Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Fan123, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. judiz

    judiz Well-Known Member

    3,391
    599
    113


    He knew what was going on and instead of stopping it, arrange for a huge payoff for himself. The Paternos should give that money to the victims to pay for their counseling and legal costs. Read an article that said no one at Penn State went against Joe Paterno's wishes, he literally had carte blanche to do what he wanted. He could had easily had Sandusky permanently removed from the Penn State campus as soon as he found out about the abuse. Instead he used his power to protect Sandusky, shameful Once removed from the campus, all that was needed was a confidential phone call to the police to start an investigation against Sandusky.
     
    flutzilla1 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Rafter

    Rafter Well-Known Member

    10,001
    909
    113
    I agree. In the case of the Catholic church, I wonder if it's denial. I doubt they believe it's really happening at all.
     
  3. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,875
    828
    113
    In their minds they aren't protecting the attacker. They are protecting the organization. In this case, Penn State football. If you don't live near a major football school, you probably cannot comprehend the level through which everything can be seen through the lens of how it will affect the program.

    A small example happened here recently. A player who had just finished his eligibility was arrested this spring for assaulting a police officer. Two headlines followed and the fan conversation was focused on their topics. Basically they were "how would it affect his NFL draft status?" and "would it negatively impact spring recruiting?" That's it. No concern for the crime that took place or for the officer, no questions about the bad behavior. The questions in the local papers and around the web had to do with football.

    When that is how the whole atmosphere is and fans and alums are pouring millions of dollars into it as well, the people living off of it will do all they can to protect it. Talking to a friend who went to college near Penn State, I understand that it is actually WORSE there.
     
  4. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    Exactly.

    The adamance at which people will protect the status quo (and their place in it) has brought down many a society.
     
  5. Twizzler

    Twizzler Well-Known Member

    1,231
    87
    48
  6. KHenry14

    KHenry14 Well-Known Member

    1,532
    115
    63
  7. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    Just...stop. An investigation by one of the accused is seriously not going to help, either in helping to solve anything or in the public eye.

    But I suppose they don't care as long as they get to keep their money....
     
  8. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
  9. KHenry14

    KHenry14 Well-Known Member

    1,532
    115
    63
  10. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Well-Known Member

    18,764
    3,272
    113
  11. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Would a police report be confidential, though? A call to CPS might be, but that's different from a police investigation. The names and police reports from sexual assault survivors themselves are publicly accessible, but the media generally chooses not to publish names.
     
  12. Desperado

    Desperado Active Member

    591
    75
    28
    Sorry I forgot to come back to this discussion regarding the reasons why people in large organisations deny abuse facts. You've all brought forth excellent points.

    I keep thinking that some of the world's greatest evils have been committed by people because they don't want to lose their jobs (status quo).
     
  13. taf2002

    taf2002 flower lady

    14,633
    3,359
    113
    Yes, I think it's very probable that Mrs Sandusky had the same motive. Unfortunately they can't prove what she knew. Or what some of the others knew. What's worse - the pedaphile or his enablers?
     
  14. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,059
    3,540
    113
    You're kidding right? The pedophile is worse because he's the one who violated someone. Good grief.
     
  15. taf2002

    taf2002 flower lady

    14,633
    3,359
    113
    So did the people who knew & did nothing. I agree the pedophile is worse but the enablers are also despicable. The pedophile is sick in the head and/or has urges he is not able or not willing to overcome. The enablers covered it up for monetary or social reasons. They all make me sick, as well as the fans who are now outraged for Paterno & the football program & care nothing for the victims.
     
  16. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Survivors of child abuse are sometimes angrier at the enablers than the actual abuser. It usually wasn't too difficult for the victim to determine that the abuser couldn't be trusted. The enablers were sneakier-- they portrayed themselves as the "good guys", yet continually betrayed the victim.
     
  17. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
  18. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,875
    828
    113
  19. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,059
    3,540
    113
    So some dude on the internet who posts that it's wrong to remove Paterno's statue from Penn State is as bad as Sandusky? I'm not buying it.
     
  20. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    :lol: Not buying it from whom, the imaginary voice in your head? :p
     
  21. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Well-Known Member

    18,764
    3,272
    113
    Taf said those people make her sick. Not that they are as bad as Sandusky.
     
  22. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,059
    3,540
    113
    nm
     
  23. milanessa

    milanessa engaged to dupa

    18,917
    2,870
    0
  24. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,582
    1,851
    113
    The NCAA had said that it would not be equivalent to SMU's death penalty but in some ways it is more severe - specifically the fine, vacating the wins and the longer post-season ban. They didn't shut down the program or take away all the scholarships, but I can't imagine too many people will stick around - and they shouldn't; the players are absolutely not at fault here, and they deserve a chance to start again elsewhere.

    It took SMU more than 20 years to get an invite a bowl game, and they never fully recovered from their penalties. And those were NCAA violations, not the ugliness of this case. I think it's safe to say that Penn State football is done.

    The moral failings of the men responsible for covering up Sandusky's crimes were already obvious. Although this is nowhere near the same level, they have also done irreversible damage to the program they were supposedly protecting.
     
  25. skatingfan5

    skatingfan5 Well-Known Member

    10,836
    2,051
    113
    I don't think it's safe to say that Penn State football is "done" -- unless you mean Penn State football being anywhere near the competitive level it has been in the past. It will surely be "down" for quite a few years, but I expect that it will recover somewhat. Which is only fair, assuming that all those associated and involved with the Sandusky coverup no longer have ties with the university. It doesn't make sense to punish those who had no part in this -- and going forward, I would hope that is the case. Punish those (including the institution) who were responsible for creating/sustaining the environment that allowed such awful crimes to be covered up and continue for so long, but allow for a new beginning in the future.
     
  26. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,582
    1,851
    113
    Done in the sense that SMU was done - Penn State might eventually get close to the level it was competitively, but it will take a long, long time for that to happen. What will Penn State have to offer potential recruits, even after the ban ends? They'll be a losing program for a while, and one with a tarnished reputation as well.

    As some columnists have noted, these penalties could harm other athletic programs at Penn State, because football brings in a lot of money. But I don't see how the NCAA could have gone about this much differently - they've punished schools for procedural stuff, and this case goes far beyond that.
     
  27. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,482
    813
    113
    I do hope that the current players can find another school ... and soon. It really isn't their fault.
     
  28. purple skates

    purple skates Shadow dancing

    16,850
    4,731
    113
    The next question is what will the Big 10 do with Penn State? Kick them out?
     
  29. milanessa

    milanessa engaged to dupa

    18,917
    2,870
    0
    No it isn't. Unfortunately, as in any institution, what's done at the top affects the innocent at the bottom. Collateral damage.
     
  30. missing

    missing Well-Known Member

    1,639
    520
    113
    I have mixed feelings about the NCAA's decision, and I think there are a lot of complications no one (that I've heard) is talking about.

    One thing is that Penn State is the biggest and by far the most successful northeastern university football program. People in New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania are more likely to watch a Penn State bowl game than an Oregon one. There's going to be an effect on TV ratings.

    Another is that Penn State now needs to redefine itself as a near Ivy. Ivy league universities have very limited athletic scholarships and don't go to Bowl games, but they do just fine getting recruits, and a handful of their students go on to professional sports, including football. I'm sure Penn State has a strong academic department. It simply needs to promote itself to recruits as a highly academic environment with a strong football history that will be appealing to NFL scouts.

    I would have allowed Penn State to keep all its football credentials, but forbidden it to have people at its home games for 3 years. I think that would have been a more visiible punishment, more like a "death sentence." I don't know that people will get that a lousy football program is the direct result of covering up a crime.

    And finally, it will be interesting to see what happens the next time a rape scandal affects a major university sports program. An awful lot of univeristy athletes get away with an awful lot of sexual abuse because the university lets the athlete get away with it. If I'm a girl who is vicitimized, I'm heading right over to the police and the NCAA to demand sanctions. And if I'm a girl who is pressured by a coach to have sex with him, I'm making the same trips.