places:
The literature refers to the healing process as clinical benefit. And your suggestion is not supported by the research. Perhaps you would like to believe that the healing is quicker and better, but science says it ain’t so. There are good reasons to lock up a perpetrator. But it is not for the victims, as much as they may relish in the perpetrator’s misery. It is to protect the public. This matter was the focus of the studies, and your hypothesis was not supported. Your logic is okay, but the facts are not that way.
ZD:
You wrote: “It definatly is a greater danger that people are more concerned about Yeshivas who committed offenses should be more worried about being sued than the crime they committed”
You are not thinking straight about this. I believe that everyone is concerned about the commission of an offense. You seem to suggest that the yeshivos are evil houses of abuse. Now, I am one who has a record of throwing the book at chinuch for a lot. And I am directly familiar with some who turned away from abuse, covered it up, and allowed faculty with problems to continue at their jobs. These yeshivos disgust me. I have yet to meet a yeshiva that has a destructive policy. Their policies are generally good, and some are better. There may be individuals who do not follow them, and they expose kids to danger. And we can talk of menahalim, rebbeiim, teachers, and other employees who misbehave, crossing lines of abuse of various kinds. These individuals are personally liable. Go sue them. The yeshiva does not officially condone abuse, and if one alleges they do, prove that in court.
I suggest that the liability, if it is true and exists, is on the individuals. The bloodthirsty and greedy attitude here will not heal anyone, nor will it deter anyone. Show me support for such attitudes anywhere in the Torah.