Why no talk of death penalty for Penn State?

[nelsonmuntz]

No doubt the administrators blew it. But since the admionistrators blew it with regard to non-football incidents as well, and they reported Sandusky in 1998, I would enlarge the scope of concern. Note: I'm not talking about the football people since the football people were not in the 1998 report. But it was the same administrator, Schultz, in 1998 who reported Sandusky. I want to know what the President said to these people in 2001 that made the final decisions so different. It seems we're about to find out the answers.

This isn't the Nixon impeachment. Who knew what, when, is not really relevant here, since everyone knew everything for two decades, and no one in power did a damn thing about it. I don't need anymore answers, and based on the "don't punish the fans" attitude from Penn State fans, I feel even more convinced that the entire athletic program should be shut down for at least a year, and football for at least 2. The consequences for Penn State's actions need to be so severe that every institution in the country will implement clear lines of reporting and whistleblower protections such that any future malfeasance by any university's athletic program will be uncovered and addressed quickly.

Any outcome short of my proposal above is an endorsement of Sandusky's and Penn State's actions.

 

[BlueMAB]

Because if they don't do that, there is no incentive for any program to ever abide by any rules. What about the athletes at schools that didn't condone child rape? Why should Penn State get away scot free when all these other programs played by the rules?

The athletes can transfer immediately, without penalty, if a school is hit with severe sanctions, so let them transfer. Likewise, their departure creates opportunities for other athletes who might not have ever gotten the chance to play at Penn State.

Your argument is if they don't punish the innocent, then others would be encouraged to commit similar actions. The administration should be punished. It should start with criminal charges, follow with civil suits, and end there. Taking 20 scholarships away from Penn State reduces the amount of kids getting the opportunity at a free education, it doesn't stop pedophiles, and scumbags who would cover for them from being pedophiles and accomplices.

If they lose scholarships, which is usually a large part of the punishments handed down by the NCAA, then no, it won't create more opportunities. It reduces opportunities. And when the players at Penn State transfer to other programs, it reduces additional opportunities.

You want to punish everybody, and it comes off as being about the damage inflicted on the athletic program, and how UConn would benefit from that, more than justice for the victims.

Again, how does punishing innocent people provide justice to the victims? Your attempt at an answer is severly lacking in that regard because it is all about how it may affect other programs, and has nothing to do with the victims. That's why it smells like morally justified opportunism rather than true compassion for the victims.

 

[upstater]

This isn't the Nixon impeachment. Who knew what, when, is not really relevant here, since everyone knew everything for two decades, and no one in power did a damn thing about it. I don't need anymore answers, and based on the "don't punish the fans" attitude from Penn State fans, I feel even more convinced that the entire athletic program should be shut down for at least a year, and football for at least 2. The consequences for Penn State's actions need to be so severe that every institution in the country will implement clear lines of reporting and whistleblower protections such that any future malfeasance by any university's athletic program will be uncovered and addressed quickly.

Any outcome short of my proposal above is an endorsement of Sandusky's and Penn State's actions.

You just keep making up

 

[Kgun7]

No doubt the administrators blew it. But since the admionistrators blew it with regard to non-football incidents as well, and they reported Sandusky in 1998, I would enlarge the scope of concern. Note: I'm not talking about the football people since the football people were not in the 1998 report. But it was the same administrator, Schultz, in 1998 who reported Sandusky. I want to know what the President said to these people in 2001 that made the final decisions so different. It seems we're about to find out the answers.

Probably the most massive understatement I've ever read on these boards ...

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Shultz was the top administrator for the campus police?
Shultz did not tell Paterno? Hey Joe, your boy Sandusky...
Sandusky "retired" when?

 

[upstater]

Shultz was the top administrator for the campus police?
Shultz did not tell Paterno? Hey Joe, your boy Sandusky...
Sandusky "retired" when?

Schultz was not the person to report to. By telling Schultz, they were not reporting to police. Schultz was only a Veep, a functionary in charge of police but also several other units. He wasn't the chief of police or anything such, so they can't say that they were reporting to police by reporting to him. At most, he was their superior.

 

[BlueMAB]

What about all the programs where kids weren't getting raped in the showers? Shouldn't those programs get a reward for not raping children?

If you don't take yourself seriously, why should we?

Warning- Not Safe For Work!

 

[CL82]

All these are debatable, and that's what we're doing. Do you agree there are debates about societal need for punishment? This has been a debate since the start of disciplining criminals. But, instead of going off into Foprd Pintos and the history of incarceration/rehab, etc., let's be more specific to PSU. I've objected to about 3 of the proposals made by posters so far. I'm still open to seeing what might be suggested if the emails are found to implicate the 3 PSU administrators. The word "humane" in one of the emails seems to implicate them already, but I'd rather see the whole context.

Uh, upstater, you brought up the analogy to capital punishment to support the notion that the act was so horrendous that "a penalty is not a deterrent." See quote your below:

I don't see it. I'm all for penalties, but I think in this case, what actually happened is so far beyond that a penalty is not a deterrent. It's like capital punishment. Is it really there to dissuade people from killing?

My post points out that if an economic penalty is significant enough it is very likely to be effective. The Ford case is a well known example real world of how that would work. There the egregious behavior was deciding the cost of a relitively low number of deaths was less that making a small cost repair on a big number cars. Deaths, and the inevitable law suits that would follow, became an acceptable 'cost of doing business' to Ford. Here the decision was that leaving a pedophile at large, and even allowing him access to university, while denying access to other what a better economic choice then allowing the university's reputation to be sullied. Children being victimized became an acceptable cost of doing business to the university as long it was not linked back to PSU. A huge financial penalty, whether in the form of a post season ban over a number of seasons, or some other form, would almost certainly change the calculus for other institutions facing a similar situation. This is a much closer analogy than the effectiveness of the death penalty, don't you think? It shows that the severity of an action, or the bad press that springs , from its discovery is less of a motivator than an enormous economic penalty. The more I think about it the more I think is that is exactly what needs to happen here.

 

[upstater]

Uh, upstater, you brought up the analogy to capital punishment to support the notion that the act was so horrendous that "a penalty is not a deterrent." See quote your below:

My post points out that if an economic penalty is significant enough it is very likely to be effective. The Ford case is a well known example real world of how that would work. There the egregious behavior was deciding the cost of a relitively low number of deaths was less that making a small cost repair on a big number cars. Deaths, and the inevitable law suits that would follow, became an acceptable 'cost of doing business' to Ford. Here the decision was that leaving a pedophile at large, and even allowing him access to university, while denying access to other what a better economic choice then allowing the university's reputation to be sullied. Children being victimized became an acceptable cost of doing business to the university as long it was not linked back to PSU. A huge financial penalty, whether in the form of a post season ban over a number of seasons, or some other form, would almost certainly change the calculus for other institutions facing a similar situation. This is a much closer analogy than the effectiveness of the death penalty, don't you think? It shows that the severity of an action, or the bad press that springs , from its discovery is less of a motivator than an enormous economic penalty. The more I think about it the more I think is that is exactly what needs to happen here.

I know I did. But you brought up other aspects that I don't think apply. I'm also obviously not against economic penalties. I was referring to some of the earlier suggestions when I questioned that logic. I've mentioned multiple times here that PSU is going to suffer financial penalties. I was referring to the specific penalty suggestions made by people of death penalties, destroying the stadium and athletic facilities, etc. I said I didn't see that as a deterrent. I actually don't see any of this as a deterrent really, since this issue supersedes all of that. What you want is upgraded policies (i.e. report to police and not superiors) as well as education on child abuse.

 

[jdb50]

Sandusky's oddly timed retirement in the late 90's, which I remember as strange due to all the success of the program and him not taking another job (these guys just don't retire at 57), is a sign that something is yet to come forward. His continued access to PSU facilities is really disturbing. The thought that some people on the PSU payroll chose not to act is what would justify any death penalty edicts from the NCAA. Death penalty type punishment is needed to show that protecting the cash cow program can never again be seen as an option. I don't care who is inconvienienced or upset. This can't be seen as just a rogue child predator because that's not what happened here.

 

[mets1090]

I was referring to the specific penalty suggestions made by people of death penalties, destroying the stadium and athletic facilities, etc. I said I didn't see that as a deterrent. I actually don't see any of this as a deterrent really, since this issue supersedes all of that. What you want is upgraded policies (i.e. report to police and not superiors) as well as education on child abuse.

If people are protecting guys like Sandusky in order to protect the football program and the punishment for doing so is crippling the football program, I think people will be less likely to protect guys like Sandusky. That's just my opinion though.

I also don't think the death penalty is a good comparison because when people are committing murders their mind isn't in a clear place (generally) so they aren't weighing the odds of being put to death if they get caught. In this case, you are encouraging the act of whistle blowing by the people surrounding the situation. These people are in a much better state of mind (generally) and are more likely to consider the odds of very steep penalties when deciding to cover up for a criminal.

Now, having said this, I get what you are saying in terms of a situation like this superseding such punishment. But the fact is that if that were actually the case (if everyone acted reasonably to put it in law or economic terms), we wouldn't need laws against child molestation because the issue of child rape supersedes whatever punishment someone will end up getting.

 

[upstater]

If people are protecting guys like Sandusky in order to protect the football program and the punishment for doing so is crippling the football program, I think people will be less likely to protect guys like Sandusky. That's just my opinion though.

I also don't think the death penalty is a good comparison because when people are committing murders their mind isn't in a clear place (generally) so they aren't weighing the odds of being put to death if they get caught. In this case, you are encouraging the act of whistle blowing by the people surrounding the situation. These people are in a much better state of mind (generally) and are more likely to consider the odds of very steep penalties when deciding to cover up for a criminal.

Now, having said this, I get what you are saying in terms of a situation like this superseding such punishment. But the fact is that if that were actually the case (if everyone acted reasonably to put it in law or economic terms), we wouldn't need laws against child molestation because the issue of child rape supersedes whatever punishment someone will end up getting.

Right, I didn't say anything different, in fact. All I said is that I'm waiting to see what those emails reveal but they don't look good. If they reveal there was an effort to protect football, then there should be punishment. I've already said that. My other posts were based on what is known now.

 

[upstater]

Sandusky's oddly timed retirement in the late 90's, which I remember as strange due to all the success of the program and him not taking another job (these guys just don't retire at 57), is a sign that something is yet to come forward. His continued access to PSU facilities is really disturbing. The thought that some people on the PSU payroll chose not to act is what would justify any death penalty edicts from the NCAA. Death penalty type punishment is needed to show that protecting the cash cow program can never again be seen as an option. I don't care who is inconvienienced or upset. This can't be seen as just a rogue child predator because that's not what happened here.

He was reported back then, however. Cleared by the DA, by the psychologist who analyzed him, by child protective services, and he continued a relationship with the child he was found in the shower with (I assume he wasn't stupid enough to try anything with that kid).

 

[CL82]

I know I did. But you brought up other aspects that I don't think apply. I'm also obviously not against economic penalties. I was referring to some of the earlier suggestions when I questioned that logic. I've mentioned multiple times here that PSU is going to suffer financial penalties. I was referring to the specific penalty suggestions made by people of death penalties, destroying the stadium and athletic facilities, etc. I said I didn't see that as a deterrent. I actually don't see any of this as a deterrent really, since this issue supersedes all of that. What you want is upgraded policies (i.e. report to police and not superiors) as well as education on child abuse.

Mere policy changes after the fact don't change the econimic calculus as much as a significant post season ban or the death penalty. Given Penn States considerable endowment, any money santion would need to be huge. The penalty needs to be so staggering that PSU and other institutions are sure not to go down this road again.

Agree re demolishing the stadium and facilities, although it would creep me out to use those showers.

 

[upstater]

Mere policy changes after the fact don't change the econimic calculus as much as a significant post season ban or the death penalty. Given Penn States considerable endowment, any money santion would need to be huge. The penalty needs to be so staggering that PSU and other institutions are sure not to go down this road again.

Agree re demolishing the stadium and facilities, although it would creep me out to use those showers.

Endowments and funds like that are untouchable for obvious reasons. When people endow things, they come with stipulations. Some part of the endowment is in the general fund (i.e. the donor gives it without strings). It would have to come out of general funds (i.e. tuition and taxpayer money). Of course, PSU also has an insurer as well. More important than the money losses however are the new policies. As I wrote a long while ago, my school introduced new policies specifically citing PSU and Syracuse. But I thought this was odd since this sort of stuff has been going on for a while before even that. Note, my school didn't cite the case with the professor at PSU or the med school guy at Michigan, though both those cases, and countless others, could be considered cover-ups. My school didn't even change the policy after the EMU President covered-up murder. It took the media focus on PSU football and Paterno's screw-up in particular to change all of this. But that shows you something I think about sports in this country, and it's not only that sport culture is out of control, but the media focus on it is intense.

 

[BlueMAB]

I have a hard time believing that any punishment to the current football team will act as a deterrent. I'm guessing about 95-98% of all americans understand it's wrong to molest children, and wrong to protect child molesters. If your morals are so lacking you are willing to protect a child molester, and risk going to jail in the process, losing 20 scholarships isn't going to give you a change of heart.

 

[geordi]

So...we want to tear down ALL of the athletic facilities at Penn State. Then we can rebuild them as new, state-of-the-art facilities (like our new football facilities and the practice basketball facility) that will attract even more athletes and make football and all sports at Penn State even more important to the university and successful??????

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I have a hard time believing that any punishment to the current football team will act as a deterrent. I'm guessing about 95-98% of all americans understand it's wrong to molest children, and wrong to protect child molesters. If your morals are so lacking you are willing to protect a child molester, and risk going to jail in the process, losing 20 scholarships isn't going to give you a change of heart.

Well, clearly you are wrong since Penn State obviously didn't think child molestation rose to the level of importance to justify embarrassing the university.

This was an INSTITUTIONAL failure. It should be impossible for a coverup so widespread to last a few months, much less 2 decades. It lasted as long as it did because the institution did not have an atmosphere of compliance or integrity, and it certainly did not encourage the reporting of improprieties by senior university employees.

If Penn State is not punished for what happened, then the message to every other school is to cover up any wrongdoing for as long as possible, since there are no consequences for doing so.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If you don't take yourself seriously, why should we?

Warning- Not Safe For Work!

Until I read this post, I thought your defense of Penn State was half-sarcastic. Now I realize that you actually think Penn State should not be punished for covering up a serial child molester for decades.

 

[BlueMAB]

Well, clearly you are wrong since Penn State obviously didn't think child molestation rose to the level of importance to justify embarrassing the university.

This was an INSTITUTIONAL failure. It should be impossible for a coverup so widespread to last a few months, much less 2 decades. It lasted as long as it did because the institution did not have an atmosphere of compliance or integrity, and it certainly did not encourage the reporting of improprieties by senior university employees.

If Penn State is not punished for what happened, then the message to every other school is to cover up any wrongdoing for as long as possible, since there are no consequences for doing so.

Sometimes I think you pretend to be stupid, sometimes I think you are stupid, but usually I come back to the same conclusion. Your ego just won't allow you to accept the possibility you might be wrong. No matter what someone who you disagree with writes, you will take their posts, misrepresent it in your own words, and then "prove" it wrong. Is that fun for you, or is it simply a tool employed as a result of losing debate after debate in school?

 

[BlueMAB]

Until I read this post, I thought your defense of Penn State was half-sarcastic. Now I realize that you actually think Penn State should not be punished for covering up a serial child molester for decades.

Until I read your "reward schools for not raping children" post I thought your attack on innocent student athletes was half-genuine. Now I realize that you actually think taking scholarships away from kids is morally superior to sending criminals to jail.

You actually said schools should be rewarded for not raping children. In your twisted mind it's difficult to avoid raping children, and anyone who avoids it should be rewarded. You're a disgusting opportunist who isn't concerned with the victims or their families, you just want to take this opportunity to punish a football program that we typically can't compete with on several different levels.

If you want to punish "Penn State" why stop at football? Why not punish all of the sports? Since schools need to be taught that raping children is frowned upon by the NCAA, why not eliminate all sports for 2 years? Why not eliminate the psychology and criminal justice departments/courses thanks to the failings of the administration in those regards?

Since we're punishing innocent people in the name of justice, why not fine every football player who ever played for Penn State. That'll learn em.

 

[whaler11]

Well it just keeps getting worse. Holy christ - it seems almost impossible they were able to cover things up as long as they did.

 

[upstater]

Well it just keeps getting worse. Holy christ - it seems almost impossible they were able to cover things up as long as they did.

Seems as though the cover-up was in the emails given over by PSU 2 weeks ago. Amazingly, Paterno and Curley convinced Spanier to go along. Spanier was ready to go the authorities, and then after being convinced, he decided the humane thing to do was confront Sandusky. Crazy. But since Paterno and Curley lead on this, I'd say the NCAA has cause to discipline PSU at this point.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

When college athletic programs are sanctioned, aren't innocent kids always punished? Reggie Bush accepted a house, but the team/program had to pay the price.

 

[Adios]

No matter what we say, money is going to made on this story. Why? Because we care to read about it, learn about it. I contacted someone who was selling a Sandusky 1986 national championship ring. The seller was seeing "$$$$" in his mind. He even went onto state that the ring will become worth more as more unfolds. He probably IS right. The asking price was not even that high for a scandal of this magnitude. Sandusky probably thinks people treating him like total is unjustifiable. I don't care to hate people, but stuff like this does deserve a death penalty.

Lawrence Taylor's Super Bowl XXV ring went for over $200,000. And the buyer seems to be....Charlie Sheen?! Have to wonder who bought the Sandusky ring.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/charlie-sheen-lawrence-taylor-super-bowl-xxv-ring-auction-052412