Penn State Goings-On

[crazy canuck]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

[sbr]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?

There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.

The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.

[The Minsky Moment]

No good.  Kicking PSU out of the NCAA would harm all the innocents you mentioned above, and wouldn't punish the individuals.

Only if PSU doesn't comply.  And if they don't comply then it's an issue between the Trustees and the stakeholders as to why not.

An amusing notion, but just a notion you have.  I know of no one else who thinks vacating wins is "saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity"

It is symbolic - it means that everything the program's leadership accomplished while covering up the scandal is vacated

What leadership?  And accomplishments of theire are being vacated? 
Personally, I don't think this action means anything at all, but if anything is being "vacated" it is achievements that were "accomplished" more by the actual athletes than by some unidentified "program leadership." 

[Berkut]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.

[sbr]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.

Hopefully it will be a Canadian concept.

[crazy canuck]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?

There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.

The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that the punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent and so to express their outrage have instituted this pentalty.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

[crazy canuck]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

Yes, I am sure there is some legal concept that will make your claim that the NCAA is "taking over criminal or civil jurisdiction" make some sense.

Hopefully it will be a Canadian concept.

As PLJ stated it is the argument he would have used if he had been counsel for PSU.

So I am assuming the law in Canada and the law in the US related to these concepts is similar.  I appreciate that the finer points might be going over the heads of the non legally trained.  For that I apologize.

[sbr]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?

There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.

The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

How did any of that "take over" criminal jurisdiction?

[crazy canuck]

the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done. 

Just to make sure CC doesn't edit this away. Possibly one of the dumber things he has ever said, so worth of being saved for posterity before he edits it away.

You are cute when you dont understand legal concepts.

In what way have they "take(n) over criminal or civil jurisdiction"?

There are still criminal charges pending against Spanier, Schulz and Curley and there will be many civil suits against the University.

The NCAA added their own punishments on top of whatever the legal system does.

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

How did any of that "take over" criminal jurisdiction?

Refer to my post above.

[Malthus]

What we have left is deterrence aimed at the "culture" of football itself, within the institution. That to me is problematic. It is true that "culture" can influence actions, but it seems bad policy to aim punsihments at "culture", rather than at individuals - even when one can do both.

Not that I care one whit about college football, let alone this specific university.

Why? The US has often tried to change the cultures of it's enemies or of certain subcultures within it's own society. Sometimes with success, sometimes without it. Why shouldn't the NCAA be able to do the same?

Because when you aim a punishment at an amorphous concept like "culture" generally, you hit all sorts of innocent parties?

To my mind, that's a bad idea. It has the look and smell of an action undertaken purely to express moral outrage, rather than to achieve any concrete, positive result. Expressing moral outrage is fine of course, but expressing moral outrage in a way that harms innocent parties is generally a bad idea, right?

[alfred russel]

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.

[crazy canuck]

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.

At least a penalty that fits much better within the confines of the jurisdiction of the NCAA and so from that point of view less draconian.

[alfred russel]

Expressing moral outrage is fine of course, but expressing moral outrage in a way that harms innocent parties is generally a bad idea, right?

In this case, the "harm" is that a school sports team is going to not be very good for a few years.

People are freaking out because they buy into the culture that led to rioting when the school fired the football coach while firing the school president was a footnote. Who cares.

[alfred russel]

I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts by PLJ and I.

Also re-read the posts by JR who has come around to the view, after reading the NCAA rules, that there was punishment is for something which is not a violation of the rules but a punishment for violation of criminal laws which the NCAA finds abhorent.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.

At least a penalty that fits much better within the confines of the jurisdiction of the NCAA and so from that point of view less draconian.

Glad to see we aren't letting the process eclipse the result.

[Malthus]

The entire "It harms the innocent!" argument has no real weight with me - all punitive measures harm the innocent. The point to them is that absent those punitive measures, allowing whoever you are punishing to do whatever it is they are doing (and those who will do similar things in the future without this kind of control) MORE innocent people will be harmed.

The issue should be looked at rationally as a cost/benefit execise. It is true all punitive measures harm the innocent to some degree, but that degree varies - as does the benefit in terms of deterrence from the measures.

Here the measures taken very clearly harm the innocent, but I cannot come up with any real benefit in terms of deterrence. Deterrence implies that those to be deterred have the power to change their ways, and with sufficient incentive (the deterrence) would do so.

The question I've asked is: in what way do the Board of governors of the university have the power to prevent senior administrators from covering up serious crimes to benefit a buddy of theirs? What, exactly, could they do to prevent future presidents from looking away?

If these measures would actually prevent future cover-ups, I'd be inclined to agree - football records and a few million dollars are small prices to pay to prevent rapes. What is missing is the logical connection between "imposing these penalties" and "preventing rapes in the future".

Hence, the conclusion that this looks like moral chest-beating which will harm the innocent but have little other effect.