A retired judge will decide how the $140 million settlement will be allocated to the 81 victims subjected to sexual molestation and lewd acts by convicted Miramonte elementary school teacher on a case-by-case basis. Also, should more employers ban tobacco smokers from being hired? Then, a new study offers a different look at altruism.
Breaking down the $140 million payout from LAUSD to Miramonte abuse plaintiffs
It is said to be the largest ever settlement against a school district in a sex abuse case. LA Unified School District has agreed to pay $139,750,000 to 81 victims that were allegedly subjected to sexual molestation and lewd acts by convicted Miramonte elementary school teacher, Mark Berndt. A retired judge will decide how the settlement will be allocated to the victims on a case-by-case basis. Legal analysts tell KPCC the district did not want to risk a higher payout had the case gone to a jury trial. Friday's agreement is in addition to a settlement of $30 million to dozens of other accusers last year. Berndt has been accused of touching children's genitals, exposing his own, blindfolding children and feeding them his semen as well as photographic children, sometimes with tape over their eyes and mouths. He has pleaded no contest to 23 charges of lewd conduct upon a child and is serving a 25 year sentence in prison.
The source of the monies for the settlement is in dispute because LAUSD's insurers argue they do not cover sex abuse judgements.
What is the mechanism for deciding compensatory damages? Does a record-breaking sum such as this spur any arguments for tort reform?
Guests:
John Manly, Attorney for plaintiffs in the Miramonte schools case; Partner with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi LLP
Lawrence Rosenthal, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law in Orange
A town, and a nation, await grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri
The grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., reconvened on Monday to consider possible charges against Darren Wilson, the white suburban St. Louis officer who fatally shot the black 18-year-old after a confrontation in August. Last week, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard in anticipation of protests or riots in reaction to a decision.
With files from the Associated Press.
Guest:
Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School; former federal prosecutor
Steve Giegerich, reporter at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who’s been following the case
Colorado hospital bans not just smoking, but hiring of smokers
Centura, which operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, says that it’ll stop hiring workers who smoke cigarettes starting on Jan. 1. The Denver Postreports that the hospital chain will begin testing job applicants for tobacco in their systems.
A number of hospitals in the country have enacted similar bans, most notably the Cleveland Clinic in 2007. Hospitals in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, among others, also engage in the practice.
Hospitals cite reduced medical costs and the added need for a health practitioner to embrace a healthy lifestyle as reasons behind the ban. Smokers are not protected from workplace discrimination under federal laws, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws that protect smokers. California is one of them, but so too is Colorado. According to legal experts, the Colorado law would only protect those already on staff, but not new hires.
Should hospitals be allowed to ban the hiring of smokers? What are the drawbacks? What are the benefits?
Guests:
Lewis Maltby, President National Workrights Institute, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to employment rights based in New Jersey
Patrick Reynolds, Executive Director of Tobaccofree.org and the Foundation for a Smoke Free America based in Los Angeles
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel steps down
In a surprise development, the Pentagon has announced that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is stepping down from his post. The White House held a press conference Monday morning to break the news, saying it was a “mutual decision” that was the result of several weeks of discussion between Hagel and President Obama. The President called Hagel a “steady hand” during his nearly two years on the job and thanked Hagel for always being honest with him behind closed doors.
It’s no secret inside the beltway that Hagel and National Security Advisor Susan Rice did not see eye-to-eye on some issues, most notably the White House’s strategy on Syria, about which Hagel sent Rice a critical memo recently. The White House has said that despite their disagreements on certain issues, there was no particular conflict between them that led to Hagel’s resignation.
Hagel became the first former enlisted combat solider to hold the post of Secretary of Defense, which he took over in February 2013 after Leon Panetta resigned. During his time in office, Hagel oversaw the troop drawdown in Afghanistan as well as the Pentagon’s budget during military sequestration. His tenure as Defense Secretary was not without its challenges, though. Hagel was forced to deal with scandals like delays in treatment at military hospitals and allegations of Air Force nuclear weapons officers cheating on proficiency tests. He also launched major security studies and reviews after the Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013.
There is currently no timeframe on when a new Secretary of Defense will be appointed and the White House has not named anyone as a possible successor.
Guest:
Phil Ewing, Senior Defense Reporter at Politico
Is latest Benghazi report finding little fault on Obama administration the final word?
The U.S. House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a report on Friday titled, “Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012.” Led by Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Ranking Member C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the report concluded that no intelligence occurred prior to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, no stand-down order on the part of the CIA for officers who attempted to assist those at the building, and contradictory intelligence regarding who and what had precipitated the violence. That last point was immediately contentious following the consular attack, sparking a vehement debate over whether the cause was a planned terrorist attack or a sudden response to a viral video on YouTube called Innocence of Muslims.
While the report did find a “flawed” process for determining then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points, other conspiracies such as the CIA base being a cover-up for a covert operation sending weapons from Libya to Syria were found to have no basis. Despite the report coming out of a Republican-led committee in the House of Representatives, some Republicans have come out against the report, in certain cases using choice words to describe the accuracy of the findings.
Will this report end the debate over Benghazi? Now that the House has released this investigative report, what actions should be taken to secure embassies and personnel abroad?
Guests:
Greg Miller, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post
To harm or not to harm: that is the question
A new study by University College London (UCL) and the University of Oxford has found that altruism may not work exactly as theorized. Previous experiments on altruism suggested that people generally do not value others' interests as much as their own. Yet when faced with the decision of whether to profit from another's pain, people were far more altruistic than predicted from prior studies. To demonstrate this, the researchers divided participants into two groups: deciders and receivers. The deciders and receivers could not see or talk to one another. Deciders made choices about how much they would pay to prevent mild electric shocks directed either toward themselves or to the receivers.
The researchers found, much to their surprise, that the deciders would on average pay about twice as much money to prevent shocks to the receivers as they would pay to prevent shocks to themselves. So for example they would pay on average 8 pounds to prevent 20 shocks to others but only 4 pounds to spare themselves 20 shocks. But context mattered; when asked to donate a portion their winnings to charity after the study, the deciders only gave 20% of their winnings on average, suggesting people may apply different moral principles when deciding about money versus harm.
Where would YOU have drawn the line on how much to shock others for money? Is altruism something that exists in us all? How much does context affect when and how much you give?
Guests:
Molly Crockett, PhD, lead author of the study and researcher at Oxford University