PDA

View Full Version : Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

taf2002
07-24-2012, 03:22 PM
The law can still charge the actual conspirators. I think the penalties given to Penn State were appropriate.

barbk
07-24-2012, 03:31 PM
^This.

Penn State is not being punished because Sandusky molested children. They are being punished for the complete lack of response when they became aware of his actions.


In particular, they are being punished for a lack of institutional control -- which is to say, football isn't supposed to be the tail that wags the dog, and when problems arise, the institution is supposed to exercise control and not allow the problems to continue.

It wasn't about poor judgment by an individual -- it was cover-up (or choosing not to take action) when action would surely have been taken had behavior like that been seen in, say, the department of Economics. In a related way, the lack of institutional control is also seen in the fear lower level employees had of reporting criminal behavior, and Paterno's practice -- accepted by the University -- of deciding what punishment to mete out to football players.

CU went through some similar issues in the sexual abuse/recruiting scandal about ten years ago. Colorado State University's president just said it pretty clearly:

""No institution can, of course, be immune from the poor judgment of an individual, but every institution should take every step possible to assure that good choices are encouraged and oversight is present to identify and correct any problems at early stages," Frank said."

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_21065456/cu-csu-metro-state-leadership-keeps-sports-proper#ixzz21Y9MgAa0

I hope that other football (and basketball) programs take a good look at their own institutional control, or lack thereof.

MacMadame
07-24-2012, 03:39 PM
Why are you twisting my words?
I am not "twisting your words." You posted a question asking which was worse. I responded to that. You then clarified but then a bunch of people, including you, jumped down my throat for making things up. Not to mention some of your posts after that don't really support the idea that you think the actual pedophile is worse.

We can agree to disagree on this one, but I don't appreciate being told I'm crazy or twisting your words because I don't agree with you.



Under the law, people who actively assist in certain crimes are judged equally guilty of those crimes.
The law also goes after people who smoke weed. Not everything the law does is morally right IMO and vice versa as sometimes things that are morally reprehensible aren't even illegal.

IMO it's wrong to punish conspirators equally to the one who actually committed the crime. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished at all but it's a completely different sort of crime and I believe the reason the law goes after those people equally is not because their crime is equal but because sometimes they can't get the actual perp with as heavy a punishment as they like and it makes them feel better to be doing something.

And people who post stuff on the internet, no matter how moronic, or are upset that their beloved football program is now in trouble because of something just a few people did, aren't even a blip on the radar in the greater scheme of things IMO.

MacMadame
07-24-2012, 03:43 PM
action would surely have been taken had behavior like that been seen in, say, the department of Economics.

I wish I could believe that they would have done something in that case but I wouldn't be surprised if that was covered up too. Though I think they would have quietly gotten rid of the guy in that case... and he would have moved on to another university or college where the cycle would have started all over again.

barbk
07-24-2012, 04:13 PM
I wish I could believe that they would have done something in that case but I wouldn't be surprised if that was covered up too. Though I think they would have quietly gotten rid of the guy in that case... and he would have moved on to another university or college where the cycle would have started all over again.

CU actually fired a popular, renowned, tenured physics professor for sexual harassment, and managed to sustain it when it went to court.

agalisgv
07-24-2012, 04:50 PM
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished at all but it's a completely different sort of crime I don't think it's completely different. I think the crimes are inextricable and thus, should receive equal treatment under the law. If, say, you were the doorkeeper of a room where once children entered inside, you knew they would be raped. They wouldn't be raped by you personally, but that would definitely be their fate. And say you could at any time not open that door and ensure no more children would be raped. For you to claim later that since you technically didn't penetrate a child, you aren't as cupable is complete bullocks in my book.
And people who post stuff on the internet, no matter how moronic, or are upset that their beloved football program is now in trouble because of something just a few people did, aren't even a blip on the radar in the greater scheme of things IMO. I'm not taf, but I think you are completely twisting what she said. She wasn't talking about Internet fans--she was referring to those at Penn State who actively assisted in the cover-up (and perhaps Mrs. Sandusky too). I think you got off on a point she never made, abd have been vehemently defending it when it wasn't the argument made in the first place. But rather than admit you made a mistake, you keep on with you strawman argument.

berthesghost
07-24-2012, 06:27 PM
^it actually started with a shockingly literal interpretation of a rather rhetorical question imho.

Really
07-24-2012, 07:40 PM
I feel badly for the players on the teams who have had their wins stripped from them as a result of the sanctions against Paterno's record. At the same time, I'm not sure how you could strip those wins from Paterno without doing the same to the players. Don't for a minute think I'm trying to minimize the evil perpetrated by those who covered up Sandusky's crimes; but this is like punishing the whole class because of one kid. Just seems unfair to those players -- unless they were part of the coverup.

Theatregirl1122
07-24-2012, 08:10 PM
Honestly, stripping wins is one of the least influencial punishments the NCAA can give out. It is purely symbolic and really doesn't mean anything. The only reason it matters at all is because it drops JoPa from winningest all time coach to 12th.

berthesghost
07-24-2012, 08:14 PM
^ as someone said before, life is unfair. Before the scandal broke and Paterno had a god like status, team members benefitted from being part of such a revered legacy. Now that it's all turned to dust, they are negatively impacted by his actions, just as they were positively impacted by them before. Luck always goes both ways.

attyfan
07-24-2012, 08:19 PM
Honestly, stripping wins is one of the least influencial punishments the NCAA can give out. It is purely symbolic and really doesn't mean anything. The only reason it matters at all is because it drops JoPa from winningest all time coach to 12th.

IMO, the whole "cover up" was to protect the status of the football program, so it is appropriate that the program be stripped of the wins ... anything else lets the school keep the "profit" from the wrongdoing.

BelleBway
07-24-2012, 09:05 PM
IMO, the whole "cover up" was to protect the status of the football program, so it is appropriate that the program be stripped of the wins ... anything else lets the school keep the "profit" from the wrongdoing.

Except they still keep the profits in many other ways, especially financially- all the tickets and merchandise that have been sold over the years.

I personally think that stripping wins after the fact is silly except in cases where there was proved cheating on the field of play (I'm thinking of Olympic medals stripped due to doping or age falsification). In this particular case, it smacks of vindictiveness against a single person at the expense of the whole team- would they be stripping the wins if Paterno had ranked 108th all time in wins? Maybe, but I am skeptical.

It should go without saying, but I'm not sure it always does so I'll say this explicitly: the fact that I don't have a high opinion of this particular sanction doesn't mean that I approve of Penn State's leadership or that I think that wins/football teams/whatever are more important than the true victims, the poor boys that were abused.

I also think this scandal is bigger than Penn State in some ways. I find it hard to believe that they are the only school whose football team means big business, though I grant that they may be unique in the reverence of their former football coach. I think we as a society have to take a look at how out of whack our values are in terms of things like sports- and I say this as a sports fan. What does it mean that a mediocre major league baseball player can make over a million dollars a year while teachers/police/daycare workers are struggling to pay their bills and won't see that much income in a decade? I don't have the answers, but if people are making the case that the PSU football culture led to the coverup, then it's logical for me to ask what made the football culture so powerful to begin with- and I think that extends beyond Penn State to our society as a whole.

heckles
07-24-2012, 09:05 PM
It is purely symbolic and really doesn't mean anything.

Ah, it means a lot. No longer can the alumni brag about the school's winning record for those years, since at best that winning record has an asterisk attached, and at worst has been wiped away. Penn State may see that those lack of bragging rights leads to decreased attendance and donations. Which is probably good for current students, because Baby Boomer-age college alumni wandering their old campuses on game days in their XXL college sweatshirts and baseball caps, blathering about graduating from there in 1978 "back when Bob Burgers was new and before the Engineering building was over there" are super-lame.

Theatregirl1122
07-24-2012, 09:42 PM
Except that's not how alumni really view it. The wins don't disappear just because the NCAA says they didn't happen. I really don't believe that anyone who would have donated to the Penn State Football team considering everything else that has happened will be stopped from donating because those wins have been stripped.

At Syracuse, if you say that the school has 10 Lacrosse championships, you will get a long rant about how we have 11 championships, we won that championship on the field, the coach that we beat thought the punishment was BS and said in an interview that the punishment was BS, the title was stripped because of a secondary violation which was an unprecedented and unwarrented reaction, the NCAA has never stripped a team of wins or titles for a secondary violation other than this either before or since, etc. etc. etc. Even the vast majority of fans of our greatest rivals count that title, the press, including people who blog for the NCAA count that title when they talk about our records, we put that title on our t-shirts, we have posters including that title, heck, the banner for that title hangs in our stadium to this day.

Taking the title away has had zero effect on our program aside from provoking internet rants.

heckles
07-24-2012, 10:39 PM
I really don't believe that anyone who would have donated to the Penn State Football team considering everything else that has happened will be stopped from donating because those wins have been stripped.

PSU may have a number of longtime donors who, over the past several months, have slowly lost some of their enthusiasm but didn't completely face the situation. This sanction might be their tipping point.

I suppose we'll know more in a few years when we look at the program's financials. That is, if PSU's athletic department doesn't creatively cover up the decreased donations. We already know they're good at evasion.