受害人經(jīng)常要接受心理咨詢,每個療程花費150到300美元,一周或一個月多個療程,通常持續(xù)數(shù)年。不少人失業(yè),也有人因此婚姻破裂。

和解金額估算時理應(yīng)考慮所有相關(guān)因素。但米特爾曼和其他積極人士表示,有時談判過分強調(diào)性侵的次數(shù)或持續(xù)時間。在談到大量傷害時,米特爾曼問道:“60次或100次性侵真有必要比性侵一次多獲賠償嗎?在我看來,一次已經(jīng)算很多了。”

One goal of a settlement process is that survivors won’t have to relitigate their case in order to receive their claims. Still, claimants often find themselves recounting horrific details of their experience—especially if that information doesn’t already exist in a trial record. And those conversations, even when a survivor stands on a mountain of evidence, can be awful.

Among the harmful impacts that Mittleman, the lawyer for many of the plaintiffs, says his clients have reported are attempted suicide, bills for stays at psychiatric hospitals, hair loss, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep disturbance. It’s not uncommon for therapy for those coping with the consequences of abuse to cost $150 to $300 per session, with multiple sessions a week or month, often for years. Jobs have been lost, marriages frayed.

The math of a settlement process ideally takes all of this into account. But Mittleman and other advocates say that talks sometimes place excessive emphasis on the number or duration of the assaults. In the context of wide-ranging harm, Mittleman asks, “Is 60 or 100 penetrations really worth more than one time? Because in my opinion, one time is too many.”

****

調(diào)解人或?qū)<业牧硪荒繕?biāo)是公平和迅速。決定受害者賠償金額,也是為受害女性痛苦估價的會談通常很短。大多數(shù)情況下,調(diào)解人的決定不接受上訴。所以賠償金額是最終數(shù)字。

與我交談的部分受害者認(rèn)為收到的賠償金還算公平合適,其他人并不同意。對很多人來說,和解之后進(jìn)入了新的困難階段,因為她們意識到單靠錢很難糾正錯誤。

在20世紀(jì)90年代初,唐娜·馬卡姆的女兒切爾西加入了密歇根州的運動隊,夢想著像臥室墻上海報的英雄們一樣代表國家參加奧運會。根據(jù)檢察官的指控,切爾西小時候預(yù)約看病時遭到納薩爾性侵。之后她開始吸毒、酗酒、抑郁和憤怒,2009年自殺。當(dāng)年她才23歲。

馬卡姆收到了賠償金,但對賠償金估算感到困惑,也被繁復(fù)的文書和流程弄得不勝其擾。馬卡姆說,性侵“只會侵蝕自我價值和自尊”。她真切感受到這一事實,但感覺和解過程很難體現(xiàn)。“不能為人命定價?!?馬卡姆說?!扒袪栁髟居写蠛萌松绾闻袛嘣撗a償多少呢?”在馬卡姆看來,最重要的賠償并不是金錢。她與案中其他女性密切聯(lián)系,為受到傷害的人們積極發(fā)聲?!拔覜]有指望從中得到什么?!瘪R卡姆說?!爸幌胱尭嗳酥狼袪栁鞯墓适隆!?/p>

一些受害人選擇不跟貝蒂內(nèi)利交談。她們已經(jīng)在法律程序中提交了證詞或影響報告,可以拿文件記錄說話。摩根·麥考爾上高中便加入了起訴納薩爾的組織,如今就讀于密歇根大學(xué):“我只是覺得(談判)是件不必要的事?!彼f。今年早些時候麥考爾收到了賠償金?!吧畈]有因為錢而改變?!彼f?!暗徒夂褪盏劫r償之前一年半里有很多焦慮,我不斷問自己,因為無法量化的痛苦收到支票在道德上到底能否站住腳?!丙溈紶枌⒔箲]轉(zhuǎn)化為積極行動,“把可怕的經(jīng)歷變?yōu)槟軌驇椭说慕?jīng)驗。”

雖然與密歇根州立大學(xué)和解的受害人可以公開披露收到的賠償金,但這并不是一個好選擇。一方面談?wù)撳X數(shù)可能導(dǎo)致受害人受欺詐,也可能有人指責(zé)她們站出來指控是為了錢。還可能跟朋友、家人以及其他受害人產(chǎn)生沖突。密歇根州立大學(xué)案例中的一些受害人介紹了其中的第22條軍規(guī):韌性強又足夠幸運的女性能夠盡早獲得幫助,也容易避免受重創(chuàng),她們有時覺得拒絕會影響自己的經(jīng)濟利益,反過來,支票上金額更高可能意味著受的苦比大多數(shù)人多。受害人表示,比較的感覺很怪,而且某種意義上說賠償金正是受性侵的證據(jù)。正如受害人之軍的聯(lián)合發(fā)起人弗倫奇所說,“拿支票取錢時感覺很臟?!?/p>

One of the aims of a mediator or special master is to be both fair and swift. Meetings to determine a survivor’s payout—the worth of her suffering—can be surprisingly short, and in most cases, the mediator’s decision isn’t open to appeal. The number is final.

Some Nassar survivors I spoke with felt that the amount of money they received was fair and appropriate; others didn’t. And for many, a newly difficult phase began after the settlement—as they realized that money alone couldn’t right what had been made wrong.

Donna Markham’s daughter Chelsey was one of countless girls who bounded into gyms in Michigan in the early 1990s in hopes of making an Olympic team, like the heroes who graced the posters on her bedroom wall. As a child, prosecutors allege, Chelsey was sexually assaulted by Nassar during a doctor appointment. After the abuse, she spiraled into drugs, alcohol, depression, and angry spells that culminated with her taking her own life in 2009. She was 23 years old.

Markham has received her allocation, and she’s one of several survivors who felt perplexed by the math behind the payout and overwhelmed by the paperwork and logistics. Abuse “just eats away at your self-worth, your self-esteem,” Markham says. That fact, so clear to her, was something she felt the process couldn’t account for. “You can’t put a price on a human life,” Markham says. “And how do you make a determination on an award settlement when Chelsey had her entire life ahead of her?” In Markham’s telling, the most important outcome of the process wasn’t monetary: She has forged strong bonds with other women involved in the case and is engaged in advocacy work for those who were harmed. “I didn’t expect to get anything,” Markham says. “I just wanted Chelsey’s story to be told.”

Some survivors opted not to talk with Bettinelli. Having already testified in legal proceedings or given impact statements, they could let those records speak for them. Morgan ?McCaul, who was a high school student when she joined the group suing Nassar, is now enrolled at the University of Michigan: “I just felt like [a meeting] would be another thing on my plate that was unnecessary,” she says. McCaul received a payout earlier this year. “My life has not changed” as a result of the money, she says. “But I do know that I had a lot of anxiety in the year and a half leading up to the settlement disbursement, asking myself if it’s ethically sound to be handed a check for something that can never be quantified.” McCaul has channeled that energy into activism, to “l(fā)everage this horrible experience into something that can help other people.”

While nothing bars MSU settlement participants from publicly disclosing the sum they received, doing so is not considered a best practice: Talking about the number can make survivors prey to fraud or to criticism that they were fiscally motivated. It can also create conflict with friends or family—and with fellow survivors. Some survivors in the MSU case describe a catch-22 inherent in the process: Those who were resilient and fortunate enough to find help earlier, or to avoid the most severe trauma, sometimes felt that saying so was against their financial self-interest—or, conversely, that a larger check might mean you suffered more than most. That sense of awkward comparison, survivors say, adds to the pain of knowing that the allocation money is, in a sense, evidence of the abuse. As French, the Army of Survivors cofounder, says, “You cash that check, and it feels dirty.”

****

奧運會金牌得主麥卡拉·馬羅尼說自己也曾經(jīng)受到拉里·納賽爾的侵犯。在納薩爾被捕之前,她與管理機構(gòu)美國體操協(xié)會達(dá)成125萬美元的和解,其中有保密條款。在納薩爾性侵行為曝光后,協(xié)會因為封口馬羅尼并掩飾納薩爾的行為而廣受批評,也聲稱不會強制執(zhí)行保密條款。

針對納薩爾的指控爆發(fā)后,審查性侵和性騷擾案件中濫用保密協(xié)議方面也發(fā)揮了重要作用。過去保密協(xié)議應(yīng)用普遍,尤其跟天主教會性侵相關(guān)的案件中。Vanderbilt Law Review指出,數(shù)據(jù)顯示美國超過三分之一的員工受保密協(xié)議限制。批評人士指出,原本用于保護(hù)商業(yè)秘密的保密話術(shù)反而用來限制員工公開討論辦公室問題,也包括性騷擾。

“保密規(guī)定掩蓋了很多事?!辈剪斂肆址▽W(xué)院教授、就業(yè)法診所主任米納·J·科特金表示?!拔覀兞私獾闹皇情_頭?!?/p>

科特金說,密歇根州立大學(xué)和解案中不需要保密協(xié)議,反映出人們考慮性侵問題發(fā)生了比較大的轉(zhuǎn)變。人們曾經(jīng)認(rèn)為性侵是私人的事,代表著個人與更強大的權(quán)威人物或機構(gòu)相抗衡,現(xiàn)在則視為社會的毒瘤或傳染病,是應(yīng)該提醒其他人關(guān)注的威脅。

該效應(yīng)在企業(yè)中的作用能有多廣泛還很難判斷。一些積極人士警告稱,完全取消保密條款可能會對受害人產(chǎn)生不利影響,如此一來會刺激性侵者打官司,而不是和解。盡管如此,包括紐約和加州在內(nèi)的12個州已經(jīng)通過法律,在騷擾和舉報性侵方面縮小保密協(xié)議應(yīng)用的范圍。2017年年底微軟曾經(jīng)表示,經(jīng)已取消員工公開指控性騷擾的保密協(xié)議。其他公司也緊跟其后,有些公司則是內(nèi)部丑聞傳出之后才開始。

調(diào)解人范伯格認(rèn)為,保密的責(zé)任應(yīng)該對調(diào)?!拔艺J(rèn)為機構(gòu)保密非常非常重要?!彼f?!暗绻芎θ讼耄ù舐曊f出實情),是值得鼓勵的?!边@代表著力量從機構(gòu)向受害人轉(zhuǎn)移。

盡管會很痛苦,很長一段時間內(nèi)還是可能有不少受害人發(fā)聲。需要解決的問題是,如果出現(xiàn)更多受害人,密歇根州立大學(xué)會不會擴大和解基金的規(guī)模,以及如何支付額外賠償。同樣迫在眉睫的還有針對美國體操協(xié)會和美國奧委會(USOC)的訴訟。多年來美國體操隊一直讓納賽爾擔(dān)任隊醫(yī),現(xiàn)在面臨約350名原告提出的100起訴訟。去年12月,體操協(xié)會根據(jù)破產(chǎn)法第11章申請破產(chǎn),導(dǎo)致訴訟和調(diào)解討論都停滯不前。(美國體操協(xié)會的發(fā)言人萊斯利·金表示,協(xié)會“一直注重保護(hù)運動員的安全和福利”。)

在與各機構(gòu)爭論不休之后,瑞秋·丹霍蘭德認(rèn)為和解流程和一長串跟性侵案相關(guān)的問題一樣應(yīng)該解決。她認(rèn)為,最糟糕的一點是,賠償之后機構(gòu)就不用審視自己的文化,將過往丑事一筆勾銷?!埃ㄟ@些機構(gòu))完全不想追究哪里出了問題,也不想承認(rèn)問題,更別提去解決。”她說。

丹霍蘭德和其他受害人打算大聲疾呼,繼續(xù)向納薩爾曾經(jīng)工作的機構(gòu)施壓?!拔覀儜?yīng)該從中吸取哪些教訓(xùn)?“她說?!靶新犠C會上有那么多女性公開露面。這是全世界第一次看到名字和臉,而且跟性侵聯(lián)系起來。我們終于不只是紙面上的數(shù)字了。”(財富中文網(wǎng))

本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2019年7月刊,標(biāo)題為《“一個女孩值多少錢?”》。

譯者:馮豐

審校:夏林

Olympic gold ?medalist McKayla Maroney says that she was one of the girls whom Larry Nassar preyed upon. Before his arrest, she received a $1.25 million settlement from the national governing body for the sport, USA Gymnastics—one that included a nondisclosure provision. But after his attacks came to light, the organization faced criticism for effectively covering up Nassar’s behavior by gagging Maroney, and it said that it would not enforce the silence clause.

The cases against Nassar have played a crucial role in intensifying scrutiny of the use of nondisclosure agreements in abuse and harassment cases. Such NDAs have historically been ubiquitous—notably in agreements involving abuse in the Catholic Church. In the private sector, the Vanderbilt Law Review points to data showing over one-third of the American workforce is subject to NDAs. There, critics note, nondisclosure language originally intended to protect trade secrets has been stretched to curb an employee’s right to speak out about workplace issues including sexual harassment.

“So much has been shielded by confidentiality,” says Minna J. Kotkin, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and director of its Employment Law Clinic. “We’re just beginning to know the start.”

The fact that many MSU settlements didn’t require NDAs reflects a broader shift in thinking about abuse, says Kotkin. What were once thought of as private matters that pitted the reputation of vulnerable individuals against those of more powerful authority figures or institutions are coming to be seen as a societal toxin or contagion—the kind of threat about which others should be warned.

It’s difficult to measure how widely this effect is playing out at companies. Some advocates warn that taking silence clauses completely off the table could work against survivors, by encouraging abusers to litigate rather than settle. Still, 12 states, including New York and California, have passed laws to narrow the scope of NDAs in harassment and sexual-assault whistleblowing. Microsoft said in late 2017 that it had removed NDAs involving employees who speak up about sexual harassment; other companies have followed suit, some after scandals within their ranks.

Feinberg, the mediator, argues that the onus for silence should be reversed. “I think it’s very, very important that the institution agree to confidentiality,” he says. “But if the individual victim wants to [speak out], I think that’s to be encouraged.” That represents a shift in the power balance, from the institution to the survivor.

Painful though it will be, many Nassar survivors will likely be speaking out for a long time. Yet to be resolved is whether MSU will expand its settlement fund if more victims come forward, and how it would pay additional costs. Also looming are lawsuits against USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC). USA Gymnastics enlisted Nassar as a team doctor for years and now faces 100 lawsuits from roughly 350 plaintiffs. In December it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a move that put the brakes on both the lawsuits and mediation discussions. (Leslie King, a spokeswoman for USA Gymnastics, says that the organization “has focused on keeping athlete safety and well-being at the forefront of its efforts.”)

Wrangling with these institutions has led Rachael Denhollander to put the settlement process on a long list of issues tied to abuse cases that she believes should change. At worst, she argues, the payments absolve big players of examining their own cultures, giving them in essence a clean slate. “There is a complete refusal to want to discover what went wrong, to admit what went wrong, and to deal with it,” she says.

Denhollander and her fellow survivors plan to speak up to keep pressure on the institutions where Nassar worked. “What lessons do we need to take away from this?” she says. “That sentencing hearing was so many women coming forward publicly. It was the first time the entire world has gotten to see names and faces and [connect them] with the idea of sexual assault. We weren’t just numbers anymore.”

A version of this article appears in the July 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “‘How Much Is a Little Girl Worth?’”

掃描二維碼下載財富APP
亚洲精品无码久久久久去Q| 很多小伙伴都喜欢看短视频| 好吊妞国产欧美日韩免费观看| 国产精品免码视频二三区| AV无码免费一区二区三区| 青青尤物热在线视频免费观看| 亚洲欧美日本韩国综合在线观看| 精品21国产成人综合网在线| 青青青在线香蕉国产精品| 久久精品道一区二区三区| 久久久久人妻一区视色| 日韩不卡一区二区三区| 二级韩国片完整版日韩电影| 亚洲AV片不卡无码久久欣赏网| 国产99视频免费精品是看6| 精品无码国产一区二区三区AVw| 青草久久久国产线免观| 国产高清无码免费| 国产精品免费久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲AV片不卡无码在线a | 亚洲中文久久久久久精品| 亚洲系列国产精品制服丝袜第| 欧美人和黑人牲交网站上线| 日韩精品无码一区二区三区18| 国产乱码精品一品二品| 全免费午夜一级毛片**| 国产内射老熟女AAAA| 午夜成人爽爽爽视频在线观看| 精品国产高清一区二区广区| 国产精品亚洲Αv天堂无码| 亚洲av之男人的天堂网站 720P | 成人亚洲一区二区三区在线| 午夜精品国产爱在线观看不卡| 免费爽A片高清无打码在线观看| 国产欧美一区二区精品性色| 一区二区狠狠色丁香久久婷婷| 免费看美女尿口软件app大全| 国产亚洲欧美日韩在线一区| 亚洲欧美精品午睡沙发| 国产在线拍揄自揄视频不卡99| 人妻洗澡被强公日日澡|