The crime here may have been sexual abuse of children, but the story is that Penn State covered it up. Same thing with the Catholic Church. It's the institutional nature of the offense that is shocking. Sad as it is, to some degree we have accepted the heinous things that go on in our world, it is only when supposedly "non-heinous" people aid and abet those things that our sense of things takes such a huge hit. That's why Joe Pa is the center of the story, and that's why the story is as big as it is.
Yes, your "watered down" version would have been enough, but again, who knows what was said? It wasn't a telephone game, it was extremely different viewpoints of different people involved with the incident. The actual series of events will surely come out soon enough, this case is too high profile to tell. But those calling for JoePa's balls at this point are jumping the gun, because there is NO CONSENSUS on what happened. Yet. There will be soon enough. Most pedophiles were abused when they were younger, perpetuating the cycle of abuse. I say we shoot everyone who has been sexually abused, just in case they turn out to abuse children later in life. Oh, and learning about the disorder so as to better prevent in the future? Definitely not.
I love how you make that assumption seem like it's an absolute fact, love to see you prove that without saying "well...well any reasonable person can see it was." The fact is, is that the man was tried for and convicted in multiple charges of underage rape and being an accomplice to under age rape. As far as I have read the only charges of arraigned marriages were dropped. Both facts kind of shoot a big hole in your supposed fact that law enforcement involvement had everything to do with polygamy. I think they didn't like the fact that he was raping under aged girls. But turn your argument around. Does it really do any good for the victims to argue about why the abuses gained so much attention in the first place? Whether it was because it was because it was connected with an esteemed college coach or a high profile cult leader, the victims are victims and all should be given our attention and help. I think that's ultimately what you are thinking.
Um, actually, no. That isn't true. Shimmi's explanation is actually closer to the truth. Yes, some were abused, but the majority were not. I'm on the fence about rehabilitated, because about 99% of them won't go on to abuse again, but she is correct that they can never change their thought patterns. All they can do is take those thought patterns and try to flip them on their ear to avoid the compulsions toward children. I'd say interviewing about 250 sexually violent predators gives me a bit of light on the subject. That being said... Color me completely unsurprised that there was a massive cover-up regarding the sexual abuse of children. And color me completely unsurprised that supposedly good men hushed it up and did nothing beyond the bare minimum to make themselves feel they weren't culpable of letting a predator continue abusing children. This behavior is so common with sexual abuse of children. I have contempt for the pedos and feel a bullet is fine, but the people that do nothing when they know what's going on need a few dozen bullets. Nothing would make me angrier than reading the background on a child rapist, seeing how the child would reach out (or in one case, the mother actually condoned it, stating that the father would leave the family if the daughter didn't consent to the sexual acts) only to be slapped down and have the abuse continue. But in the end, I'm both resigned that society is completely fucked up and not at all surprised that Joe Paterno didn't phone the proper authorities on the matter. I'm sorry, but as soon as someone heard "something inappropriate with Sandusky and a young boy in the showers"...what the fuck else do you need to hear before snapping into action? I don't know what the answer is to people that cover up incidents like this and the more I search for answers, the less I find, which makes the bitterness worse. Maybe that's the reason why I turned down a position working with sex offenders again and decided to take the caseload dealing exclusively with gangs.
Joe Paterno knows. And all I am holding him accountable for is his own testimony of events (which is far more damning than the "watered down" events I presented). I mean like no one knows what happened for sure, like totally 100% maybe this is just like the matrix and it is all a lie you know what I mean, like what if the sky was really red bro. THINK ABOUT IT. Come the fuck on. Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying here. Here is the game of telephone I am referring to: McQueary: anal rape. Paterno: something of a sexual nature. Schultz: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy’s genitals. Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around. Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable. Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room. copied from here That was how the information supposedly went up the chain of command. Yeah, we don't know for sure. We are just taking their word on what happened. And their own word is damning enough. We don't need a consensus. We have Joe Paterno's version of events. And in his own version he reported to the athletic director that a "graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." He understood that McQueary allegedly saw something horrific and did not act on it in a manner that is not befitting a man of his supposed stature as a coach, educator, self-described humanitarian, or basic human being. This isn't in question. How are you not getting that?
So we are all wondering why no one called the cops. I wonder- why McQueary didn't just beat the fuck out of Sandusky on the spot? Everyone is in agreement that the cops should have been called. I think if I walked in on a 50 year old guy doing that to a ten year old boy I would have beat the fuck out of him before calling the cops.
One of the most insane things about this whole event is that Penn State was going to let McQueary coach this weekend. The university did nothing until a massive public outcry ensued. It wasn't until last night that the university said it would be ''in the best interest of all" if McQueary didn't coach against Nebraska. I'm left wondering what in the hell someone has to do to get fired by Penn State and why this guy is still on the coaching staff after everyone else has been fired. If I was on the board of trustees I would have fired that guy along with everyone else. What is it about this guy that allows him to stay on staff?
I don't know about you but I've never witnessed shit like that go down so I have no idea how I'd react... pretty easy to pass judgement via keyboard when you weren't there. However I agree- there had to have been a broom or mop stick to try and break against Sandusky within reach. That's the same guy that went to his dad first though, right? Not a big surprise he didn't do anything. I think Gravitas stated it very well earlier as a "cultural failure." I interpret it as Penn caring more about the ball game, and that is some fucked up prioritization.
Well this is gross: Former PSU player raises a fund for Sandusky's legal fees and encourages other former PSU players to contribute. Everyone deserves his day in court, but the idea of actually contributing money to this? Ugh.
Well written and honest, but I agree with what Gravitas is trying to get across. We can talk forever (and might just) about what motivated these men to act as they did, whether fear or confusion or football or greed or loyalty to Sandusky or concern for the school or their own reputations - we cannot know the answer to the why of it, so let's dismiss it. Fuck it, who cares? Let's dismiss every possible instance of conjecture or hearsay about why anyone did anything, and simply look at each person's statement to the Grand Jury alongside their actions. McQueary saw the actual act in progress, left the locker room and called his Father, went to his Father's house. He called Paterno the following day on his Father's advice and told him something about what he saw (let's not bother with things that are under question). He also told Curley and Schultz something about what he saw a week and a half later, when called upon to do so at a meeting. That is all he did, by his own description. Paterno says he was told about Sandusky "in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." He called Curley the following day and in person at his own home, told Curley something about what he was told. That is all he did, by his own description. There's no conjecture here, no wondering why anyone did or said anything - this is what each man says he himself did. We also know as fact that both men were in a position to have seen Sandusky frequently in the course of daily life over the next 7 years, and that some number of times he was accompanied by a young boy in their presence. These are their actions, and the result is that the act continued without interruption, the identity of the boy is unknown, Sandusky is accused of similar acts with other boys in the years from then to now, and he was not reported to legal authorities for 7 years. There's no way to paint this in such a way that doesn't say both of these men knew enough to be obligated as human beings to make a serious and concerted attempt to stop it. They reported it to their superiors and nothing more. There isn't any reason one could possibly give that justifies that behavior, and there isn't any amount of good someone could do otherwise to justify looking away from this. If you can think of any possible justification that would exonerate either man from the current public opinion that they are cowardly and without moral sense, I honestly want to hear it.
Not to mention that they were obligated by law. Pennsylvania, as with many other states, requires mandatory reporting of incidents like this. The fact that so much was swept under the rug and dismissed the way it was is not only morally reprehensible, but should be punishable as well. I truly hope that some sort of prosecution of all parties privy to Sandusky's activity comes from this. But the pessimist in me isn't so sure that will happen.
Re: seeing it in progress... How do you see it and not spend the rest of your days wary of the man, and actively preventing it from happening again?
Forget the future, how do you not run in there and stop THAT incident from happening? Consensual adults in the privacy of their own home. He was 0 for 3 on that one.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is a reasonable punishment for those that saw/knew something but didn't do enough to stop it?
So there's been rampant speculation here and elsewhere about why McQueary still has a job. Apparently some lawyerly people have come up with a hypothesis: he might actually be protected under PA whistleblower laws. So he's protected by the whistleblower law...from punishment for not being a good enough whistleblower. If that's not a fantastic example of the law of unintended consequences, I don't know what is.
Here's an ESPN article specifically about this. And for anybody that wants to read the full on legalese on this specific law, here's a link to the actual law.
I don't know. A bullet to the kneecap? Honestly, whatever they would/do get won't be enough, but I feel like some sort of justice needs to be realized. Our justice system is far from perfect, but I think punishing those who protect people commiting crimes against children, or simply dismiss it altogether, should be something a prosecutor is capable of handling.
This is a situation where an eye for an eye is appropriate. So all the adults that looked the other way get fucked in the ass by a horse while surrounded by people who watch and do nothing to stop it. Feeling what it's like to be physically overpowered and completely helpless should hopefully keep them from ever being such cowardly shits ever again. Or they all die of a sepsis infection from a perforated colon. Either way.