ABSTRACT

Procedural differences between civil justice and redress schemes are well known, but knowledge gaps stymie an ability to compare monetary outcomes. This paper advances the field of institutional abuse of children by analysing outcomes for 4563 civil justice and redress scheme claims of sexual abuse of children received by 36 Australian Catholic Church authorities (CCAs) over 35 years. The authorities are archdioceses, dioceses and male and female religious institutes. As expected, average civil justice payments are higher than those for redress schemes. However, there is huge payment variation and a good deal of overlap between the two, especially at the lower end of the payment spectrum. We explain payment variation by a generally lower, average or higher paying orientation of the CCAs, coupled with a strong lower paying orientation of the female religious institutes. Victims and survivors of institutional child abuse require information on outcomes of civil justice and redress scheme claims, rather than the siren song of large civil payments. We join others in calling upon all relevant actors to ‘show the data’ on settled claims.

摘要

民事司法和补救计划之间的程序差异是众所周知的，但知识差距阻碍了比较货币结果的能力。本文通过分析 35 年来由 36 个澳大利亚天主教会当局 (CCA) 收到的 4563 起民事司法和补救计划索赔的结果，推进了机构虐待儿童的领域。当局是总教区、教区和男女宗教机构。正如预期的那样，平均民事司法费用高于补救计划。然而，两者之间存在巨大的支付差异和大量重叠，尤其是在支付范围的低端。我们通过 CCA 的普遍较低、平均或较高的支付方向来解释支付变化，再加上女性宗教机构的薪酬偏低。机构虐待儿童的受害者和幸存者需要有关民事司法和赔偿计划索赔结果的信息，而不是大笔民事赔偿的警报声。我们与其他人一起呼吁所有相关参与者“展示”已解决索赔的数据。