Paterno and Spanier both fired!

[CamrnCrz1974]

That statement by the grand jury is quite different than this:

"No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus."

In a courtroom I imagine your statement might be leading the witness. You specifically state McQueary in your response when it is quite clear the GJ is talking about Schultz. You add the eye contact part, which was not in the GJ report nor was the conjecture at the end. I happen to agree the conjecture has merit. But I don't agree with your choice of twisting my writing to serve your agenda. You chose only a small part of a larger post I wrote, the part, in its isolated presentation by you, had quite a different meaning than when presented in it's entirety.

I do not believe that these statements would be made on direct or cross-examination. This (the red excerpt from another poster) is typical of what might be said in opening or closing arguments.

I believe we agree that the acts of Sandusky were horrific. I believe we agree that there were failures by many individuals and institutions from stopping Sandusky, and that there were many opportunities that could have stopped and tragically none were acted upon.

Good people do bad things. Bad people do good things. Lots of people make bad choices. I prefer to condemn acts and not people. The converse is true as well. I prefer pointing out positives people do rather than making them into icons or idols.

Here is a question for you and the rest of the board. Do certain acts have such a stigma or is there certain conduct that is so horrifying that it becaomes impossible to separate "the act" from "the individual?"

I cringe every time I watch a group of people work themselves into a frenzy over their anger. That type of process frequently leads to it's own set of horrific consequences.

This is true. Too often, anger leads to violence or additional criminal acts, instead of it manifesting itself in other ways (such as starting a foundation to help victims, etc.). Anger (and extreme anger) usually manifests itself in visceral, emotional reactions, not necessarily productive ones.

I know it is hard to find pity with the people who have been a part of these horrific acts. I don't blame people for not wanting to. But it is my standard, my moral compass. Any criminal activity has to be punished. The law has to be followed. But if we can't find mercy in administering justice, we have become our own victims.

I think this is the question people have for McQueary, Paterno, the university police, the DA in 1998, etc. Were the laws (and procedures) followed then (1998, 2000, 2002, etc.). The law enforcement/justice system allegedly failed several individuals over the years.

 

[Kait14]

True. We have not heard "the other side". And from reports I have heard, Sandusky is saying he is innocent and none of these things happened.

He is innocent right now......until proven guilty.

Except for the fact that he admitted it to the mother of one of the victims while the cops were in the other room listening in (I believe, not positive, can't remember off the top of my head) either 98 or 2002

 

[ctchamps]

I do not believe that these statements would be made on direct or cross-examination. This (the red excerpt from another poster) is typical of what might be said in opening or closing arguments.

Here is a question for you and the rest of the board. Do certain acts have such a stigma or is there certain conduct that is so horrifying that it becaomes impossible to separate "the act" from "the individual?"

That's a good question. I would say the answer will be different for different people. It would even vary for the same person, depending on how personal the act is. Take a less horrific act as an example. Take Pat's claim against Geno. UConn fans were appalled. I doubt fans of most Division II schools paid anything more than minimal attention. KY fans had the opposite reaction and Duke fans were hoping for a spillover affect. When it was announced she was developing Alzheimer's most of the animosity went away. Horrific acts work the same way except we are more likely to minimize or eliminate the good a person has done because we are so focused on the act. The more horrific the act the less likely people are willing to examine the entire person. The person and the act become synonymous. I try to resist this. It's hard sometimes.

This is true. Too often, anger leads to violence or additional criminal acts, instead of it manifesting itself in other ways (such as starting a foundation to help victims, etc.). Anger (and extreme anger) usually manifests itself in visceral, emotional reactions, not necessarily productive ones.

I think this is the question people have for McQueary, Paterno, the university police, the DA in 1998, etc. Were the laws (and procedures) followed then (1998, 2000, 2002, etc.). The law enforcement/justice system allegedly failed several individuals over the years.
I had the same reaction. Why did this fail? I've had discussions in other situations where I tried to get people engaged in examining the failings of institutions before the failings took place. They were obvious to me but not to others. It's disheartening when you know the inevitable will happen and there is nothing you can do about it or you're aware of a major problem that most people can't see for one reason or another. As an example do a google search about Joseph Kony. Sandusky has done minimal damage to children and peoples lives compared to this individual who is still at large.

Almost everyone has joined in giving sympathy for the children. And rightfully so. There is no need for me or anyone else to encourage people to do this. It's a different story for the perpetrators. I recognize that my attempt to find sympathy for the perpetrators is premature for most people. And some will never be able to forgive them. I've mentioned this to Cat in another post and explained why I got involved ahead of time.

I don't have a conflict with extending sympathy for an individual even as I can't forgive the act. This has taken a long time for me to accomplish. I still struggle with it at times. I have reflected long and hard about a lot of things, including the biological and environmental influences that make a person who they are. My search was for spiritual reasons. My conclusion has led me to recognize that a lot of the philosophies presented thousands of years ago have merit even if they lacked the details which provided proof.

 

[Icebear]

Except for the fact that he admitted it to the mother of one of the victims while the cops were in the other room listening in (I believe, not positive, can't remember off the top of my head) either 98 or 2002

It was 1998, Kait, when the very first mother filed a complaint. It was the one when DA Gricar decided to not prosecute. The least that should have happened was that charges should have been filed even if later dropped. Doing that would have served the community warning.

 

[Aluminny69]

Here's the question I would like to know the answer to, re 1998. How was the decision arrived at to remove Sandusky from the coaching staff via retirement at age 55, yet give him full access to the campus and facilities via Professor Emiritus status? Who discussed this settlement, and what were the factors that influenced this decision? To me, this is the key to the entire case. We will probably never really know, since it must have been a very private meeting, and the attendees probably don't want to incriminate themselves. But if one attendee could crack, perhaps with an offer of immunity, the truth might come out. I'm not holding my breath, though.

IOW, how could they decide to fire the guy, yet keep him on campus? ( Sandusky was still recruiting as late as this year.) Doesn't make much sense.

Just a guess, but I have a feeling the missing D.A. Gricar was an attendee.

 

[Icebear]

Here's the question I would like to know the answer to, re 1998. How was the decision arrived at to remove Sandusky from the coaching staff via retirement at age 55, yet give him full access to the campus and facilities via Professor Emiritus status? Who discussed this settlement, and what were the factors that influenced this decision? To me, this is the key to the entire case. We will probably never really know, since it must have been a very private meeting, and the attendees probably don't want to incriminate themselves. But if one attendee could crack, perhaps with an offer of immunity, the truth might come out. I'm not holding my breath, though.

IOW, how could they decide to fire the guy, yet keep him on campus? ( Sandusky was still recruiting as late as this year.) Doesn't make much sense.

Just a guess, but I have a feeling the missing D.A. Gricar was an attendee.

Reports were at the time that Joe forced Jerry to make a decision between Penn State and the Second Mile because he felt The Second Mile had become a distraction to Sandusky. Who knows how that fits.

 

[Aluminny69]

Reports were at the time that Joe forced Jerry to make a decision between Penn State and the Second Mile because he felt The Second Mile had become a distraction to Sandusky. Who knows how that fits.

That would imply that the 1998 incident and investigation had nothing to do with the decision. That might be an "official" version, but it's really hard to believe. Sandusky started the charity in 1977, so, for 21 years coaching and second mile were not a problem for Paterno. All of a sudden, it was a problem? Smells fishy to me.

 

[speedoo]

That would imply that the 1998 incident and investigation had nothing to do with the decision. That might be an "official" version, but it's really hard to believe. Sandusky started the charity in 1977, so, for 21 years coaching and second mile were not a problem for Paterno. All of a sudden, it was a problem? Smells fishy to me.

Fishy?

More like ludicrous.

 

[Icebear]

That would imply that the 1998 incident and investigation had nothing to do with the decision. That might be an "official" version, but it's really hard to believe. Sandusky started the charity in 1977, so, for 21 years coaching and second mile were not a problem for Paterno. All of a sudden, it was a problem? Smells fishy to me.

I understand and I don't necessarily disagree. Just sharing what had been said at the time.

I do remember there being some changes in the Second Mile program at the time involving expansion of the program maybe the mid 90s. In 1975 Second Mile helped a couple dozen or so kids in centre County, today 100,000 kids in every county in PA are involved annually across the state including centers in Camp Hill/Harrisburg and King of Prussia/Philly.

 

[Icebear]

A really interesting interview with John Ritchie who knew Sandusky for a long time beginning at 14 when he was being recruited by PSU. LINK

 

[Icebear]

An article on PA reporting law by a parishioners brother who just graduated from Harvard Law this past year.

LINK

"Under Pennsylvania law, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6311 creates a duty to report suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse. That law, however, applies only to people who come into contact with children in the course of employment, and it applies only to children under the care or supervision of the organization with which that person is affiliated. When staff members at an institution have a legal duty to report under the statute, they fully discharge that duty upon notifying the person in charge of the institution. At that point, the person in charge assumes the legal duty to report the suspected abuse to Child Protective Services."

 

[Aluminny69]

An article on PA reporting law by a parishioners brother who just graduated from Harvard Law this past year.

LINK

"None of this is to say that the absence of a legal duty to act aligns with the absence of a moral duty to act. "

 

[Icebear]

"None of this is to say that the absence of a legal duty to act aligns with the absence of a moral duty to act. "

Absolutely. What was followed does seem, however, to be exactly what the law defines and more since neither JoePA or McQueary may not, actually, be defined as mandated reporters under the law since none of their activities brought them into contact with juveniles as part of their work and they did report it to the head of the administration in Tim Curley and the Athletic Department.

Moral questions are always separate from legal questions. We have had both in play here.

 

[UConnCat]

Reports this morning of at least one of the victims hiring a lawyer for purposes of initiating a civil suit. More to come on this front.

A couple of other things to look for:

HuskyNan rightly posed the question on the Football board about Victim 4 who was taken across state lines to at least 2 bowl games (Outback in 1998 and Alamo in 1999) and whether doing so caused a violation of federal law. I responded that these activities if proven would violate the federal Mann Act, although there are more appropriate provisions than the one I cited based on some quick research. There are provisions that make it a federal crime (punishable by up to life in prison) to transport a minor across state lines for purposes of engaging in sexual abuse/assault. (provisions deal with aggravated sexual abuse, 18 USC 2241 ). There are petitions out there already urging the US Atty for the middle district in PA to initiate a federal investigation and get the FBI involved. The parts of the GJ report dealing with Victim 4 are unbelievably awful to read. BTW, it sounds like PSU paid for this boy to travel as part of Sandusky's "family party."

Also, the question posed was with respect to one of the victims in the GJ report. There may be other as yet unidentified victims who traveled with Sandusky across state lines to PSU road games. What is in the GJ report could be the tip of the iceberg. There are many reasons why it was important for Paterno to hire a criminal lawyer. I'm not saying he'll be charged with any crimes, but he may be part of more than one criminal investigation. It was an absolutely necessary step by him.

Also, I heard some lawyers who believe the US Dept of Justice may initiate a civil rights investigation of the university's handling of this matter. PSU of course receives federal money and is therefore required to comply with federal civil rights laws.

Again, what's going on now is just the beginning.

 

[UConnCat]

Irony alert...I wonder if anyone(PS people) noticed that Victim 4(aka young boy) was part of the "Traveling Party'?

Correction, he was listed as part of Sandusky's "family party" not traveling party. My mistake. He was listed with Sandusky's wife, btw. This is the young boy who also accompanied Sandusky to Toftrees, a local resort where the team stayed before home games, and was also a fixture at Sandusky's home. It sounds like the assaults happened in a variety of locations, including Sandusky's home and in the various hotels. Those pages of the report are especially difficult to read.

 

[UConnCat]

With all the talk of McQ and Paterno fulfilling their legal reporting responsibilities, I'm curious whether anyone believes either one actually knew a) what was required of them under the PA child protection services law, and b) that they had complied with the law. As a nurse in Penn I know the requirements of the law, but I highly doubt either McQ or Paterno knew what those are. Not a big deal, but it goes to the issue of motivation behind the actions they did take which were driven by self-interest rather than fulfilling the minimal requirements of the law.

 

[bobbygt]

I think it's impossible at this stage (although we may never know) to judge whether they were acting in their own self interest or whether they stopped and thought about the law or were given adice about the legal ramifications of theiraction/inaction.

 

[Icebear]

With all the talk of McQ and Paterno fulfilling their legal reporting responsibilities, I'm curious whether anyone believes either one actually knew a) what was required of them under the PA child protection services law, and b) that they had complied with the law. As a nurse in Penn I know the requirements of the law, but I highly doubt either McQ or Paterno knew what those are. Not a big deal, but it goes to the issue of motivation behind the actions they did take which were driven by self-interest rather than fulfilling the minimal requirements of the law.

Impossible to say, Cat. Both are certainly possibilities. My suggestion of compliance is only that they met the letter of the law which is very likely why they were not charged. Curley and Schultz, on the other hand clearly, did not comply given the evidence to date. All I can say is that teachers in the two school districts I spoke to yesterday know exactly what the law requires of them. I have no idea at all what type of training that PSU requires or provides to whom.

Presently, I am becoming more interested in how to prevent such institutional and personal neglect of all parties, legally and morally in the future. Two huge steps would be to follow Nebraska's law and to make all person mandated reporters to the State Police and local Children's Sevices. Second I would make it impossible for files to be expunged sooner than 3 years. Once expunged Sandusky would have passed any background checks performed by any school or organization. I have some other ideas but haven't fully formulated them yet. We cannot change what has happened but can only pursue the most complete form of justice available under ALL State and Federal laws. We can, however, advocate for laws that make it as hard as possible for something like this to ever happen again.

 

[RedLight]

Being a mandated reporter does not supersede being a decent human being. All those who had a hand in covering up the abuse of children at PSU failed at being decent human beings. Whether they or their supporters want to continue with the "fulfilled the legal obligation" line is irrelevant

 

[UConnCat]

Impossible to say, Cat. Both are certainly possibilities. My suggestion of compliance is only that they met the letter of the law which is very likely why they were not charged. Curley and Schultz, on the other hand clearly, did not comply given the evidence to date. All I can say is that teachers in the two school districts I spoke to yesterday know exactly what the law requires of them. I have no idea at all what type of training that PSU requires or provides to whom.

Presently, I am becoming more interested in how to prevent such institutional and personal neglect of all parties, legally and morally in the future. Two huge steps would be to follow Nebraska's law and to make all person mandated reporters to the State Police and local Children's Sevices. Second I would make it impossible for files to be expunged sooner than 3 years. Once expunged Sandusky would have passed any background checks performed by any school or organization. I have some other ideas but haven't fully formulated them yet. We cannot change what has happened but can only pursue the most complete form of justice available under ALL State and Federal laws. We can, however, advocate for laws that make it as hard as possible for something like this to ever happen again.

Agree on all points. I'm sure legislation to change the PA law(s) covering all aspects of this issue has already been introduced in the HR and Senate or will be introduced this week (assuming the GA is in session in Harrisburg).

 

[Icebear]

Being a mandated reporter does not supersede being a decent human being. All those who had a hand in covering up the abuse of children at PSU failed at being decent human beings. Whether they or their supporters want to continue with the "fulfilled the legal obligation" line is irrelevant

That is still making huge assumptions Red Light.

I have avoided getting into the moral obligation area because it is a bog of possibilities. Moral choice does not exist in a void nor does society give clear definitions to moral actions.

As I noted long past in these threads moral action changes across time as social mores shift. As far back as Sextus Empiricus philosophers have denied the absolute nature of moral values as divinely given but as human institutions and creations. Ex. we would affirm today aspects of the Code of Hamurabbi and and the Law of Israel but would reject other aspects. This moral relativism is the broken into both individual relativism (as in Nietsche's superhuman) and cultural relativism approval of one's culture. Do you see where this is headed as a quagmire?

Kant defined moral action in virtue of its motives. It is a deontological argument that many here would find comforting. Since we know nothing of the motives except for guesses here and since neither JoePA nor McQueary have spoken of their motives we muddy the waters even further. And it can equally be argued that these two did their duty under the law against self-interest. Meeting Kant's definition of moral action.

Judging issues and behavior like this with moral certitude is tenuous at best without knowing much more than what we have at hand except as defined by the law and cultural choices codified in that law by a representative democracy.

Consider the kosher laws. Some Jews today still keep kosher and find it an important aspect of their relationship to the _ _ _ who gave them. Christians generally do not keep kosher law based on Peter's vision from God in the book of Acts. Still other Jews no longer keep kosher law, also, because they believe they no longer serve the purpose for which they were given. All three of these groups relate in some way to the same law and yet all come to different moral conclusions concerning the right use and implications of the kosher laws.

In the ancient world children were essentially property until they came of age. They had few rights and protections. Today we have vastly different views of children and their rights and protections but they are not absolute and they are fluid. Consider the child labor laws. Wading into discussions of moral rightness and wrongness while most generally the same among us because we live in the same culture are still not monolithic.

The entire exploration of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is about this very issue of the clash between law, ethic and morals. When we know nothing of the motivations and context of the various actors at PSU it is very hard for us to speak absolutely about their moral and immoral actions.

If you want to see how quickly moral action can descend into a chaos of opinions just look at the multitude of responses to the Occupy movement. There are individuals and social groups (political parties are social groups) who consider it moral and others see it immoral.

 

[intlzncster]

Correction, he was listed as part of Sandusky's "family party" not traveling party. My mistake. He was listed with Sandusky's wife, btw. This is the young boy who also accompanied Sandusky to Toftrees, a local resort where the team stayed before home games, and was also a fixture at Sandusky's home. It sounds like the assaults happened in a variety of locations, including Sandusky's home and in the various hotels. Those pages of the report are especially difficult to read.

Speaking of which, where was Sandusky's wife in all of this? I doubt she had no clue. What with the number of 'near misses' over the years, Sandusky's 'retirement', his propensity to cling physically to these boys at all times, etc., she had at minimum to suspect something. I'd be surprised if she didn't catch JS on occasion (we're talking 30+ years here). The family was awash in damaged young boys and Sandusky has shown himself to be less than discrete in these matters.

 

[UConnCat]

Speaking of which, where was Sandusky's wife in all of this? I doubt she had no clue. What with the number of 'near misses' over the years, Sandusky's 'retirement', his propensity to cling physically to these boys at all times, etc., she had at minimum to suspect something. I'd be surprised if she didn't catch JS on occasion (we're talking 30+ years here). The family was awash in damaged young boys.

Not to mention his visiting of the boys in the basement during the night. There have been at least a couple of pieces written about precisely the issues you raise. I suspect more will be written about her.

 

[intlzncster]

Not to mention his visiting of the boys in the basement during the night. There have been at least a couple of pieces written about precisely the issues you raise. I suspect more will be written about her.

I admittedly have not read everything about the issue, but is astounding as to the number of people involved on different levels, not all of whom were beholden to PSU. It's mind boggling, as you think situations of this nature like this would rise to the surface (publicly) immediately.

 

[BrooklynKid]

Not to mention his visiting of the boys in the basement during the night. There have been at least a couple of pieces written about precisely the issues you raise. I suspect more will be written about her.

How could she not know that he was being investigated by the police and DA in '98? This makes my stomach turn.