quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When did I say anyone should "protect a friend"?
Note I said that "I don't think it changes what they should have done".
quote: Kate, Have you considered the possibility that what they were trying to protect wasn't a football program or a University but a friend and colleague?
This is what I answered. I did not suggest nor think that you thought he was right to do so if that was the case.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What action do you imagine would punish/stop a child abuser without bringing in the public authorities?
Sometimes it's the manner in which the "public authorities" are brought in that can help mitigate the damage done to the institution. Had the Dean/President marched up to this guy with campus PD and had him arrested, they could easily put a pro Penn State spin on the circumstance...where as if the non campus police rush in and arrest him, it looks like the school didn't know/didn't care (even if that is true in the first case).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course what they did was neither. And Joe Paterno knew that they did neither. Even if his going to the university officials first could be justified, how do we justify his silence afterword?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't. Simple. He failed utterly. As did those he told who did nothing.
It is a moral obligation of all decent human beings to take all reasonable steps to ensure that child rapers are stopped and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we all know that in the abstract. Yet, so many otherwise good, brave people - even legendary leaders - fail just as utterly when it comes to child sex abuse.
Could part of it be our reluctance to talk about it at all much less publicly to police? A man in his 80s is not likely to be comfortable talking about something like this. Perhaps paralyzingly uncomfortable?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that's the issue, then those people have surrendered their virtue to weakness.
I praise you for your search for a reason why, but personally, I don't care much...there are a million reasons why someone wouldn't choose to do the right thing, and most have some validity, but none of them matter even a bit to me. Protect our children or you are complicit in the crime of molesting them.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexual abuse is icky. And makes people feel dirty and disgusting just hearing about it.
That's a serious deterrant to discussing it. A lot of people prefer to pretend it just didn't happen. That's, in my mind, and to my personal experience with those who have suffered childhood sexual abuse, how mother's who find out keep funcitoning - They deny it ever happened. Not all people do this. But of those that do, I think the very earth-shattering nature and stigma of the abuse acts as a serious reason to not do anything to stop it. Because to act means to acknowledge it exists - And to know it exists, up-front, no longer in the abstract, is a terrible terrible thing. Some people can't, or won't, deal.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why Paterno is the focus so much when local and university police and Department of Public Welfare people were already involved and failed utterly. Shouldn't those cops and Welfare people be the ones who are dragged out into the public spotlight? Don't they have a much higher responsibility than a football coach? Even the GA, who should have done more, is still less at fault than the cops, DA, PSU attorney who investigated things previously. Why do we expect more from football coaches than we do from the police? or a DA? or the Department of Public Welfare? This isn't to excuse actions but shouldn't we be looking much more intensely at the police detectives who investigated the crime and ended up letting it go? or the DA? and on and on... If we are going to condemn Paterno for being silent, shouldn't we first loudly condemn the local and university police who investigated previously? Where are the cries about their silence? Paterno's job is not to arrest people for sexual abuse but it is the police's job and they KNEW what Sandusky had done! What about Ray Gricar? Why isn't a manhunt on for him since he is the one who could have done the most to stop this? Gricar hasn't even been mentioned in this thread.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is because Joe Paterno had more clout that all of those people put together. But, yes, they absolutely should be held accountable as well for the 1998 non-investigation.
Edit to add: Ray Gricar was declared legally dead this summer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not Paterno's responsibility to arrest and prosecute criminals, regardless of his clout level. The people whose responsibility is to arrest, prosecute,and convict criminals and the people who are supposed to be protecting children all knew about Sandusky before Paterno did. They are so much more at fault than the football coaches. Why didn't they tell Paterno? or Second Mile? or anyone and everyone else? Why isn't there a full blown investigation into the utter failure of the Department of Public Welfare? Edit: Why isn't there a large investigation into the 'death' of Gricar?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is Joe Pateron's responsibility as a human being to do anything he could to stop what was going on. He has a tremendous amount of power and with that power comes responsibility.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paterno is not more powerful than the Dept of Public Welfare, nor the police, nor the DA. He is more well known but not more powerful. I am still shocked at the outrage at Paterno as opposed to someone like Roman Polanski. Polanski is still out there winning awards while Paterno is having his name removed from Big Ten Conference titles.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
DarkKnight, if you knew what was going on would you have stopped with telling your boss? The allegations in 1998 were, in my opinion, damning but not as damning as what McQeary witnessed later.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Why didn't they tell Paterno? or Second Mile? or anyone and everyone else?
If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KMB I would be doing what I could to get McQeary to go to the police with what he knew before I told my boss. I would 'encourage' McQeary to act outside of the education institution and go straight to the police. I didn't see anything so I would only have second hand info of what someone says he saw, so I would make sure McQeary knows the responsibility to the truth lies with him. McQeary must act on what he knows, and can remain anonymous if he fears retribution. If I was as well known as Paterno, I would tell McQeary I will speak in total support of him if things get turned around and he is punished but I would want him to go to the police and start a report before I inform my superiors. I'm also pretty biased as our local school district allegedly had an elementary school student rape at least 4 other elementary school students and the district was very successful in covering it up. No one lost a job, or was even reprimanded. Plus at colleges something like 20-25% of women have experienced attempted or have been raped so I imagine colleges all over cover it up too. rivka Wouldn't the same be true of Paterno?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: rivka Wouldn't the same be true of Paterno?
Wha?
Going to the cops with suspected illegal behavior is so far from broadcasting said behavior to the general public that I have to question your sincerity in making these arguments.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to state this very simply- every single God damned person who knew that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile who raped little boys and did nothing about it is a horrible human being. Anyone who would prefer to cover up child molestation in order to avoid scandal and protect their career is a coward.
I'm glad charges are being made against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. I'm glad Graham Spanier resigned and that Joe Paterno was fired. In fact, I hope every single person in the Penn State football program and The Second Mile who had any dealings with Sandusky gets shitcanned at the very least, because there is no way it wasn't an open secret at this point.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of me wonders about the grad student. The grad student ended up being hired as a coach there. If Paterno had any doubt that the GA was wrong about what he saw, why would he hire the guy? I mean, telling your boss you saw someone rape a kid, if that's not true, you would be a pretty untrustworthy person. And if you believe the GA is telling the truth, who sits there and watches a child be raped and does nothing? Why would you hire someone who could let that happen unless you are already letting it happen?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who was covering up for Roman Polanski?
I don't know about 'covering up' but he's received a lot of protection from various wealthy people over the years.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get that he was escaping jail and that was wrong. But his crime was quite public. It was also a different kind of rape. Pedophilia is a compulsion to prey on children because one is sexually aroused by children and by "children" I mean prepubescent children. Pedophiles almost always continue to offend until they are stopped. Jerry Sandusky is charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse that went on for years. Polanski, also a rapist who should have been punished, was not a pedophile nor a repeat offender. While he did avoid punishment (and that is bad) he was not allowed to continue raping children in secret.
I think that the differences between both the kind of sexual abuse and the kind of protection given to the rapists are important differences for this discussion. It doesn't mitigate Polanski's crime, but it does mean that we are talking about apples and oranges.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polanski, also a rapist who should have been punished, was not a pedophile nor a repeat offender. While he did avoid punishment (and that is bad) he was not allowed to continue raping children in secret.
What makes you so sure he didn't seek out opportunities in Europe since moving there?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, it is a different pathology to start with. While Polanski has a somewhat creepy preference for younger women (his current wife is only 46 to his 78), he is not a pedophile. Also, everyone knew what he had done. Europe has newspapers and TV and stuff.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: Pathology? Pedophiles universally acting on their impulses until they are stopped, while men with a taste for nubile women only do it one time seems to be an extremely weak argument.
As for there being newspapers n' stuff in Europe, so what? There are child prostitution rings in Europe, he could also just fly down to Thailand and indulge in that sort of thing without any newspaper being privy to it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Pathology. There is nothing necessarily pathological about a taste for nubile women. In fact, "nubile" means basically that they are mature enough to be married. Also, women. It is creepy (IMO) but not a disease.
Pedophilia which is attraction to prepubescent children is a psychiatric disorder. Part of the disease is a compulsion to abuse children. Children are their primary, if not only, sexual attraction.
Does that make it clearer?
Edit: Regarding newspapers. Polanski is a famous rapist. He committed a rape that got huge publicity. No parent is going to be sending their daughter off on a camping trip (or photo shoot) with him. He would, as you suggested, have to fly to Thailand to indulge. Sandusky's crimes were kept secret by the people at Penn State that knew about it. Young boys were left available to him for years, because people were helping him hide what he was doing.
I can't believe that you don't see the difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: That's not my point of contention. It's your statement that pedophiles are generally always repeat offenders, while guys who prefer their women young are just creepy one-timers. Polansky did in fact rape an underaged girl. Unless you know him personally I don't see how you can even approach stating how often he has done that sort of thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: I'm not saying they are the same thing. I was just taken aback by your statement that Polanski never did what he was convicted of doing again after fleeing the country. How can we possibly know that?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that I know his whole history. What I am saying is that recidivism is not necessarily a component of Polanski's crime - and indeed we have not heard that this very famous man has committed such a crime since. Recidivism is a big problem with pedophiles. It is a disease for which there isn't really a cure. Also, if I recall, Polanski was arrested very soon after he committed his crime. Sandusky was not and, rather than one victim, had at eight boys (that we know of) that he molested over and over again for years.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not sure I understand the argument.
Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
We should ask darkknight to clarify. This is important!
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: my husband worked in a public high school, he was not allowed to call CPS to report abuse. He documented and gave to counselor, who would deal with it. .
I just want to interject here: this would be a crime, possibly a felony, in many states. In California, where I was a mandated reporter for 7 years as a city employee, I read and remembered the legal statutes that were provided to me to read when I was hired and trained. A mandated reporter, including such people as teachers, counselors, cops, and other local staff, are required, by law, to report personally to CPS in cases of suspected abuse and endangerment. Informing a supervisor does not fulfill this obligation, and the school cannot, by law, ask that an employee not contact CPS. I wish your husband had reported his employers.
That is just my recollection of my training, from 10 years ago. I was told, by my boss, and by the assistant city manager, that no beaurocratic process outside of CPS was to be allowed to handle child endangerment cases.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I can see that a school might require such things to be reported internally, but to require that to the exclusion of reporting to the police or CPS? Seems nuts.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka my response to you was about your comment of
quote: If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
I meant couldn't Paterno be sued for libel or whatever if he went around telling people they have to ban Sandusky from PSU?
quote: Is it, "based on our level of outrage at Paterno, we should resurrect a thread and equalize our outrage at Polanski" or is it "based on our level of outrage at Polanski, we must be careful to not use more than our allotted quota of outrage at Paterno?"
Or it could be neither choice but I think you knew that already. I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was making. However, I will give you more information. Shortly after I read about Paterno's name being removed from the Big Ten conference title, I read about Harrison Ford accepting an award on behalf of Polanski (I was googling about Harrison Ford's accomplishments and awards). It just struck me as fundamentally wrong that someone who is guilty of not reporting secondhand information to the police is stripped of his accomplishments while a man who drugs and forcibly vaginally and anally rapes a 13 year old girl, is still earning awards while escaping any punishment.
quote: We should ask darkknight to clarify. This is important!
I hope this satisfies as a clarification? Actually I don't care if you think it does or not.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do you think that Polanski should be ineligible for awards or do you think that a man who allowed his former assistant coach to keep molesting children should get to keep the rather unique honor of having the trophy named for him? No one is taking away the championships that Paterno's team won, just like Polanski's films can still win Oscars (that was the award that Ford picked up since Polanski can't accept it himself). I think that if AMPAS decided to name the Oscar the Polanski trophy, it would be a very bad decision.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: rivka my response to you was about your comment of
quote: If they did not have enough to convict him on, that would be not only a libel lawsuit waiting to happen, but could also compromise the later ability to get criminal charges to stick.
I meant couldn't Paterno be sued for libel or whatever if he went around telling people they have to ban Sandusky from PSU?
Where did I suggest that?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For going to the police? Sandusky would have to have sued him (thus going public) and proved that Paterno was lying.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: Olivet posted this link to a timeline elsewhere (thanks to C. C. Finlay). It has a bit more detail and represents Finlay's read of the grand jury transcript.
I don't know if it is accurate, but given the source, I suspect it is.
If true, that's absolutely outrageous and unconscionable.
I don't see how Paterno and others aren't also tried for criminal negligence of some sort.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: my husband worked in a public high school, he was not allowed to call CPS to report abuse. He documented and gave to counselor, who would deal with it. .
I just want to interject here: this would be a crime, possibly a felony, in many states. In California, where I was a mandated reporter for 7 years as a city employee, I read and remembered the legal statutes that were provided to me to read when I was hired and trained. A mandated reporter, including such people as teachers, counselors, cops, and other local staff, are required, by law, to report personally to CPS in cases of suspected abuse and endangerment. Informing a supervisor does not fulfill this obligation, and the school cannot, by law, ask that an employee not contact CPS. I wish your husband had reported his employers.
That is just my recollection of my training, from 10 years ago. I was told, by my boss, and by the assistant city manager, that no beaurocratic process outside of CPS was to be allowed to handle child endangerment cases.
Here, too. At the university where I work, we were reminded recently that teachers and school administrators meant US not just K-12. I checked the PA statues and they are mandatory reporters as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a mandatory reporter. I have also been told that we should report first to a counselor, but the only reason for that was so they can facilitate the contact with CPS and also so they can be involved in any counseling or actions that have to take place at the school. I was told that the counselor would call CPS, and we would then talk to them, since we were the primary witness of what needed to be reported. At no time was it ever indicated to us that we should just tell a counselor and forget it. We were told we HAD to be present when the report was made so we could give them our first hand account.
If I reported something to a counselor and no report was made I would then feel it was my responsibility to make it myself.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren't providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno's firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.
Man, I simply don't understand people who care so much about football, they would harass a victim of child abuse...because he exposed it? It's mind-blowing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bullying a rape victim...there are no appropriate words which don't violate the TOS. Suffice it to say I hope they fall down and break their faces.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A rather sad update
quote:Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren't providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno's firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.
Man, I simply don't understand people who care so much about football, they would harass a victim of child abuse...because he exposed it? It's mind-blowing.
posted
Bullying rape victims (or perhaps more accurately accusers) is so common I almost expect it to happen. It's a tragic truth that if you come forward and accuse a popular person of rape or sexual harassment you will be vilified by a lot of people. Its one of the reasons that sexual harassment and rape are so under reported.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought about making a new thread, but honestly I couldn't quite stomach it. Sandusky was found guilty, in case you've been living under a rock these past few months. I wish there was a spitting face, since that's what even thinking his name makes me want to do.
Now, with the publication of the Freeh report, the conversation has swung to whether or not Penn State should even be allowed to have a football team. Joe Paterno's legacy is pretty much completely destroyed, and that seems right to me. While he did great things, the horrible things that were perpetrated under his knowing watch (insert spitting face again) certainly outweigh those in my mind.
In terms of the football team though, I'm torn. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine Penn State not having a football team. Is that fair to the current players and coaches, most or all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal? And it honestly seems a bit frivolous to say, "You fail to report something like this, you lose your football team!". The truth is that if you fail to report something like this, you lose your right to be called a decent human being.
But on the other hand, there is certainly precedence for punishing institutions who put football over player welfare, much less the welfare of underprivileged children. Could the NCAA get away with saying that this transcends football and is not under their jurisdiction? From what I've read, it seems like they are poised to act and are only waiting to see what the University does first. But I can't imagine them doing something as minor as handing out a postseason ban (which is major for most cases). If the NCAA does anything, it almost has to come down with the death penalty. There really is very little worse then what happened at Penn State. Recruiting or improper benefits scandals certainly pale in comparison.
Thinking more about it, I'm leaning more towards axing the whole football program. That is a lot of collateral damage for people who were not in any way involved in the scandal, but it just doesn't seem like there is any other appropriate response.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
