Penn State University "scandal"
Nov. 9th, 2011 06:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lionkingcmslI will weigh in with my opinions on the matter.
A disclaimer: I am not affiliated with PSU or the Paterno family in any way.
First things first. In our system of judicial law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and not the court of public opinion or mass media.
That being said, if those that have been charged. formally, with criminal misconduct are guilty of the charges brought against them then they will deserve what the court decides is a just and fair punishment. It is not for the general public, at large, to decide what a person's fate shall be.
In the case of those not charged, particularly Mr. Joesph Paterno, I feel they are being unfairly judged for something they did or did not do.
The public has vilified Mr. Paterno to the point you may think he was the one charged with the crime. We do not know what was said to him in that meeting with the grad student. Mr. Paterno, from what I can determine, is an upstanding man; who requires that his players wear suits and ties, when traveling, and demands them to comport themselves to the highest ideals. To think that he would knowingly not follow up on a serious charge of an ex-coach, friend or not, is hard to believe. Let me repeat that one point: Mr. Sandusky was an ex-coach at the time the charges were first brought to Mr. Paterno's attention. There was nothing Mr. Paterno could do other than follow the rules as laid down, which he did with out fail. If he did not follow those rules then he would be totally wrong.
Should he have done more? I can't say, as I don't know what was reported to him. It could've been nothing more than, "I saw (ex)Coach Sandusky have inappropriate contact with a boy." In fact Mr. Paterno has related he was not told of the seriousness of the matter, by the grad student. It was not Mr. Paterno's place to start an investigation, as Mr. Sandusky was not under him at the time. In my mind Mr. Paterno did what he was obligated to do and what he thought was the right thing to do.
It is always easy to sit back after the fact and say, "He should've ...." This is known as "Monday morning quaterbacking.
In closing I will note that a long time ago a very wise man once said to a crowd, who was about to stone a woman, "He that is with out sin cast the first stone." I have to say that to the people who are "Monday morning quaterbacking" Mr. Paterno's actions: if you never made an error or omission then you have a right to continue to vilify an innocent man, in the eyes of the law.
And that same man said, "Judge not, lest you be judged." It is amazing how many so-called Christians have forgotten that man's teaching or think they do not apply to today's world.
You may repost this as you see fit, as long as you credit me and link back to this post.
A disclaimer: I am not affiliated with PSU or the Paterno family in any way.
First things first. In our system of judicial law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and not the court of public opinion or mass media.
That being said, if those that have been charged. formally, with criminal misconduct are guilty of the charges brought against them then they will deserve what the court decides is a just and fair punishment. It is not for the general public, at large, to decide what a person's fate shall be.
In the case of those not charged, particularly Mr. Joesph Paterno, I feel they are being unfairly judged for something they did or did not do.
The public has vilified Mr. Paterno to the point you may think he was the one charged with the crime. We do not know what was said to him in that meeting with the grad student. Mr. Paterno, from what I can determine, is an upstanding man; who requires that his players wear suits and ties, when traveling, and demands them to comport themselves to the highest ideals. To think that he would knowingly not follow up on a serious charge of an ex-coach, friend or not, is hard to believe. Let me repeat that one point: Mr. Sandusky was an ex-coach at the time the charges were first brought to Mr. Paterno's attention. There was nothing Mr. Paterno could do other than follow the rules as laid down, which he did with out fail. If he did not follow those rules then he would be totally wrong.
Should he have done more? I can't say, as I don't know what was reported to him. It could've been nothing more than, "I saw (ex)Coach Sandusky have inappropriate contact with a boy." In fact Mr. Paterno has related he was not told of the seriousness of the matter, by the grad student. It was not Mr. Paterno's place to start an investigation, as Mr. Sandusky was not under him at the time. In my mind Mr. Paterno did what he was obligated to do and what he thought was the right thing to do.
It is always easy to sit back after the fact and say, "He should've ...." This is known as "Monday morning quaterbacking.
In closing I will note that a long time ago a very wise man once said to a crowd, who was about to stone a woman, "He that is with out sin cast the first stone." I have to say that to the people who are "Monday morning quaterbacking" Mr. Paterno's actions: if you never made an error or omission then you have a right to continue to vilify an innocent man, in the eyes of the law.
And that same man said, "Judge not, lest you be judged." It is amazing how many so-called Christians have forgotten that man's teaching or think they do not apply to today's world.
You may repost this as you see fit, as long as you credit me and link back to this post.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 03:31 pm (UTC)Sandusky "retired" from the unviersity for "undisclosed reasons", but was still given keys to the major buildings, personally, by Joe Paterno.
I'm sorry, but Paterno knew, the university knew, and the only reason Paterno isn't going up on charges himself is that the DA and the grand jury felt he met his legal obligations by reporting it to his boss. PA has a law requiring it to be brought to legal authorities, though, and if it were anyone BUT Joe Paterno, they'd have been brought up on charges too when the bosses didn't do stuff.
He's getting treated like no other person would in the role of someone who knew of instances of sexual assault on an 11 year old CHILD.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 08:14 pm (UTC)Knew what? You are assuming that the aforementioned people knew of Mr. Sandusky's personal affairs on an intimate level. This has never has never been proven.
PA has a law requiring it to be brought to legal authorities ....
As has been mentioned elsewhere, Mr. Curley was the defacto head of the PSU police department. So, in effect, Mr. Paterno did report it to legal authorities, though, granted, not through "normal" channels.
He's getting treated like no other person would in the role of someone who knew of instances of sexual assault on an 11 year old CHILD.
Again, you are assuming Mr. Paterno knew of Mr. Sandusky's personal conduct on a very intimate level. I know of someone who was sexually abused, yet those that were close to the abuser had no knowledge it was going on. A sexual predator/abuser can be very secretive and unless you were there when they abused someone you would never know. They don't go around advertising the fact and there may be no outward signs they are capable of such actions. To say so and so MUST have known person X was/is an abuser is totally wrong.
In addition
Date: 2011-11-09 09:15 pm (UTC)The term "undisclosed reasons" means Mr. Sandusky didn't tell PSU why he was retiring. He didn't have to, it was his personal business.
... , but was still given keys to the major buildings, personally, by Joe Paterno.
Which means exactly nothing. So Mr. Paterno gave him the keys to the buildings. There was no collusion there. Mr. Paterno probably felt that Mr. Sandusky was trustworthy and probably was under orders to do so.
PA has a law requiring it to be brought to legal authorities, though, and if it were anyone BUT Joe Paterno, they'd have been brought up on charges too when the bosses didn't do stuff.
I have to ask, what did you expect: Mr. Paterno to call his superiors every day to see if they were doing something? He fullfilled his obligations, in the eyes of the law, and if it was anyone else I feel the the results would be the same.
A question, if you see a crime and report it, do you follow up to see if the police are doing their job? Probably not. You probably feel that you did what was required and they are ding what is expected. The same scenario can be applied to Mr. Paterno. If not, the God help us, we wiil be able to be brought up on charges if the police don't do their jobs after we report a crime.
Re: In addition
Date: 2011-11-09 09:21 pm (UTC)It's coming out now that the DA spoke prematurely regarding not charging Joe Paterno, and an investigation is currently in process. So, we'll have to stay tuned.
As for reporting the crime, in PA if you have a belief that a minor has been sexually assaulted, you are required by law to report that to the police or to insure it is reported to the police. It's a tough one to prove, and it's thoughtcrime, of course.. but it IS on the books. JoePa is only not charged now because he's JoePa. An average person would have been indicted with the other two who had knowledge of the event.