Penn State Goings-On

[Barrister]

I think we are just going for "people who should live" and "people we hope will commit suicide".

Surely that is a much simpler division?

[Rasputin]

...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil

Indeed.

I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...

Even Sandusky - he probably did help a lot of kids through that charity, and probably was genuine in wanting to help them.

Doesn't make what he did any less heinous though.

In short - I'm just tired of hearing how every single accused who is pleading out 'oves his mother and supports his kids'.  I. Don't. Care.  You do the crime, you do the time.

i suspect that sandusky is seriously mentally ill and knew he had a problem as evidenced by his telling the mother of one of his victims in 1998 that he wished he were dead

i truly believe that this is why the death penalty is needed for pediophiles; they engage in  compulsive behavior

given opportunity, they will act on it

[alfred russel]

So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

Only if you assume cowardice is not in and of itself evil.

Unless the grand jury report is completely inaccurate, he knew about Sandusky, and perhaps for some period he thought an investigation was ongoing, but as the years went on he knew Sandusky was free. He also did nothing to help the boy he saw (even if he temporarily froze, that doesn't excuse how the next day he did not do whatever it took to extricate the boy from that situation).

[Barrister]

i suspect that sandusky is seriously mentally ill and knew he had a problem as evidenced by his telling the mother of one of his victims in 1998 that he wished he were dead

i truly believe that this is why the death penalty is needed for pediophiles; they engage in  compulsive behavior

given opportunity, they will act on it

I'm not sure if pedophilia actually qualifies as a mental illness or not.

Feeling remorse and guilt is not a sign of mental illess - rather it is the opposite.

And I disagree - there are numerous pedophiles who never act on their impulses, or only act on them when their faculties are reduced.  The whole world of internet kiddie porn has shown us there are numerous men who have sexual desires towards children, but wouldn't dream of doing anything physical about it.

[Malthus]

It's in Berkut's summary above:

— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.

So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen. 

So you assume, from this summary by a sports site, that McQueary was told that this would be the only action taken?  Okay.  I, however, reject the idea that lack of evidence in a summary document not dealing with the question at hand says anything except that the summarizer didn't think anything else was necessary to the summary.

In other words, i contend that we don't actually know enough about what McQueary was told to conclude anything.  I don't think we have any evidence to exonerate McQueary, but I also don't think we have evidence to condemn him.

I don't agree. To my mind, the situation is evidence, res ipsa loquitur: unless some exculpatory evidence is presented (and it had better be good), there is simply no legitimate route from 'I saw the guy butt-fucking a 10 year old with my own eyes in the locker room' to '... and then I worked as a coach for years while the same guy, a guy whom I knew damn well raped children, ran children's charity events on the same campus, free as a bird (with the only restriction being he don't get to use the locker room no more)'.

I agree there's no evidence of some active "cover up". In a way, I'd be more sympathetic to the guy if there was.

Edit: the info comes from page 7 of the Indictment.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

[PDH]

res ipsa loquitur

Stop making up words.

[Sheilbh]

How confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid at the age of consent?

Yes.  Absolutely.  And as I say this guy's saying that the person he saw Sandusky buggering looked to be 10.  That was his subjective opinion, so whether they were a young or an old looking 10 year old doesn't matter.

And does your certainty decrease if the victim were close to, but not yet at, the age of consent?  Are you sure you would intervene if the vic looked, say, 14?  If you're not sure, then how confident are you in your ability to distinguish a 10 year old kid from a kid of whatever age your certainty starts to weaken?

Of course it does.  As I say it would be different if it was an adolescent who looked possible of age even if they weren't.

I'm not sure I'd intervene.  I think I probably would if I was a footballer, as this guy was.  But I'd definitely call the police.

I agree with dps that I don't think kicking this upstairs is something that I'd be able to do or any reasonable person would do if they'd witnessed what looked to them like a ten year old being buggered.  Possibly if there was an adolescent who could've been of age, but even then given the age gap the power relationship would have inevitably raised suspicions.

More widely I think this case suggests there could be wider problems with these college sports programs and I'd worry about any allegations of women being raped by players or staff that have perhaps not been reported or not taken seriously.

He certainly should have informed the police. But you guys act like he did nothing at all, which is simply not true. He informed his superiors, and when he was contacted by the police testified to what he saw.

He did not do enough, certainly.

He did nowhere near enough, especially when I think all that he needed to do was contact the police.  I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't given what he saw.

[Sheilbh]

I don't agree. To my mind, the situation is evidence, res ipsa loquitur: unless some exculpatory evidence is presented (and it had better be good), there is simply no legitimate route from 'I saw the guy butt-fucking a 10 year old with my own eyes in the locker room' to '... and then I worked as a coach for years while the same guy, a guy whom I knew damn well raped children, ran children's charity events on the same campus, free as a bird (with the only restriction being he don't get to use the locker room no more)'.

I agree there's no evidence of some active "cover up". In a way, I'd be more sympathetic to the guy if there was.

I agree.  Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.

[grumbler]

Yes.  Absolutely.  And as I say this guy's saying that the person he saw Sandusky buggering looked to be 10.  That was his subjective opinion, so whether they were a young or an old looking 10 year old doesn't matter.

From McQueary's testemony, at what point did he realize that the kid looked about ten years old?

I'm not sure I'd intervene.  I think I probably would if I was a footballer, as this guy was.  But I'd definitely call the police.

Even if your most trusted advisor told you that the person to report this to was Joe Paterno?  I'd like to think that I'd call the police rather than my father in that situation, or that I'd disobey my father and tell the police before I told Paterno, I can't say for sure that I would, and I can't say that I condemn McQueary for acting as he did.

More widely I think this case suggests there could be wider problems with these college sports programs and I'd worry about any allegations of women being raped by players or staff that have perhaps not been reported or not taken seriously.

Agree.  The case raises a lot of troubling issues about abuse of trust.

I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't given what he saw.

But you will concede that this statement is about you, and not McQueary, no?

[grumbler]

I agree.  Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.

I haven't seen this part of the evidence/testimony.  When did he see Sandusky again, and under what circumstances?

[Malthus]

From McQueary's testemony, at what point did he realize that the kid looked about ten years old?

Read pages 7 and 8 of the Indictment. Allegedly, he "realized" the kid looked 10 at the very same moment that he saw him - which also happened to be the same moment he saw S. buggering him.

[Malthus]

I agree.  Seeing Sandusky again is another point when I think McQueary, given his initial mistake, should have called the police.

I haven't seen this part of the evidence/testimony.  When did he see Sandusky again, and under what circumstances?

Page 11 of the Indictment. S. had the run of the campus, as was testified by McQ and others. He was prof. emeritus, had an office and phone in the Lasch building, parking privileges, and the run of the recreational facilities.  It does not say how many times McQ saw him, but the obvious implication is that he saw him all the time. 

[Sheilbh]

Even if your most trusted advisor told you that the person to report this to was Joe Paterno?  I'd like to think that I'd call the police rather than my father in that situation, or that I'd disobey my father and tell the police before I told Paterno, I can't say for sure that I would, and I can't say that I condemn McQueary for acting as he did.

Even in that situation - as I say I can't think of the situation when I wouldn't call the police having seen this and I think that's a reasonable standard for most people.

I also think if you put what you guys are saying into clerical language you get into precisely the problem Catholic diocese have had where institutional failure/corruption (I agree Curley comes across particularly badly) is founded upon personal moral failures to take responsibility.  If a novice walks in on Brother Aloysius raping a child it is not sufficient that he informs the Bishop who then moves the good brother away from an educational role.

[merithyn]

exactly; it's easy to be the monday morning quarterback...there are three hundred million in america alone

sunday afternoon quarterbacks on the other hand?  well there are only 32 of those jobs available.

I agree. You'll note that I said that I hope that he takes his own life (or that he at least feels badly enough to try it) rather than that someone should kill him. I believe that no matter what I did or didn't do, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew that my inaction allowed a predator like that to continue doing what I witnessed him doing.

It's the guilt that should take over these people's lives. If they are as upstanding usually as they seem based on these reports, it will. I just hope that that's the case.

Sandusky, on the other hand, should be anally raped daily for the rest of his life. Period.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure if pedophilia actually qualifies as a mental illness or not.

Feeling remorse and guilt is not a sign of mental illess - rather it is the opposite.

And I disagree - there are numerous pedophiles who never act on their impulses, or only act on them when their faculties are reduced.  The whole world of internet kiddie porn has shown us there are numerous men who have sexual desires towards children, but wouldn't dream of doing anything physical about it.

Paraphilic disorder, though to be honest field of Psychology is contradictory on this.