Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[Fat Nick]

1.5 Million isn't even worth announcing. How much are they going to make from their bowl? How much did the football program make this year? This program raped children and they are going to give 10% or less of its yearly income. Nice.

It did? Is this a new story? So what do you propose? This is a STATE institution of higher learning. At some point, any punishment for the transgressions of the accountable employee(s) starts to affect those who had nothing to do with this, i.e. PSU players, students, faculty, PA tax payers.And regarding the Second Mile involvement, I think it's a stretch to just assume that any involvement with Second Mile means an involvement with all that has been brought to light here. I was a Second Mile volunteer several times when I was at PSU. I can tell you that there is good in that organization. It's not like everyone associated with it was an enabler. Further, State College is a very small town. It's not surprising to me that people on the board of one of the town's largest non-profits are also movers and shakers in the investment/development field. It's also not surprising that Paterno, one of the town's richest and most giving philanthropists, both donated money and was an investor in these developments. I think you'd find this trend in most places. Rich people know other rich people and do business with them.

 

[mad sweeney]

1.5 Million isn't even worth announcing. How much are they going to make from their bowl? How much did the football program make this year? This program raped children and they are going to give 10% or less of its yearly income. Nice.

It did? Is this a new story? So what do you propose? This is a STATE institution of higher learning. At some point, any punishment for the transgressions of the accountable employee(s) starts to affect those who had nothing to do with this, i.e. PSU players, students, faculty, PA tax payers.And regarding the Second Mile involvement, I think it's a stretch to just assume that any involvement with Second Mile means an involvement with all that has been brought to light here. I was a Second Mile volunteer several times when I was at PSU. I can tell you that there is good in that organization. It's not like everyone associated with it was an enabler. Further, State College is a very small town. It's not surprising to me that people on the board of one of the town's largest non-profits are also movers and shakers in the investment/development field. It's also not surprising that Paterno, one of the town's richest and most giving philanthropists, both donated money and was an investor in these developments. I think you'd find this trend in most places. Rich people know other rich people and do business with them.

That's almost completely irrelevant to determining PSU's culpability and punishment in this if it's found to be true that they covered up for Sandusky, Shulz et al.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Lots of cerebral gymnists in here.

 

[scoobygang]

I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.

He didn't have millions of dollars of business invested with Second Mile. He had millions of dollars of business invested in private projects along with other investors who happened to be on the Second Mile board. This is a very important distinction. The assets of Second Mile may have been in jeapardy from a civil suit, but not the assets of the investors who were on the Second Mile board. Absent some wacky business processes that no sophisticated investors would engage in, there would be no reason to "pierce the veil" and look to the board member's assets.

if the luxury retirement home deal was being struck in 2002, then this stuff coming to light certainly could have put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I don't see that as a very likely scenario. Or no more likely than any concerns about it hurting the image of his football program and getting him fired. You're essentially saying that his business prospects would change because of bad publicity. Well, no ****. Any pending investments are no different in that situation. But people who are already invested aren't going to take million dollar losses because of bad publicity, and it's unlikely that people are going to take the time to link the golf course to the board member to Second Mile to Sandusky. The association with PSU football is much more immediate. We can speculate until the cows come home about Paterno's motivations. But based on the record that I've seen, I think it's just as plausible that Paterno, however naively, did not believe that Sandusky molested children. He'll have to testify and we can evaluate his credibility based on that and the discovery process.

 

[Fat Nick]

1.5 Million isn't even worth announcing. How much are they going to make from their bowl? How much did the football program make this year? This program raped children and they are going to give 10% or less of its yearly income. Nice.

It did? Is this a new story? So what do you propose? This is a STATE institution of higher learning. At some point, any punishment for the transgressions of the accountable employee(s) starts to affect those who had nothing to do with this, i.e. PSU players, students, faculty, PA tax payers.And regarding the Second Mile involvement, I think it's a stretch to just assume that any involvement with Second Mile means an involvement with all that has been brought to light here. I was a Second Mile volunteer several times when I was at PSU. I can tell you that there is good in that organization. It's not like everyone associated with it was an enabler. Further, State College is a very small town. It's not surprising to me that people on the board of one of the town's largest non-profits are also movers and shakers in the investment/development field. It's also not surprising that Paterno, one of the town's richest and most giving philanthropists, both donated money and was an investor in these developments. I think you'd find this trend in most places. Rich people know other rich people and do business with them.

That's almost completely irrelevant to determining PSU's culpability and punishment in this if it's found to be true that they covered up for Sandusky, Shulz et al.

So where do you draw the line then? Because if you sue/punish those responsible for far more than they can ever afford to pay, and it's a state institution, the state ultimately pays, along with thousands of students who had nothing to do with this. I'm not saying that if this is all true that there should be no punishments, (there certainly should, criminally and monetarily) I'm just saying that shot-gunning punishments at anything and everything Penn State isn't really effective.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.

He didn't have millions of dollars of business invested with Second Mile. He had millions of dollars of business invested in private projects along with other investors who happened to be on the Second Mile board. This is a very important distinction. The assets of Second Mile may have been in jeapardy from a civil suit, but not the assets of the investors who were on the Second Mile board. Absent some wacky business processes that no sophisticated investors would engage in, there would be no reason to "pierce the veil" and look to the board member's assets.

if the luxury retirement home deal was being struck in 2002, then this stuff coming to light certainly could have put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I don't see that as a very likely scenario. Or no more likely than any concerns about it hurting the image of his football program and getting him fired. You're essentially saying that his business prospects would change because of bad publicity. Well, no ****. Any pending investments are no different in that situation. But people who are already invested aren't going to take million dollar losses because of bad publicity, and it's unlikely that people are going to take the time to link the golf course to the board member to Second Mile to Sandusky. The association with PSU football is much more immediate. We can speculate until the cows come home about Paterno's motivations. But based on the record that I've seen, I think it's just as plausible that Paterno, however naively, did not believe that Sandusky molested children. He'll have to testify and we can evaluate his credibility based on that and the discovery process.

We don't wait for the facts in this thread.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LMAO. Better be careful Scooby.

 

[mad sweeney]

1.5 Million isn't even worth announcing. How much are they going to make from their bowl? How much did the football program make this year? This program raped children and they are going to give 10% or less of its yearly income. Nice.

It did? Is this a new story? So what do you propose? This is a STATE institution of higher learning. At some point, any punishment for the transgressions of the accountable employee(s) starts to affect those who had nothing to do with this, i.e. PSU players, students, faculty, PA tax payers.And regarding the Second Mile involvement, I think it's a stretch to just assume that any involvement with Second Mile means an involvement with all that has been brought to light here. I was a Second Mile volunteer several times when I was at PSU. I can tell you that there is good in that organization. It's not like everyone associated with it was an enabler. Further, State College is a very small town. It's not surprising to me that people on the board of one of the town's largest non-profits are also movers and shakers in the investment/development field. It's also not surprising that Paterno, one of the town's richest and most giving philanthropists, both donated money and was an investor in these developments. I think you'd find this trend in most places. Rich people know other rich people and do business with them.

That's almost completely irrelevant to determining PSU's culpability and punishment in this if it's found to be true that they covered up for Sandusky, Shulz et al.

So where do you draw the line then? Because if you sue/punish those responsible for far more than they can ever afford to pay, and it's a state institution, the state ultimately pays, along with thousands of students who had nothing to do with this. I'm not saying that if this is all true that there should be no punishments, (there certainly should, criminally and monetarily) I'm just saying that shot-gunning punishments at anything and everything Penn State isn't really effective.

Thankfully I am not a lawyer so I can afford to see things prejudiced to my worldview. Nor can I answer "Where's the line?". But the effect criminal and civil proceedings have on the taxpayers and students etc shouldn't come into question in order to mitigate any damages. If PSU falls, well, then it falls. It still comes down to the people that a) molested X number of boys and b) the people that swept it under the rug and enabled it to continue at the same institution. I mentioned before that the students and athletes (especially FB players) are also victims of this, in of course an entirely different but still traumatic manner. And I feel very, very bad for them (you can go back earlier in the thread and see that), but I don't think it should matter one little iota about the punishments meted out for this. Shouldn't even come up.

 

[scoobygang]

In most states, a state college like PSU would not face liability due to sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania is apparently different, putting PSU is a somewhat unique position.

 

[Fat Nick]

In most states, a state college like PSU would not face liability due to sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania is apparently different, putting PSU is a somewhat unique position.

Interesting...can you elaborate?mad sweeney, On some levels, I see your point. I guess my view on a parallel can be described as if to say, "If you're going to punish those involved with the death penalty, use lethal injection and kill them. Why would you drop an atom bomb on them?" It achieves the same result without killing the innocent. I agree it shouldn't serve as a shield for the guilty, but I feel like any punishment beyond ALL the guilty's time and ALL the guilty's assets is an offense in and of itself.

 

[mad sweeney]

In most states, a state college like PSU would not face liability due to sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania is apparently different, putting PSU is a somewhat unique position.

Interesting...can you elaborate?mad sweeney, On some levels, I see your point. I guess my view on a parallel can be described as if to say, "If you're going to punish those involved with the death penalty, use lethal injection and kill them. Why would you drop an atom bomb on them?" It achieves the same result without killing the innocent. I agree it shouldn't serve as a shield for the guilty, but I feel like any punishment beyond ALL the guilty's time and ALL the guilty's assets is an offense in and of itself.

If the scandal reaches as high as it seems is possible, then PSU itself (by the actions of those highly placed in it's system) is squarely in the sights of the needle.

 

[Doug B]

If PSU falls, well, then it falls.

Cannot happen. The closest thing to this that could conceivably happen is that the state decides to rename the unviersity and shakes up some management & oversight bureaucracy or something. But I am certain the state of Pennsylvania will continue to offer higher education to its citizens. And I'm about as certain that they will consider to do so under the name and organization of the existing Pensylvania State University.As bad as these crimes and cover-ups are, there are conceivable punishments that are absurd to countenance. Extreme -- and frankly stupid -- example: the families (including unborn descendents) of the vicitms are entitled to the earnings of Sandusky's/Paterno's/etc. family (including unborn descendents) into perpetuity. For example, Sandusky's great-great-great-great-grandchildren will still be effectively indentured to Victim 8's great-great-great-grandchildren in, say, the year 2250.If we can all agree (I hope) that this extreme case is wrong, we can work backwards and arrive at a harsh, but reasonable level of both civil and criminal punishment. I offer the extreme example only to make the point that ANYTHING can be take too far.

 

[scoobygang]

In most states, a state college like PSU would not face liability due to sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania is apparently different, putting PSU is a somewhat unique position.

Interesting...can you elaborate?

Sure. Under common law, all rights to sue are derived from the sovereign. So in order to sue the sovereign (or the government) the state has to explicitly grant you that right. Most states have some statute specifying narrow categories of circumstances in which you can sue the state. State universities are arms of the state. How this normally plays out is that you can sue individuals working for the state so long as the tort is a result of their ministerial duties and not their official duties. For instance, you could sue a coach for not reporting something, but not sue the president for not implementing a stronger anti-sexual assualt policy. But the univesity, as an arm of the state, would be immune.I'm not a Penn. lawyer, but in the press coverage of the case, several prominent Penn. lawyers have stated that the Penn. tort law exempts the college from the sovereign immunity coverage. This is unusual, but it is something that I have to assume that PSU's risk management officer and its insurer were aware of. Which means PSU probably has a larger policy than comparable schools and pays larger premiums.

 

[Doug B]

If the scandal reaches as high as it seems is possible, then PSU itself (by the actions of those highly placed in it's system) is squarely in the sights of the needle.

Let's say instead of Penn State, all of this took place within Congress, with a Congressman taking kids to shower facilities at a federally-funded health club for Federal staff. Other Congressman, Secret Service, etc., saw & heard things, but did nothing.So ... would you then say "the entire United States government is in the sights of the needle"? And if you would say that, what would it mean to somehow sanction the entire federal government?Accordingly, Penn State -- and going up the chain, the state of Pennsylvania -- are really not the kind of entities you can really punish. You can get specific people jailed, of course. And there can certainly be some level of damages to pay. But don't get to thinking the damages won't be capped at some level just because the crime is so heinous.. The state is not going to drain its treasury to pay damages, and no judge will make them do so.

 

[scoobygang]

My sense is that PSU's liability is further limited to those who were abused at its facilities. Not all who were abused. There's a conceivable argument that the reporting official's duty extended to all possible future victims of abuse from Sandusky, but that seems to me to be a pretty broad expansion of the legal concept of duty.

EDIT: It also appears that Penn. recently passed the "Fair Share Act" which changes joint liability rules in the State. Essentially, in a case like this one, where there are likely to be multiple defendants, you can only go after the full share of damages from any one defendant if that defendant is more than 60% at fault. That seems highly unlikely to apply to PSU in this case, where any theory of liability would have to place the majority of fault on Sandusky. This means that PSU can only be held liable for their own percentage of the fault. So even if we're talking about massive damages (Penn does not have caps on non-economic damages but caps punitive damages at twice actual damages), I'd be surprised if PSU were on the hook for more than 1/3 of it.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Here is a multi-million dollar smoking gun for why Paterno would not want to expose Sandusky back in 2002...

link

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno had close business ties with board members of The Second Mile, the charity founded by alleged child molester and former Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the online publication The Daily reported.

Paterno and three fellow investors, including longtime Second Mile board chairman Robert Poole, secured financing to build a $125 million luxury retirement community around 2002, according to public records, The Daily reported Monday.

Paterno was partnered with that team of investors in developing a golf resort and nearby restaurant and inn, The Daily reported. Paterno also partnered with other current and former Second Mile board members on a bottled water company, a coaching website and a chain of convenience stores, according to the report.

Sandusky is charged with abusing eight boys over a 15-year span in a scandal that has enveloped the school and tarnished the reputation of its football program. He has maintained he never sexually abused children.

A lottery has been established for public seating for Sandusky's next court hearing on the charges.

The Centre County Court of Common Pleas said Monday that applications for seating at the Dec. 13 preliminary hearing would be accepted for 24 hours on the county's webpage starting Wednesday at noon ET. A random drawing will then be held to assign seats. Those who get seats will be notified on Friday.

A court statement said space was limited for the hearing but did not specify how much public seating was available.

Maybe the military can just nike State Colleg Pa and turn it into glass

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm just saying that Paterno might have withheld information or coerced others to downplay the accusations because he had millions of dollars invested in business with the Second Mile.

If the child molestation stuff had surfaced back in 2002, I presume that Paterno stood to lose millions.

He didn't have millions of dollars of business invested with Second Mile. He had millions of dollars of business invested in private projects along with other investors who happened to be on the Second Mile board. This is a very important distinction. The assets of Second Mile may have been in jeapardy from a civil suit, but not the assets of the investors who were on the Second Mile board. Absent some wacky business processes that no sophisticated investors would engage in, there would be no reason to "pierce the veil" and look to the board member's assets.

if the luxury retirement home deal was being struck in 2002, then this stuff coming to light certainly could have put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I don't see that as a very likely scenario. Or no more likely than any concerns about it hurting the image of his football program and getting him fired. You're essentially saying that his business prospects would change because of bad publicity. Well, no ****. Any pending investments are no different in that situation. But people who are already invested aren't going to take million dollar losses because of bad publicity, and it's unlikely that people are going to take the time to link the golf course to the board member to Second Mile to Sandusky. The association with PSU football is much more immediate. We can speculate until the cows come home about Paterno's motivations. But based on the record that I've seen, I think it's just as plausible that Paterno, however naively, did not believe that Sandusky molested children. He'll have to testify and we can evaluate his credibility based on that and the discovery process.

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:Coach K on Paterno

 

[mad sweeney]

If the scandal reaches as high as it seems is possible, then PSU itself (by the actions of those highly placed in it's system) is squarely in the sights of the needle.

Let's say instead of Penn State, all of this took place within Congress, with a Congressman taking kids to shower facilities at a federally-funded health club for Federal staff. Other Congressman, Secret Service, etc., saw & heard things, but did nothing.So ... would you then say "the entire United States government is in the sights of the needle"? And if you would say that, what would it mean to somehow sanction the entire federal government?Accordingly, Penn State -- and going up the chain, the state of Pennsylvania -- are really not the kind of entities you can really punish. You can get specific people jailed, of course. And there can certainly be some level of damages to pay. But don't get to thinking the damages won't be capped at some level just because the crime is so heinous.. The state is not going to drain its treasury to pay damages, and no judge will make them do so.

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. PSU as an institution failed the victims in the persons of the administrators that are currently in deep ####. Comparing US gov't activity to it is unrelaiable and best.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

 

[ODoyleRules]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

I would guess that (K believes) that JoePA came from an era when you looked for your friends above all and would have been more inclined to believe Sandusky if Sandusky so much as hinted that he was innocent. Plus, the dude is old and probably didn't appreciate the gravity of the charges (despite how admonishable that seems now). Doesn't let him off the hook, but I personally am less surprised by JoePa's reaction given that he's 80-something and not 50.

 

[Doug B]

PSU as an institution failed the victims in the persons of the administrators that are currently in deep ####.

Understood, but Penn State is an extension of the state of Pensylvania. Penn State is a governmental entity.You can't really say that the crimes were so bad and the cover-up ran so high up the chain that the university should be totally closed down. That's closing down an entity that directly performs a governmental service -- higher education.

I guess one could argue that the Penn State events are so bad, the school should be shuttered and a new public university should be built elsewhere to replace the state university in College Station. I don't think that's a winning argument, though. Isn't punishing the people involved a lot more reasonable than closing up buildings and firing rank-and-file university staff?

...

mad sweeney, I guess I don't understand, from your POV, what exactly is the realistic punishment that results in Penn State -- as a brick-&-mortar institution --getting closed down. Can you describe a feasible chain of events that could conceivably lead Penn State to "fall", as you put it? I'm just not seeing it.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

 

[scoobygang]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

I would guess that (K believes) that JoePA came from an era when you looked for your friends above all and would have been more inclined to believe Sandusky if Sandusky so much as hinted that he was innocent. Plus, the dude is old and probably didn't appreciate the gravity of the charges (despite how admonishable that seems now). Doesn't let him off the hook, but I personally am less surprised by JoePa's reaction given that he's 80-something and not 50.

It's hard to parse K's comments. Knowing full well that we just don't know what Paterno knew or thought, I think there is at least a possibility that Paterno just naively believed Sandusky liked to "horse around" with kids. And that Paterno thought there was nothing sexual about it. That's incredibly naive, I understand. And it's hard to know because the Grand Jury presentment spends a ton of time trying to weigh McQueary's credibility against the administrators and absolutely NO time trying to determine whether McQueary told Paterno he saw a boy getting raped (McQ's statement) or whether McQ told Paterno he saw Sandusky "horsing around" with the boy in the shower (Paterno's statement).Neither reflects well on Paterno. He was either a criminal conspirator or so hopelessly out of touch with reality that he shouldn't be employed in a position of (at least some) public trust. But there is a difference.

 

[Doug B]

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. PSU as an institution failed the victims in the persons of the administrators that are currently in deep ####. Comparing US gov't activity to it is unrelaiable and best.

Right, right ... the people involved are being punished. Why go further, and go after the college itself?

 

[mad sweeney]

PSU as an institution failed the victims in the persons of the administrators that are currently in deep ####.

Understood, but Penn State is an extension of the state of Pensylvania. Penn State is a governmental entity.You can't really say that the crimes were so bad and the cover-up ran so high up the chain that the university should be totally closed down. That's closing down an entity that directly performs a governmental service -- higher education.

I guess one could argue that the Penn State events are so bad, the school should be shuttered and a new public university should be built elsewhere to replace the state university in College Station. I don't think that's a winning argument, though. Isn't punishing the people involved a lot more reasonable than closing up buildings and firing rank-and-file university staff?

...

mad sweeney, I guess I don't understand, from your POV, what exactly is the realistic punishment that results in Penn State -- as a brick-&-mortar institution --getting closed down. Can you describe a feasible chain of events that could conceivably lead Penn State to "fall", as you put it? I'm just not seeing it.

I don't know what the reasonable punishment is, we don't know yet what PSU as an entity is culpable in yet. However, if the punishment is deemd to be X, where X=a sum too high for PSU to continue operating, then X shouldn't be refused simply because of that. I'm not saying that shutting it down or dissolving it is the answer. I'm just saying the fact that Y number of students/admins or whoever depend on PSU, that shouldn't be a factor in determining their financial or legal obligations to the sex victims. If the damage is deemed to be too high for PSU to continue... so be it.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. PSU as an institution failed the victims in the persons of the administrators that are currently in deep ####. Comparing US gov't activity to it is unrelaiable and best.

Right, right ... the people involved are being punished. Why go further, and go after the college itself?

The people who are being punished are the ones who were "in charge" of conducting business as PSU. If, and only if, they abused their power as PSU to allow things like this to occur and continue, then the damage shouldn't be capped at what the school president has in his bank account. If he acted as a rep of the school, in the interest of the school and that rep/interest allowed the behavior to continue, then it's a systemic issue that the whole school is responsible for.

 

[scoobygang]

PSU is potentially facing extensive tort liability. They are not facing anything approaching a level of liability that would "shut the university down." Each victim is going to have to establish actual damages. Those damages may very well be extensive, but they are not unlimited. Punitive damages are capped. To date, we have under 20 victims and PSU is likely not implicated in all of them. As opposed to the Catholic Dioscese cases where there were hundreds of victims, we have only one accused perpetrator. It would be very, very unlikely to see more 40 victims. Even assuming 7 figure settlements for each victim, the University would go on.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

I would guess that (K believes) that JoePA came from an era when you looked for your friends above all and would have been more inclined to believe Sandusky if Sandusky so much as hinted that he was innocent. Plus, the dude is old and probably didn't appreciate the gravity of the charges (despite how admonishable that seems now). Doesn't let him off the hook, but I personally am less surprised by JoePa's reaction given that he's 80-something and not 50.

Yeah, this was how my Dad took it as well. It was something he couldn't even fanthom, as he wasn't really exposed in all likely hood to molestation or homosexuality in his younger years because it wasn't talked among friends, much less on the media or the internet or twitter or whatever. Really it was a whole different era, good and bad. Anyway, as you say, certainly does not excuse him and makes you wonder whether he should have been the head coach and had so much "power" with such a "behind the times" mindset. But I do think it's possible that he really didn't understand the gravity of it and he's not just lying about wishing he had done more or understood more.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

FWIW, we already had this conversation earlier in the thread but what I and I think most other PSU alums were always "smug" about was academics. The Academic Bowl results for this year are out: http://t.co/cddveBzg

So I guess I think that at least that part of the "Grand Experiment" turned out ok.

 

[CrossEyed]

FWIW, we already had this conversation earlier in the thread but what I and I think most other PSU alums were always "smug" about was academics. The Academic Bowl results for this year are out: http://t.co/cddveBzg

So I guess I think that at least that part of the "Grand Experiment" turned out ok.

Paterno definitely deserves credit for stressing academics all these years.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I don't know that this article ever even got posted here but I think it's interesting and mirrors something my father said about the incident:

Coach K on Paterno

I don't get it... One thing you have to understand is that coach Paterno is 84 years old," Krzyzewski said. "I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football wise and socially have been (through) immense changes. And how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different. Quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation."What is Coach K saying? That 40 years ago raping children in the shower would have been seen differently? And I didn't know that child molestation was a "social issue". I always thought it was a horrific crime.

I would guess that (K believes) that JoePA came from an era when you looked for your friends above all and would have been more inclined to believe Sandusky if Sandusky so much as hinted that he was innocent. Plus, the dude is old and probably didn't appreciate the gravity of the charges (despite how admonishable that seems now). Doesn't let him off the hook, but I personally am less surprised by JoePa's reaction given that he's 80-something and not 50.

Yeah, this was how my Dad took it as well. It was something he couldn't even fanthom, as he wasn't really exposed in all likely hood to molestation or homosexuality in his younger years because it wasn't talked among friends, much less on the media or the internet or twitter or whatever. Really it was a whole different era, good and bad. Anyway, as you say, certainly does not excuse him and makes you wonder whether he should have been the head coach and had so much "power" with such a "behind the times" mindset. But I do think it's possible that he really didn't understand the gravity of it and he's not just lying about wishing he had done more or understood more.

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.

We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

FWIW, we already had this conversation earlier in the thread but what I and I think most other PSU alums were always "smug" about was academics. The Academic Bowl results for this year are out: http://t.co/cddveBzg

So I guess I think that at least that part of the "Grand Experiment" turned out ok.

Paterno definitely deserves credit for stressing academics all these years.

I'm skeptical.This seems to be based on grades and graduation rates. An institition willing to look the other way at child abuse on its own campus probably isn't above faking a few grades....

 

[Fat Nick]

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing that "times have changed" plays a valid role, but I would argue that while the gravity of child molestation hasn't changed, the handling of despicable crimes within tight social groups has. 40 years ago, it's not that people weren't homosexual. They just hid it. If you were a wife in the 60's who found out your husband was gay, you most likely stayed married and just put on a show. Happy life, happy marriage. The underlying reality was there, and real, but hidden. I'd argue that this type of scandal was the same. It wasn't that someone viewed the act of molestation as any less wrong, they just looked at the damage that bringing it up would do to the "group" as far worse than anything else. Hence it was internalized. I understand homosexuality and child molestation aren't perfect parallels, but I think the point is that it used to be that things that were so morally wrong and awful were just not spoken about, and not necessarily brought into the light and dealt with like they are now.

 

[Fat Nick]

FWIW, we already had this conversation earlier in the thread but what I and I think most other PSU alums were always "smug" about was academics. The Academic Bowl results for this year are out: http://t.co/cddveBzg

So I guess I think that at least that part of the "Grand Experiment" turned out ok.

Paterno definitely deserves credit for stressing academics all these years.

I'm skeptical.This seems to be based on grades and graduation rates. An institition willing to look the other way at child abuse on its own campus probably isn't above faking a few grades....

I TA'ed a required undergrad business class when I was in graduate school. We never got any pressure from anyone to pass anyone. I did all the grading for the class. There were certain players who didn't do well...and one in particular who we failed. Every student athlete (football or otherwise) had a bi-monthly status update that was filled out by us and sent to the Student Athlete department. At some threshold, they were required to get a certain number of hours of tutoring if they were doing badly. I have no basis to compare if this is normal or not, and this was just my one class, but I never saw any of that in my time there.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing that "times have changed" plays a valid role, but I would argue that while the gravity of child molestation hasn't changed, the handling of despicable crimes within tight social groups has. 40 years ago, it's not that people weren't homosexual. They just hid it. If you were a wife in the 60's who found out your husband was gay, you most likely stayed married and just put on a show. Happy life, happy marriage. The underlying reality was there, and real, but hidden. I'd argue that this type of scandal was the same. It wasn't that someone viewed the act of molestation as any less wrong, they just looked at the damage that bringing it up would do to the "group" as far worse than anything else. Hence it was internalized. I understand homosexuality and child molestation aren't perfect parallels, but I think the point is that it used to be that things that were so morally wrong and awful were just not spoken about, and not necessarily brought into the light and dealt with like they are now.

Yeah, still don't buy it.

 

[E-Z Glider]

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing that "times have changed" plays a valid role, but I would argue that while the gravity of child molestation hasn't changed, the handling of despicable crimes within tight social groups has. 40 years ago, it's not that people weren't homosexual. They just hid it. If you were a wife in the 60's who found out your husband was gay, you most likely stayed married and just put on a show. Happy life, happy marriage. The underlying reality was there, and real, but hidden. I'd argue that this type of scandal was the same. It wasn't that someone viewed the act of molestation as any less wrong, they just looked at the damage that bringing it up would do to the "group" as far worse than anything else. Hence it was internalized. I understand homosexuality and child molestation aren't perfect parallels, but I think the point is that it used to be that things that were so morally wrong and awful were just not spoken about, and not necessarily brought into the light and dealt with like they are now.

Given what we know about victims going on to repeat the crimes, its also pretty safe to say that child molestation is much more prevalent today than it was back in 1950. His coaching career has pretty much spanned 3 generations of victims at this point.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.

The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.

We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing that "times have changed" plays a valid role, but I would argue that while the gravity of child molestation hasn't changed, the handling of despicable crimes within tight social groups has. 40 years ago, it's not that people weren't homosexual. They just hid it. If you were a wife in the 60's who found out your husband was gay, you most likely stayed married and just put on a show. Happy life, happy marriage. The underlying reality was there, and real, but hidden. I'd argue that this type of scandal was the same. It wasn't that someone viewed the act of molestation as any less wrong, they just looked at the damage that bringing it up would do to the "group" as far worse than anything else. Hence it was internalized. I understand homosexuality and child molestation aren't perfect parallels, but I think the point is that it used to be that things that were so morally wrong and awful were just not spoken about, and not necessarily brought into the light and dealt with like they are now.

Given what we know about victims going on to repeat the crimes, its also pretty safe to say that child molestation is much more prevalent today than it was back in 1950. His coaching career has pretty much spanned 3 generations of victims at this point.

I'm not sure about this or how one would go about proving it. Unless you're simply talking about how there are more people in the world...

 

[Fat Nick]

I still don't get this. I think I'm just missing your point.

The "gravity" of child molestation hasn't changed in the last 50 years or whatever.

We're not talking about racism or sexism or alcohol abuse.

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing that "times have changed" plays a valid role, but I would argue that while the gravity of child molestation hasn't changed, the handling of despicable crimes within tight social groups has. 40 years ago, it's not that people weren't homosexual. They just hid it. If you were a wife in the 60's who found out your husband was gay, you most likely stayed married and just put on a show. Happy life, happy marriage. The underlying reality was there, and real, but hidden. I'd argue that this type of scandal was the same. It wasn't that someone viewed the act of molestation as any less wrong, they just looked at the damage that bringing it up would do to the "group" as far worse than anything else. Hence it was internalized. I understand homosexuality and child molestation aren't perfect parallels, but I think the point is that it used to be that things that were so morally wrong and awful were just not spoken about, and not necessarily brought into the light and dealt with like they are now.

Given what we know about victims going on to repeat the crimes, its also pretty safe to say that child molestation is much more prevalent today than it was back in 1950. His coaching career has pretty much spanned 3 generations of victims at this point.

I'm not sure about this or how one would go about proving it. Unless you're simply talking about how there are more people in the world...

Yeah. I think there's a BIG question regarding if it is more prevalent, or just that cases are brought public more (which would confirm my suspicion above). I think if you walked into a room of 10,000 people today and in 1960 and asked both rooms, "Who here has ever been molested?" (Or who here is homosexual, or who here is an addict, etc) You'd get a lot more hands raised now than then...but I also think you'd get a lot of people who WERE molested abstaining from raising their hands in 1960. Shameful acts are dealt with differently now vs. then.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Apparently sandusky taken from his house in handcuffs.

 

[CrossEyed]

Apparently sandusky taken from his house in handcuffs.

Additional charges have been filed. I'm guessing bail may be set significantly higher this time.

 

[Jobber]

Apparently sandusky taken from his house in handcuffs.

CNN says he's been arrested on "...new child sex charges". No details though.

 

[CrossEyed]

New Grand Jury Report.

 

[Joe Summer]

New Grand Jury Report.

Victim 9 testified that during his second summer attending Second Mile camps [2005], he met Sandusky.

Subsequently, Sandusky took Victim 9 to numerous Penn State University football games.

 

[Doug B]

Procedurally: does the state have the option to combine everything into a single trial? Or is Sandusky now at two separate criminal trials and counting?

 

[beer 30]

New Grand Jury Report.

Just read it, they oughta hang his wife too. 10 year old screaming in the basement for help while you're upstairs, cya in hell babs.

 

[Sammy3469]

New Grand Jury Report.

Just read it, they oughta hang his wife too. 10 year old screaming in the basement for help while you're upstairs, cya in hell babs.

 

[Leviathan]

Bail set at $250K and he must wear an ankle bracelet. 250 isn't high enough, imo.

 

[Parrothead]

New Grand Jury Report.

Just read it, they oughta hang his wife too. 10 year old screaming in the basement for help while you're upstairs, cya in hell babs.

yeah, that was a very disturbing read.. that basement was a torture chamber

 

[CrossEyed]

Bail set at $250K and he must wear an ankle bracelet. 250 isn't high enough, imo.

Straight bail though (if that's the right term). He has to come up with all $250k to get out.

 

[CrossEyed]

New Grand Jury Report.

Just read it, they oughta hang his wife too. 10 year old screaming in the basement for help while you're upstairs, cya in hell babs.

yeah, that was a very disturbing read.. that basement was a torture chamber

Mrs. Sandusky just happened to never go down there...what a coincidence...not that she could have ever known anything odd was going on in her own home for several decades.