In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)
Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.
I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.
After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."
Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.
Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.
Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)
Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.
233 comments:
1 – 200 of 233 Newer› Newest»The graduate assistant who reported the incident, Mike McQueary, was and is an offensive coach, while Sandusky was a defensive coordinator and had already retired by that time. No basis there fore anyone to accuse McQueary of making a move to forward his career. If anything, Sandusky could've been a nice resume recommendation for McQ.
Further, there is no inherent public disclosure in the opening of an investigation such as would have occured had Paterno done the right thing and followed up with authorities. Of course, you're intelligent enough to know that. Or am I presuming too much in that regard?
You and others rallying to protect the protector of a child abuser--and I neglect to say "alleged" because surely your legal expertise recognize an open and shut indictment when it sees one--is as sickening as the original injurious act itself. The only reasonable conclusions about those circling the wagons at this point are that they're either indulging in an astonishing and horrifing degree of willfully ignorant nepotism, or are hiding skeletons similar to Sandusky's.
Of course, you're too small a man to allow this comment be posted publicly, just as Joe Paterno was too small to do anything other than try to insulate his egoistic realm, but now you're aware of just how thinly veiled your motives are.
Spoken like a true "down-in-gutter" defense attorney. Did you graduate from the Johnny Cochrane-"If it doesn't fit, You must acquit" law school?
You've got it right, Mr. Colleluori. I've been making the same case since the story broke. Any other action by Paterno would have been imprudent.
Ignore comments attacking your character like the one from davennora.
No I graduated from Hofstra School of Law and I take both your statement about the gutter and about Mr. Cochran as a supreme compliment, so thank you. Beyond that, though you may not LIKE the facts as I present them but, they are still facts. Further the failure to choose the other path given the fluidity of the situation does not render it a poor choice. Hindsight is that it is possible Sandusky is a child sex abuser and so Paterno should have done more, except the only thing everyone is suggesting is that he should have gone to the police, He did. Where is the failure in ethics. Short of taking out road signs saying SANDUSKY IS A SEX OFFENDER, what else would you have him do.
It'd seem that Paterno should have gone directly to the police (Schultz) rather than the AD (Curley), since he was reporting a criminal act. He certainly ought to have advised McQueary to go directly to the police. Maybe he did, and McQueary declined. Extraordinarily hard to believe that the fact that it was Sandusky didn't play directly into the decision-making. Some stranger raping a 10 year old in the shower...wait 48 hours to report it to the Athletic Director?
Very cogent argument you present.
Well said Sir. I just had a similar conversation with a friend a few hours ago on the same grounds that you have stated. I ended mine with, "It's so easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback" I have posted your analysis to the Penn State Facebook page. I hope you do not mind.
Lawyers like you are scum. Lawyers become legislators who write laws in such a way as to protect the criminals and victimize the victims.
When you use the cover of law to support covering up the disgusting and putrid acts comitted, you show the true colors of your profession!
I pray that you rot in hell
Bull. JoePa is the top of the chain in every sense but on paper. He failed.
He milked a cultivated reputation as a man who did things right. When confronted with a problem, he chose to close his eyes and 'wish it away'. Anyone who's lived in State College will tell you Joe is the last word. . .
I'm certain you're correct legally, but he failed in every other measure of a man.
Lawyer Dude: Thank you!
I hope your child is never one of the victims of a Joe Paterno type of individual looking the other way when his handling a situation differently could have spared your child.
You claim that Paterno reported the incident to Gary Schultz. The grand jury report that you link to in your post says that Paterno reported the incident to Tim Curley, the athletic director. Unless the athletic director is the head of the campus police force, this argument is inaccurate.
You seem to be confusing legality and morality, and while you make a strong case for Paterno's actions as within his legal obligation, you don't really seem to cover much of the morality issue.
Point 1 is predicated on the assumption that the legal privileges of the police department should somehow influence the morality of Paterno pushing for further investigation; these are separate issues. Indeed, I have no doubt that numerous deontological, and even some consequentialist, ethicists would find the verdict of the Warren case highly immoral in the first place. Further, the morality of Paterno's actions need not be predicated on the legal rights of the police department.
Point 2 assumes what seems to be a very oddly weighted consequentialist framework in which the potential for accusations Paterno knows to be false or for a lawsuit somehow outweigh the prerogative of Paterno and the university to remove a sex offender. This just doesn't seem very compelling on the moral front.
Point 3 assumes that legality and morality are the same. Being insubordinate does not imply one is being immoral. Law and regulation do not equate to morality, and while this is certainly a strong defense of Paterno acting in the manner he was legally obligated to, it says nothing about the moral status of his failure to act further.
Believe me when I say that I think Paterno acted completely within his legal obligations, and I really respect what you're trying to do here. However, I do think there's are some seriously tough moral questions to be asked here that can't just be lightly brushed off by some brief legal reasoning.
Thanks, if we had another week maybe we could steal back the mike & save this great man & legend. Looks like we may not have enough time.
Justin not only do I not mind, I thank you. I am a proud Tufts Jumbo, but a great admirer of Paterno because he ran a clean program. I know people like the guy the Grand Jury says Sandusky is and it would be near impossible for JoePa to believe the allegations. He did the stand up thing and honorable turned in his friend & hoped for the best.
Why would he be surprised nothing happened after the investigation? He would expect that his friend &
Former Coordinator who he had to know for near 35 years wasn't involved and that McQuade was mistaken. As for going directly to Shultz, that is not how a chain of command works. Further Curley did what he was supposed to do and went to Shultz. It appears Shultz did part of what he should have done then dropped the ball badly. It remains to be seen if he not only erred but lied too.
PittPanthers90 are you suggesting Paterno is a criminal? Both the Prosecutor AND the Grand Jury say otherwise. As for the rest of your post, Well I'll leave my eternity up to a power higher than both you and I. But thanks for stopping by to chat.
Wild Bill, I am just not sure that the President of Penn State would agree about the last word but I don't live in Happy Valley. Even if he were however able to go further, just who would he go to?? Shultz is the PD, I cannot believe you think he could go public with nothing more than the word of an grad school assistant.
Think about this. Why didn't that 28 year old man do what you are asking Paterno to do, call the Police?
Let's assume I am a DA and I get a case that says Paterno thinks his long time friend and head of a kids charity is a child sex abuser... I also get the Grad Student in. Here is what I am thinking (then not now knowing what I know think I know)
Ok what is JoePa's beef with Sandusky. Grad student. Why are you in the building that night? Had you been out? drinking? smoking weed? Have you taken any meds? Will his testimony stand up in court? I can't use the little kid because, 1. I don't know who he is, and 2. If he is 10, he is too young to testify under oath AND unsworn testimony won't cooberate the GA's story.
Hey why didn't you come to the cops when you saw this happen? Did you have an ax to grind?
Sure 10 years later and many more witnesses and we all know exactly what we would do. Sorry, I am not buying it. This was a fluid situation that was surreal I am sure for everyone involved (except for maybe Sandusky) and we are just too quick to tarnish a hero of a guy because we all know who we are under pressure.
Hugh, thanks for stopping by, Yeah I know who is who, but I have to assume that Paterno knew that Curley would go to Shultz via the chain and in fact he did. So buy going to the building supervisor (the AD) he was making the report.
Further Remember Sandusky was not on Paterno's staff at the time. If I were Paterno's lawyer or his Pastor, I am sure I would not have given him advice to do anything differently.
Again, is there anyone here who believes Paterno KNEW (not surmised, assumed, shoulda known, suspected) that his old friend was this crazed sex offender?? If he were to say, hey I thought it might be true, I agree then that he had a greater moral obligation. I don't think anyone thinks that and in fact I don't think he even suspected it. I think he thought the GA was mistaken, but he took the next step, he fufilled the honor code, he reported the incident. He let the chips fall where they may. That is all anyone can ask unless there was a lot more knowledge on Joe Paterno's part than the Grand Jury Report says there was.
Anonymous @ 10:25pm,
I hope no one is ever a victim of a crime, especially child sexual abuse. If however someone I cared about was, I'd like to think someone like Paterno would be there who would look past friendship and make the report. He did that, I'd be thankful. He did more than most in his position would do, and frankly far more than enough in my book.
This is a very well-reasoned and sound argument. Like some others, I believe that perhaps Paterno should have done more, but again hindsight is 20/20, and it's more than possible that Paterno was blinded by his friendship to a man who must have hidden his illness well, or someone else would have stopped the abuse. By the way, I am a proud Penn State student who will continue to be proud of the legacy of THON, academia, and, for example, the award-winning Quarter Horse breeding program, etc...the evil actions of one (Sandusky) and the possibly negligent actions of others (Curley and Shultz, maybe Spanier) will NOT ruin Penn State for me. We are still Penn State.
Suggesting that is not the best thing to immediately report a crime of this magnitude is reckless. You will have people thinking they need to wait and talk with someone before doing anything. There is no chain of command, no protocol, no thoughts of will I get sued when a kid is getting raped. These are the arguments of cowards.
Anonymous 10:57PM
Wow I feel like I am back in a Ethics class at Tufts.
I agree that, in the calm cauldron of a philosophy class, we could look at all the possibilities I disagree that such a petrie dish exsisted in this case.
Look I know that a legal response isn't always the MOST moral, but to say it is immoral (which in so many words is what most people are arguing) is hogwash. There are times when what is legal is immoral. (Nazi Germany laws aimed at Jews for example)I don't think anyone is arguing that the law here is immoral (except for the guy who thinks lawyers are Scum and hopes I rot in Hell...) So following the law, at least here is not an immoral thing to do.
I further agree with you that Warren is a bad case decided in my opinion to preserve the public fisc, but it is still the law, and it does make some sense (although probably not how I would have decided the case.)
As to point 2 you assume that Paterno thought Sandusky was a sex offender. I am of the belief he had no idea what happened for sure, and he left it to those that knew how to investigate it to do so. I think if he had any thought that the allegations were true, or if he himself had witnessed it, his responsibility might have been greater, though, I do not know what I would have counseled him to do since the campus police, the police department with municipal power had been notified. Maybe his next step then should have been to demand Sandusky be thrown off campus. We are however assuming Paterno thought he was in fact guilty. I still think asking him to go to other authorities would be more than one would expect in such a situation.
I guess if he felt the University was stonewalling, he could have made a report to Pennsylvania's child welfare dept which would have been obligated to check into it. Again I have to think Paterno, who would at the time considered Sandusky to be part of the Penn State Family did not believe his GA's eyes.
As for point 3 insubordination, is immoral in any situation where the actor surmises with far less than probability that there is something fishy going on. Would it be moral if Paterno went to the press with his information? Would it be moral if he ostracized Sandusky based on nothing more than a hunch? While I agree that sometimes insubordination is the right thing to do, those times are few and far between and with what he knew at the time, and even thereafter until recently, I don't think this was one of those times. I think you are allowing the ends to justify the means here. If Sandusky were absolutely innocent (not just not guilty) and was forced to financial ruin because Joe Paterno had a belief he was a pedophile even after the investigation by the university acted otherwise, we would all be saying Joe was vain, he pulled rank, he went after his former buddy for no reason other than hubris. If it is not moral to act on this if he is wrong, how does being right make it more moral.
Again, given the scoop of viable options, I think he took the one that was most fair to all. Justice only works, when everyone does their part. There is no other way for Paterno to proceed unless we know he knew that Shultz and Curley were protecting Sandusky or themselves or otherwise stonewalling the investigation.
Nicely put, dont forget even if they are conducting an investigation, it would likely be secretive such as the case was... noone knew about it until very recently. I think Joe thought he put the info in reliable hands that would push for the truth. Inquiring about the status of the case, if there was a case, likely would have done nothing, as it would probably have been an ongoing investigation in secret to not tip off the Sleezdusky
Also, I am not sure why people are stating that he was morally obligated due to his position in society, I did not know that morals were not universal but rather segregated by ones social standing. They are not charging all about the janitors who saw it, or discussed it with each other... nor the grad assistant.. basically has turned into a Joe witch hunt through the media propaganda machine.
Did Paterno not continue to allow Sandusky around his facilities? Anxious to hear you spin that.
Gosh I don't think I have had these many comments on this blog... EVER! So thank you one and all for making this a great conversation.
Okay before calling it a night:
Remy, thanks for your kind words. Anyone who is hates Penn State is just not aware of the amount of important research and the type of people the school turns out. I had a Penn State grad as an employee and I loved her enthusiasm for work and for PSU. You ought to be proud to be from Penn State. I hope the rest of your time there is a little less eventful than the last two days.
V. Thanks for dropping by. I too see this as a witch hunt (or dare I say High Tech Lynching?) I hope you guys inundate the trustees with calls today and tomorrow morning and let them know Joe Pa is off limits in this and he must be allowed to do as he wants including re-signing him to a new Contract.
Anonymous,12:25AM
by the time the incident was reported to Paterno, the Rape was long over, the kid long gone. I agree if you see a crime in progress, call 911, it you learn information about a crime, call your attorney and then let him help you make a proper report.
Good night all, let's hope tomorrow the media finally allows the other view of this (in support of Joe Paterno) come out.
No one seems to get that there are protocols you have to follow when you are working at a job and have an incident like this come about. You can't just go call the police. You have to make sure everything is documented so that your company or institution does not get blamed for you trying to be a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands. Both my parents are teachers in high school and if they had seen the same thing happen, guess who they would contact first? The school principal and the superintendent because those are my parents' superiors. Once its said, it would be out of their hands and control because they do not have the authority to try and take this case on by themselves, unless they want to lose their jobs. You all just love to see the Great fall. That is what the media does to people.
It's so easy for everyone to say that Joe did the wrong thing, but what everyone is seeming to be forgetting that this is a large university and that the first line of proticall must be that it be handled internally. My question is why blame Joe? He followed Univeristy standards. They want to have everything taken care of internally before it goes anywhere else and as far as I am concerned it is Currly's fault as soon as Joe reported it.
Stuff like this makes me wonder about the world. A lot of people are at fault here. First off why did McQueary not stop Sandusky from molesting the child if he witness the crime? Also even if you want to throw the hearsay argument, why was Sandusky still allowed access to the school and can been seen up til last week? PSU fans, lovers, and supporters. Once hearing, Joe Pa should have barred Sandusky from having access to anything to do with PSU. Joe Pa has that power or at least block him from the football area. IF YOU HEAR A CHILD HAS BEEN RAPED call the POLICE! This not something you take lightly. The University is just as guilty. All these parties have failed, could have done more, and could have stopped the other crimes from occurring. As much of a hero Joe Pa is to some, he failed, the University failed,responsible adults failed.
Great post. JoPa has my complete and eternal support.
Paterno did not go to the de-facto Police Commissioner, he went to the Athletic Director. An odd move to begin with considering Sandusky was not employed by the university at that time. If Paterno had learned that it was a random guy on the street raping 10 year olds in the bathroom, would he still have contacted his boss?
I accidentally deleted this comment I want to apologize to Molly and to thank her for a good response which opens up a very interesting dicussion on the status of sports. Here is the comment :
Molly has left a new comment on your post "A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was M...":
Your post puts into words what I've been trying to convey to my non-PSU friends all day. As a daughter of two alumns, and an current graduate student myself, I was raised as a fan of the football team, but also as a beneficiary of the university and all it has to offer to the region, the country, and even the world.
Those who say that Joe is in charge and runs the show have clearly never been here, but have only observed from the outside. Joe is a great asset to the university, but he does not run it. Should more have been done somewhere, by someone? Yes. But put yourself in Joe's shoes for a second - imagine the horror and disbelief when you heard what was happening. Imagine trying to come to terms with the fact that a friend, co-worker, and confidant was nothing short of a monster. Then what do you do?
Joe is, as this shows, legally innocent. He is also, as everyone seems to forget, human - as we all are. It's an image he has always tried to convey but has often been forgotten by those who give him god-like status.
It is easy for us to place accountability on the biggest figure we know, in this case, to the general public, that's Joe. To those of us with ties at the University, we know there are many more fingers that we could point, but we have to wonder if they should be pointing back at us. What kind of society allows such behavior to happen? Crimes by professional athletes are common, but we brush them off. Should all fields be treated this way, or do we need to "de-santify" the holy land of athletics .
I can't understand why Mike didn't rush into the shower and beat the crap out of Sandusky when he saw what was going on...or at the very least yell out for him to stop. I'm sure he was shocked and confused and scared, but so was that kid. I'm not blaming him in anyway. I just don't understand this entire situation. How could they let Sandusky in the building after that?
Well said, Anthony. Thank you for the rational perspective. Great comment by Molly too.
I have been so frustrated the past few days from the lack of sane commentary regarding Joe Paterno's "involvement" in the whole thing. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I will first say I believe many people are at fault for this, in speaking of the 2002 incident, McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Shultz could have done more, Morally. I am not placing more blame on Paterno than McQueary for a lack of follow up but addressing him because of the nature of your argument.
I appreciated you making your point up until I read "What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers."
Are you KIDDING ME? You are using an argument about a grown man of Paterno's age LOSING A FRIEND???
Clearly trust is a non-factor. He HIRED McQueary as an assistant after McQueary made allegations against his "long time friend." Either he believed McQueary and felt the need to keep him close or didn't and hired McQuearty, who makes false accusations against his friends to get ahead in his career.
Second: Another point of yours: "Again, is there anyone here who believes Paterno KNEW (not surmised, assumed, shoulda known, suspected) that his old friend was this crazed sex offender?? If he were to say, hey I thought it might be true, I agree then that he had a greater moral obligation. I don't think anyone thinks that and in fact I don't think he even suspected it."
Again, Are you kidding me? Unless JoePa suffers from dementia and forgot he was already made aware of similar allegations years prior and a criminal investigation regarding it. Granted there were some major issues with that investigation but I'm sorry if an adult is coming to me with information that SERIOUS in nature which has been previously alleged that might be a red flag for me. And again, clearly he trusted McQueary because he's been on his staff since.
Lastly: You wrote that a 10 year old can not be a sworn witness and his testimony won't cooberate the GA's story?? I do not get this point at all. The ten year old would be a great witness, the most influential witness in the case. How can you say it would not cooberate, we did not get the liberty of hearing that 10 year olds testimony because he was never found. I recently observed a 6 year old girl take the stand and recall events that happened when she was 4 years old and she put her father in prison for 20-40 years because of HER testimony.
http://www.timesleader.com/golackawanna/news/Local_man_given_20-40_years_prison_in_rape_of_6-year-old_girl_09-07-2011.html
Additionally as a CYS worker I had an 11 year old girl win an expungement with her testimony.
My thought is that you aren't skilled enough as a defense attorney to cross-examine a child without trying to make them look bad and still win over the jury, it is a very hard line to cross.
Joe Paterno did not have the power to ban Sandusky from the football area. Curley and Shultz however, did. But instead they merely banned him from bringing children to the area (Spanier signed off on this, so why wasn't he more curious as to why he had to sign off on this...). I don't understand why people are going on a witchhunt, maybe instead of wasting your time and energy blaming more people (the guilty will be persecuted), how about you put your time and energy into supporting the victims of the abuse.
THANK YOU! for this insightful post!
I am truly saddened by the lynching mob media who hasn't even taken the time to make opinions based on facts.
thank you, #joepaproud
you are not speaking to the personal ties which Joe has with Sandusky which may have had Joe act as the way he did. Speaking strictly hypothetical what if that was a coach that just started working there does the reaction of Joe stay consist? Only a Penn state law grad would try and defend the actions of the coach. Does not mean you don't have valid reasoning it just means that your personal ties give explanation to why feel the need to even blog about this. Clearly Penn state has students and alumni that take pride in there school but those seem to be the loudest defenders rather than people in general who feel that Joe is being unfairly judged. In the end public opinion will ultimately tarnish Joe's legacy. Even if he isn't fired or leaves now the way he will be perceived will never be the same. Protecting his job status won't bring back any of perceived dirt on his resume.
Wow, Wow. Legally, Paterno is probably fine. But otherwise...you hear about the sexual assault of a child and you need to "let the police set their priorities"?? Maybe for a week, maybe for a month. But not for 9 years. C'mon. When a former 30-year FBI agent who is investigating the case says he's never seen anything like this in his career, it's saying something. Paterno has a lot of good qualities, he may not be a bad guy...but this lack of action was indefensible. The whole lot of them should be ashamed. Graham Spanier should leave immediately. There isn't really any argument to be made.This isn't 1950 - what did they think would happen?
It's amazing and incredibly sad how quickly people want to destroy Joe Paterno without hearing him speak or actually knowing the facts of what he knew or did or was told.
Maybe once we learn everything, Joe will in fact be guilty of not doing enough. I'm certainly not blindly supporting through the entire process, but until we have the facts, this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
since when has morals been dictated by the media, of all people. and since when have lawyers cared so much about the morality of a person versus the legal proceedings. If we were all judged and charged based upon our morality then I dare say we would all be in trouble. I believe a society that holds each other to such high moral standards could be classified as utopian, and do we live in a utopia... no. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I'm sure as hell we all have done somethings that retrospectively wasn't the best option, but we're not perfect and should not hold others to such a standard when we ourselves are not held to that level. This investigation has become the media's playground and a witch hunt to tarnish the most positive head coach in football. Who in this world has been in this exact situation? I guarantee not many, so quit fuckin judging on the basis of morals, when this whole world is the most immoral place I have ever seen. If the media calls for moral justice, then I expect all lawyers in america to stop defending the clients who admit their guilty to their lawyer and stop making plea bargains with murderers. You all want moral justice, then I expect us all to prosecuted to fullest extent of the law next time you don't pick up trash you see on the ground, let the door slam in someone's face behind you instead of holding it open for them, condoning underage drinking in any way, or guys cheating on their girlfriends, etc. If you want a moral world, then that mirror needs to be turned on us. Be the change you want to see. We only start to diminish ourselves when we begin to diminish others-ghandi.
Let me make one thing clear for you. This is a DIRECT quote from the Grand Jury Report that you say you read:
"Although Schultz oversaw the University Police as part of his position, he never reported
the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency, never sought or reviewed a
police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the
shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for
specifics. No one ever did. Schultz expressed surprise upon learning that the l998 investigation
by University Police produced a police report. Schultz said there was never any
discussion between himself and Curley about turning the 2002 incident over to any police
agency. "
Shultz is a BUSINESS MAN charged with over seeing the business and finance decisions of ten University Departments, one of which is the University Police. He plays no role in the enforcement of the law or investigation. Check out this University Police org chart: http://www.police.psu.edu/documents/OrgChart%20Police%20&%20Public%20Safety.pdf
Where is Shultz in this chart? NO WHERE. Because he is simply oversight, two steps of above the actual director/Chief of Police, Tyrone Parham. This is no better than saying reporting to Spanier is like reporting to the police because he is three steps above the Chief of Police. Give me a break.
Also, contrary to your argument, this report states that, "The graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police and no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December, 2010." This ALSO means that Paterno had NO REASON to believe an investigation was on going.
Your argument has so many holes yet you call yourself a lawyer. This is pitiful. Paterno is AS implicit as the other 4 men (McQueary, Shultz, Curley, & Spanier). You cannot let this heinous of a crime continue for so long with a head in the sand.
It's a funny thing, at the top of your webpage you have a link that states "report abuse" that I am assuming will report adverse behavior to someone. Ironic thing. Surprising then that there were no anonymous tiplines set up on the University faculty computers with a direct link to the Department of Health and Human services... just a thought.
There are ways to report.
And how moronic would someone have to be to think they would get a 'better' job at work by participating in criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't work at my place of business. WOW. Implying that someone at a Great University could lose their job for doing the right thing. I almost can't believe I am reading this. I should have been a lawyer.
Kind of like Conrad Murray's defense team blaming Mr. Jackson for being a drug addict would somehow make the drug sales, traffic, and administration o.k.
Wouldn't that defense have looked less moronic if they just said, you not only can sell drugs legally to drug addicts but you can administer them to OD too if you have a Medical liscense!!! Please, wise up.
And the onsite police department...HAHA, ok, if someone steals a credit card, maybe even a car. But a crime against humanity? leave that to the humanitarians, ok.
Thank you and I am glad that although poor judgement, I believe Joe had no malice in the matter. Retirement is fitting in this matter.
One of the key FACTS that everyone here seems to be missing is the FACT that Sandusky has been investigated and found to bu guilty, of at the very least, extremely poor judgement by showering with and touching a young boy. And that was in 1998!!! The PSU "law" enforcement folks basically slapped his hand and said, don't shower with young boys again on campus. So, it's hard for me to believe that after the report by the GA, that much more sever action and/or investigation didn't occur. I also find it hard to beleive that JoePa wouldn't have been aware of the 1998 incident. I mean it's one of your top asst coaches so call me skeptical.
Just think how many young boys may have been spared had something been done in 1998? So for anyone to ignore what was seen in the shower in 2002 is rediculous, especially after the 1998 incident.
Fir the good of society, surrender your license to practice law now.
A few questions that I've had: If Paterno had taken further actions, such as using his clout to insist on receiving updates on the progress of the investigation or taking a "vigilante" approach to getting something done... would it have tainted his ability to be called as a prosecution witness should charges be filed and a trial ensue? Would he have been able to make this investigation move more quickly or would he have risked collapsing a prosecution case?
Wrong on so many levels and really doing a disservice to our profession. A bunch of manufactured facts and non-sequiturs.
Thank you! It is heartbreaking to me how Paterno bears the brunt of the criticism. I can't say anything any more cogently or well-reasoned than you have here, but I just want to thank you for doing this.
I worked in education for ten years. It was made clear to me that if I had any reason to suspect a child was being abused that I was to report that information to a member of law enforcement. Not to anyone else in my organization (although they could also be notified) but directly to law enforcement. And then provide law enforcement with all the information I knew about the case. Unless the news reports I have read are incorrect, I was under the impression that Coach Paterno reported the information to his boss, who was not a member of law enforcement, which would not be the correct course of action for an educator. I am deeply sorry for Coach Paterno because he seems like a very fine man and coach. I don't believe for a second that he intended to cover up anything. I just believe he didn't follow the correct course of action; and that may be because he was never made aware of the steps to take and just assumed he had done the correct step. But I mainly fault the graduate student who witnessed the crime and didn't try to do anything about it immediately. That was very cowardly on his part.
There is one element of this that you seem to ignore. The assault took place on Friday. Paterno spoke with McQueary on Saturday. He did not contact Curley until Sunday.
At the time Joe and Mike spoke on Saturday, it was just hours after the eyewitnessed assault. For all either of them knew, the child was still in Sandusky's hands and in danger. It was imperative at that time to contact the authorities IMMEDIATELY. And they sat on their asses for another full day.
And we still don't know who that boy is.
And we still don't know if he is safe.
And that's why Joe's decision was morally wrong.
This is a disgusting blog that should make any sane person sick. KIDS were raped by this sicko & Paterno didn't give a SH*T. He is disgusting & so is that whole university.
I AGREE WITH THIS ARTICLE, leave JoePa alone and focus on your own sad lives.
I am curious about something: do all the people who think reporting the incident to school officials was insufficient and motivated by a desire to cover up the crime think that the mother of the later victim who reported the crime to high school officials was also trying to cover up a crime? In hindsight, even Joe Paterno wishes he had done more. In that moment, having heard about it secondhand, the day after it happened, I think the decision to report it to someone of higher authority with the expectation that they will handle it appropriately was a reasonable, human decision. People say Paterno should have gone further when nothing came of the allegations, but would those people really be the one leading the witch hunt of a close personal friend they thought unlikely of such crimes, if the higher officials had deemed it no longer a matter of concern? The mistake Joe made was to trust Sandusky, and the school officials he informed. It may have been naive, but it was not evil or criminal. And he certainly would not be the first person to erroneously believe that others operated with the same intregity he did.
For some reason, the public has focused in on Joe Paterno. The real breakdown here was with the Second Mile. They knew of an earlier incident in 1998, and allowed him more access to at-risk youth. Why are we not attacking their role in this and instead focusing on Paterno?
Paterno has been more than a football coach to the Penn State community. He has spent 46 years proving himself to be someone who would never knowingly expose children to risk. Unless some evidence is provided that proves he believed Sandusky committed the acts, and willingly allowed them to go on, I will believe the best of him. He has earned that.
Mr. Collelouri
Would let someone you suspected to be a pedophile maintain an office in your law firm? I'm no expert, but I read that Sandusky was using facilities as recent as a few weeks ago.
If I knew of such an atrocity that occured in a place I supervise, I would hope that I wouldn't rest with "reporting it up the chain", especially when nothing seemed to be happening.
At best JoePa turned a blind eye. At worst...well I won't say it.
I find it interesting that the Penn State faithful can be this faithful. Makes me throw up in my mouth
What about the 1998 incident when Sandusky confessed to the victim's mother and police about molesting a child? It's in the Grand jury report.
That incident coupled with this one doesn't send up a red flag for Paterno? He doesn't consider the fact that his friend may be a repeat offender and sexual predator?
Sir, with all due respect, you may know the law, but you sure don't know human - or in this case, predatory - behavior. And you've missed the big picture: this is all about covering-up the actions of Mr. Sandusky for the basic purpose of maintaining the image of Joe Paterno and Penn State football. All-in-all, you may see the trees, but you've missed the forest.
Even Paterno now says he should have done more and is resigning at the end of the season. This certainly suggests that he thinks he is morally culpable if nothing else.
The Paterno fans will make any excuse for Joe's actions. But even he now thinks he was wrong.
We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
What's the legalese for "I support child rape"? Because that's what you're doing. Upholding the actions of someone who stood by for at least a decade, if not longer, while a colleague raped children in his locker room.
Imagine you work for a big company and you see something wrong. Do you call the police or tell your boss who might be the owner of that company or CEO for instance?
Joe Pa wasn't the one who witnessed it. If today we are coming to know about all this is because Joe Pa told the appropriate authorities and mind you all haters, the investigation has been going on since 12 years. In fact, the grand jury report was done 3 years ago and I am not sure why it took them 3 years to release it?
I found your opinion of this matter to be very informative. Thank you for your clear explanation.
Paterno most certainly did NOT report the incident to the head of university police. That's a blatant misrepresentation that I've been swatting down for the past 2 days by those desperate to save Paterno's reputation. You people either haven't read the Grand Jury Presentment, or are fudging the facts contained in it.
1) The person you're referring to is Gary Schultz. First of all, Paterno didn't go to Schultz. Paterno went to Curley, the AD. It was CURLEY, who then set up a meeting between McQueary (the witness to the rape) and Schultz. There may have been a meeting at some point between Curley, Schultz and Paterno, but Schultz claims (again, according to the Presentment) that Paterno never told him about anything of a sexual nature involving Sandusky.
2) The Campus Police has a Police chief. Above him is the Assistant Vice President for Police and Public Safety.
Gary Shultz was the Vice President of the Finance and Business. Finance and Business administrates a wide range of campus services and interests from the University's investments to the Medical Center and to the Police and Public Safety division.
But saying that Paterno "took it to the head of Campus police" by telling Schultz is like me saying that I reported a rape to police by calling the city comptroller of my municipality. Furthermore, if Paterno was having a heart attack, would he have gone to Schultz? After all, he was the "Head of the Medical Center" using your logic.
What your post lucidly and quite unnecessarily argues is that Paterno did the legally correct thing. Legally correct, because no one is suggesting that he committed a crime.
However, I do not see a sufficient justification for Paterno's acts being morally correct. Some of the other things you state, such as the danger of libel, still come from the legal standpoint. Others, like the risk of hurting alums or losing trust of fellow coaches, come from a strictly utilitarian standpoint. I fail to see the moral argument here.
- A Penn State alumnus
At what point did campus rent-a-cops start counting as a proper legal police department?
I'm sure this explanation is very comforting to the victims.
Mr. Collelouri,
Joe Paterno's actions in this case are clearly the appropriate legal ones, however, arguing that he made an appropriate moral or ethical decision is flawed.
In discussing this issue in a moral sense, let's use the philosophical framework of Immanuel Kant. Why Kant? Because he is a moral objectivist, as Joe Paterno also appears to be (based on his religious pronouncements, conservative social and political philosophies).
The central feature of Kant's moral philosophy is the categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Kant's imperative is notably similar to the Golden Rule and therefore shouldn't be unfamiliar to Americans generally and Paterno specifically.
Further, we can utilize the categorical imperative to develop a very simple question that evaluates the moral implications of Paterno's actions. If Joe Paterno himself or a member of Joe Paterno's family were the ten year old boy allegedly being molested in the locker room in Penn State University, would Joe Paterno have felt that his actions were universally appropriate? Would Joe Paterno have wanted at the least more follow-up following the incident?
I cannot imagine that any person, who was the victim or a relative of the victim would not want more. Paterno did the legally right thing, he did not however, in any objectively observable way do the moral thing.
Would phone calls to the Penn State police directly inquiring as to the state of any investigation have been a transgression? Would additional pressure on Schultz or Curley or the University's president have been a transgression? I hardly think so, yet I can only imagine that if Paterno were himself the victim or the family member of a victim he would want these things done.
Joe Paterno certainly pursued the correct legal course and given the social history of sexual abuse probably reacted in a manner that accords with the societal ethics of much of his adult life. I do not think that any morally objective framework exists that would find Coach Paterno's actions permissible or positively moral.
You are clearly a defense attorney. It is ok to be a real person too. Try it out.
a lot of effort to just miss the point. there isn't a significant cry that he should be held accountable legally, so the legal issue is irrelevant. people are holding him socially accountable based on the level of power and influence he held at Penn State. he should have done more to make sure such claims were being pursued to their fullest extent considering his position, and his failure to do so has created a social backlash against him.
I kind of agree with the author of this blog. If I were Joe back then, and I were reporting it to the A.D., I would have full confidence that he would launch an investigation with the police. I also would be very hesitant about the validity of what I heard, having worked with Sandusky for so long and knowing how much of an up-right man he appeared to be. I'd also assume that Sandusky was found to be innocent if I didn't hear anything about it afterwards, so that wouldn't surprise me.
This isn't about "what if my kids were the ones". The outrage argument is a sensationalist's approach.
I think that looking back at the events now knowing for (alleged) sure that Sandusky creeped on kids, it messes with all of our perspectives.
If I knew Joe personally, and 2 years ago (before any of this came out), he told me that one time one of his graduate assistants came to him saying that Sandusky was 'horsing around' in the shower room with a kid, and that he'd reported it to the A.D. who the next day reported it to the head of police, but nothing has come of it, so thankfully it was a fluke, I'd probably say "Good job, way to be a good example and not ignore tough issues."
But now knowing what happened, it's very tempting to completely change my assessment: "Joe what were you thinking?"
The bothersome thing is that he did in fact have the capacity to do more in this case, way more than he did. But in the moment, what he did do probably seemed way more than sufficient to get the problem solved. He did not even know who the alleged boy was, so why not let the higher powers who are trained do deal with this and who have more resources at their disposal deal with it in a proper and legal way?
By your logic it was acceptable for Germans under Hitler's rule to look the other way because they had done enough, and killing Jews was legal under the law.
Just because something is legal that does not make it moral or acceptable.
JoePa was never curious as to the outcome of the investigation when Sandusky was still bringing children to PSU practices as late as '07? How about the fact that his good pal Sandusky was holding summer camps at the Erie campus throughout the 2000s.
I could see if the GA had walked in on Sandusky shooting up drugs in the bathroom. I could see handling it internally. Why? Because the possession or usage of drugs poses no physical threat to anyone by the user.
However, the crime of rape does pose physical threat to the individual being raped. True it would have been "heresay"; however, this was from a man Joe Pa trusted, and eventually appointed him to a full time coaching position on his staff. Also, the GA was reporting an EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF ANAL RAPE! For crying out loud, how often do eye witness accounts of these sort of crimes take place? Rarely, which is why many cases come down to he said, she said.
Lastly, Joe Pa could have easily gone to the police, and told the truth. That someone on his staff came to him, and reported a rape. No one is saying Joe Pa had to be the judge, and jury. This is why we have Police and Child Protective Service in the first place...to INVESTIGATE!
I feel bad that you have a Calvinistic view of the law
Good day.
Mr. Colleluori,
Answer me this....what if YOU were told these horrible acts were done to one of your sons? Would you then believe what Paterno did was,"morally and ethically right"? If Joe Paterno did what was "morally and ethically right", he may have been able to prevent more young boys from being hurt. Say what you will about Joe Paterno's actions, but don't say what he did, or rather did NOT do, was "morally and ethically right". Lawyers like you are the reason lawyers have such a bad name.
Not publicly reporting information of child sexual abuse for fear of a libel case? Gimme a f'n break. You're obvioulsy just trying to incite, b/c that and other positions you take are blatently bogus. No way you can make money as a lawyer making arguments that suck.
Absent concrete evidence, we believe of others only what we are capable of ourselves. It is sad to think so many people could be capable of what they are commenting on Joe Paterno to be. Even if you believe he had full knowledge of the original investigation that ended with no action by local police, not PSU police as someone here stated, and by the county DA, that would only solidify a belief that unfounded allegations happen too often, and he would have had no reason to believe that another investigation didn't end the same way.
And as the reactions here and everywhere show, this is such a volatile situation that anyone, even someone with nothing more than knowledge of hearsay, can be tarred just because people want someone to be publicly punished and they don't care if there is any actual complicity of any kind. They only know that he is someone they recognize and can reach.
The destruction of one man who was only "morally" wrong is an example of why you don't want to publicly accuse someone of such a heinous crime without 1st hand or concrete evidence.
It would seem as tho everyone would rather shoot 1st and ask questions later. There have been so many incidents, just from the Grand Jury report, of people directly involved with or having reports of incidents that were then covered up, from janitors, to principals to parents themselves, even prior to the incident that eventually brought this all to light that failed all future victims. But the one who is ostracized is the one who had only hearsay knowledge and reported it correctly and then had to know of it's reporting to the PSU police agency by way of the person in charge of it, and he is no less in charge of it then the president is of the military.
Why should he be expected to have any further knowledge of an incident that for various reasons is kept very quiet during a proper investigation so as not to tarnish an innocent person that has been falsely accused?
Read the entire Grand Jury report and get the answers to the as yet unasked questions, before you start your un-investigated hate campaign.
I am just wondering how much authority that Joe Paterno has to say that someone (such as Sandusky) isn't allowed to be on campus/at the football football facilities. I'm sure that there are other people in charge of campus/football facility security, and that there is a process in which one has to go through(i.e. obtain a pass) to be present in the locker room or other football facilities. Paterno could probably ask the Sandusky leave, but does that mean the Sandusky has to leave? Someone else, it seems, would have to be in charge of such things. Paterno is a football coach, not the head of security.
I appreciate the article and agree with what it's stated.
I just have a huge problem with people who say Joe was part of this cover up. The ones saying he's a morally low human being and all of the mob mentality thats been going on with this.
One thing that's being said in all of this that particularly irks me is stuff like "Joe knew there was kids being raped and did nothing! Fire him and anyone else who knew!"
He knew kids were being raped? I'm sorry if this were the case he would have been in legal trouble. He had day after, no detail information from a GA who was distraught.
The seriousness of the situation that was witnessed, in my opinion, was not as obvious then as it is now. If you're waiting a day to bring it to Joes attention, don't give details, don't call the police yourself, don't stop it when you see it, then how serious could it seem to you? Especially without details as to what went on.
People it seems only want blood. In this society now, that's what the media spins things so we want the blood along with them. "Guilty if charged" type of mentality. It seems anymore that if someone is charged with anything serious then they are automatically guilty if its shown on the news.
Another thing, to the people who say that campus police aren't real police... Most universities I'm sure aren't. But PennState is a 256 person police force that runs as its own entity, that can bring charges on its own administrators, students or other wrong doing on campus also prosecute as well.
Joe did do what he was supposed to do and is "morally" obligated in any sane persons eyes. He reported to his department superiour that something fishy was going on and who told him as such. Those are PennState regulations. I know these, as my wife was employed by the campus. Also, before you say that Schultz wasn't the one to contact for campus police issues. At that time, he was, no longer is, but was. My wife had an issue with an administrator sexually harassing her. Also PA law states that if you are part of an institution that you are to immediately report it to your superior. The process was go to directly above her, the next step was that superior going to Schultz. So, if Joe was told the next step was going to take place, which was Shultz being told, then why in the world would he not believe it? They were ones who were identified as liars and were involved in a cover up, not Joe.
To those who say "He let Sandusky back on his campus". It's Joe's campus, who would have the final say on who's allowed there and who isn't? You would assume that after this incident that Joe would see him on campus. We don't know. He is not in charge of this. Just because he is a figure in the University, doesn't mean he runs it to the degree it seems to the public.
Don't for one instance think that I condone what happened to this poor child, or what they administrators did to cover up this charge. Also don't simply say I am an apologist or a PennState/Paterno fan.
I actually am a Clemson fan. But what I am a fan of is rational thinking on an idividual basis. Which seems to have gone out the window in search of more people to blame and more "blood"
Spend the energy hoping that if there are victims out there, that they get the justice they seek and deserve. Also that the emotional scars they now have are adressed.
They will be in my thoughts and prayers as this horrific situation unfolds in front of the world
A dissenting opinion...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/09/joe.paterno/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Attny Colleluori:
Thank you for the insight. It is refreshing to see that there are people out there who are willing to step back from the emotionally polarizing nature of the topic to take in the full purview of what the law and the facts lay before us. As a law student and a Penn State Alumnus it is an urge that I have been fighting against desperately, torn between rushing to defend my childhood idol and beloved coach, the sickeningly depraved acts forced upon Jerry Sandusky's victims, and the black letter of the law I have been trained to regard. As a result I am truly conflicted as to where I stand.
However there are a few things that I know for sure:
1. As I understand as future attorney and as you have provided, Joe Paterno absolutely fulfilled his legal obligations pursuant to the Pennsylvania duty to report abuse law 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6313, 6311. Additionally, Coach Paterno really had no other viable outlet to pursue.
2. As a Penn Stater and lifelong admirer of Coach Paterno, I am disappointed that he didn't find some way to make things right. While its safe to say that no one other than Joe can really tell what they would do in such a situation, it is the ultimate disappointment that he couldn't or wouldn't find some way other than the traditional required avenues. While its probably not fair to subject him to a higher standard than the average person, the fact of the matter is he is a victim of his own legacy, and we expect the pillar of morality who was once the symbol of "everything that is right in college athletics" to rise above and beyond the normal expectation to fulfill the higher need for justice. I think that it's this expectation that has greatly contributed to the shock of the Penn State community and the sports world and that Paterno's own lofty goals and "Grand Experiment" will be his ultimate undoing.
3. Finally and most importantly, if there is anything that I have learned from Joe Paterno it's that "it's about much more than football", words which are more applicable here than ever before. While the media rushes to crucify Joe and focuses on the future of the Penn State football program, they seem to be missing the big picture: it's not about football, its about the victims. The focus has shifted so greatly to Paterno that people, and the media in particular, seem to forget about the monster that actually committed the heinous acts against defenseless children, and what is being done to bring him to justice. In the vast majority of what I have read and heard (which believe me is everything I can get my hands on)Jerry Sandusky, is simply mentioned as the "former assistant coach" if at all, nor are the victims acknowledged for their strength and bravery for coming forward. While, many see the matter as the shortcomings of a revered college coach,it is in reality something much deeper: a stark reminder of how we as a society have failed to provide for the protection of our children and how often the most depraved and disturbed individuals, like Jerry Sandusky, appear to be those with the highest civic aspirations and stalwarts in the community.
Thank you again for your insight:
Matthew Rossi
B.A. Penn State University, J.D. candidate.
The child that Mike McQueary told Joe Pa about has not even came forward yet. No one even knows who he is.
In 1998 Sandusky admited to the Centre County DA what he did.The DA did not bring charges againist Sandusky.The DA is missing now.
Why is no one asking The DA office why Sandusky was let go.The DA is the law,why no big out cry againist the DA office.
Just keep railroading JoePa.
What about some of the childrens parents,the ones that knew what happened.Why didn,t they go higher.Believe me if was my child you would have never shut me up.
Regarding Paterno's potential culpability for a criminal charge, THE issue that must be sorted through is precisely what "information" was conveyed to him by McQueary the day following the incident in '02. In his GJ testimony, McQueary describes Sandusky subjecting the boy to "anal intercourse" and hearing "rhythmic, slapping sounds." He recalls these specifics over 8 years after the events. It doesn't get much more graphic than that. In Paterno's GJ testimony on the other hand, he uses the phrase "something of a sexual nature" in describing the actions between Sandusky and the boy as reported by McQueary. This is the version Paterno passes on to Curley and, at best is a vague understatement of the events and, at worst, the beginning of a cover up.
How on earth is Paterno unable to get a clearer description of the events as witnessed by McQueary to pass on to his superiors?? Maybe have McQueary put it in writing, maybe sign an affidavit?? How about get the AD or the Univ President on the phone rigtht then and there to have McQuaery repeat exactly what he told Paterno?? Where is the university risk manager or general counsel while all this is going on? Are they behind the scenes orchestrating a plan to circumvent the state's mandatory child abuse reporting requirements? Shockingly, it takes A WEEK AND A HALF until McQueary meets with the university AD Curley and Finance/Business guy Schultz who inform him A COUPLE WEEKS LATER that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident was reported to THE SECOND MILE CLUB. University Police were never informed and no one else conducted an investigation until the GJ testimony in 2011. WHAT?? Are you f*cking kidding me??
In his GJ testimony, Curley referred to "inappropriate contact" and "horsing around", specfically denying that McQueary ever reported the boy was sexually touched or raped. This is a bigger leap from Paterno's sanitization of McQueary's statement. No need to report to the state. Schultz's GJ testimony referred to "inappropriate sexual contact." Schultz also testified that he was in a meeting with Paterno and Curley in which Paterno referred to "disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported by McQueary. Whether to report the abuse to the state based on Schultz's version is a tougher call.
The disconnect between McQueary's version and Paterno's choice of words is still troubling and enables Curly to further massage the facts away from any reference to a sexual act. The end result is that these events are never reported outside the busom of the university. Ultimately, everyone connected is at risk and it really defies logic why they just didn't do the right thing back in '02.
Is there a possible basis for obstruction of justice charges against Paterno? Maybe. Criminal fraud and/or conspiracy against all of them? Maybe. Should Paterno lawyer up? Definitely. Are ALL of these guys cowards? No question.
This will get really interesting when depositions start in civil cases and/or when the DA starts cutting deals with Paterno, Curley, Scultz and/or university president Spanier.
It is easy for non- Penn Staters to so quickly point fingers at Joe Pa to what he should have done differently. Why is no one mentioning that the grad student (McQueary) didn't call the police? He saw the act, why wouldn't he call the police? Why would you assume it would be Joe's responsibility? He reported what he HEARD could be going on. Just like in a a corporate office, if an employee comes to you and reports wrong-doing, you go to HR, and let the proper authorities and legal handle the situation.
Have some compassion for the end of and era, a fantastic career of someone who means so much to Penn State, who is now tarnished by someone else's horrific (alleged) acts. This wasn't Joe's fault, stop blaming him.
It just amazing how many want to lynch JoePa whan he did what he was supposed to do. The failure here was systemic over 15 plus year period on all levels, the least of which was JoePa's. I hope all you monday morning quarterbacks are comfortable sitting in your arm chairs.
sadly, internet and television news sites all steer toward the topic of ethical responsibilities of Joe Pa and other psu staff. let's not lose sight of the fact that Sandusky, the actual perpetrator of these disgusting acts, is the real monster here.
I'm just going to leave this here: Repost of AP timeline of the scandel beggining in 1994. Hopefully it will provide some common facts for us to discuss with. I see too many comments with outdated infromation that was probably generated through gossip and speculation.
This is a lynch mob
I love when people like Mr. Collelouri state that he ran a clean program. Just because Penn State and Paterno say they run a clean program that doesn't make it true.
Check the records, since Paterno did the absolute minimum to stop a child rapist (2002) 46 different players have faced 163 criminal charges. Twenty seven of those players ultimately pleaded guilty to forty-five counts.
LV Chisley murdered a student, also taking money from an agent.
If a school is willing to cover-up for a child molester do you really think they're not quite capable of covering up for a lot of other things?
you sound like Joe Pa's PR man. your legal reasoning is spurious. moreover, you wouldn't be taking this position if Sandusky raped your kid.
The one question I have is why no one reported any of the incidents to DHS who investigates suspisions or allegations of abuse of a child to see if it is valid.
It is a sad day in Happy Valley for sure.... when anyone with any kind of knowledge about any events would not move heaven and earth to have it stopped is beyond me...I feel ANYONE with any knowledge should be held accountable... what ever the ramifications are... We are a society that worry more about their legal rights than their moral rights.... That is sad thing.. I really don't care of your stature in life every person has moral obligation to step up....
Seems fairly obvious to me that the State of Pennsylvania is lacking hard evidence in their case against Sandusky (i.e. victims & corroborating witnesses). Why else would it take 2 years for the Grand Jury to come up with enough evidence for an indictment. Seems like the purpose of the indictment was to publish what they have and troll for more victims in hopes of gathering more solid evidence (e.g. the child from 2002 coming forward). More than likely the strategy will work. However, on what grounds does the top State Police commissioner have to say that while Paterno is in no way a suspect, he was morally wrong and should have done more because of his position & stature. The flood gates against Paterno weren't opened until the commish made this incendiary comment. I thought detectives (and I assume the police commissioner is a detective is some form or another) work with facts, not innuendo. By throwing an unsubstantiated (and highly subjective and outrageous) claim out there, he successfully directed public outrage to Paterno and deflected attention away from the fact that their case was not strong. If they can keep the attention on Paterno, then maybe they'll have more time to strengthen their case. If that strategy ends Paterno's career in disgrace and drives the University to the ground, so be it. But isn't this just as morally wrong? Paterno (and the University Administration) have created a lot of enemies over the years in high places, and now this is the opportunity for payback. The Police Chief and Attorney General hold political offices. They are politicians who want to make name's for themselves and move up the ladder. What better way to bring Paterno and Penn State to its knees than with a lurid case involving child molestation. It's easy to rile up the lynch mob with innuendo and then sit back and watch the show. It's ironic that while the main perpetrator is Sandusky, and Curley and Schultz apparently lied to hide the facts, the focus of everyone's animosity is Paterno (who at least by his estimation) tried to do the right thing. Until an investigation proves otherwise, running the man out of town is morally wrong. We do live in the United States after all, not Russia or China or Iran.
HOW CAN YOU EVEN SUGGEST HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SIGN A NEW CONTRACT! I am not disputing Joe's LEGAL liability here- he did what he was required to do. We are all upset because I am sure he KNEW what was going on behind closed "shower doors" in his program. There is no way he doesn't know what's going on in the PSU football program with a man who was clearly his most prized assistant. Funny how a 1998 incident has no connection to his 1999 "retirement". If it had been an unknown PSU employee or another student being the aggresor you think he wouldn't have picked up phone and called the police right away.
PSU's cops are not rent-a-cops, it's a full municipal police force.
I'm a PSU alum, and I'm disgusted by the vitriol spewed at Paterno. I don't care about the legal questions here. This happened 9 years ago, and nobody commenting here knows ANY of the real details of what happened. JoePa has decades and decades of high class behavior on his side - why is everyone so quick to condemn him as morally bankrupt? Sorry, but if you haven't been closely following Joe's life for years, you are speaking from total ignorance. That's why so many PSUers are defending him - because he long ago proved he deserves the benefit of the doubt in these situations, and there is not a single event in his life aside from this to indicate that he was purposefully negligent. If you are out there throwing around BS about Joe without having followed his career, shut up and stay out of it because you have no clue.
You can't write this stuff!....imagine a defense lawyer trying to get us to believe that doing only enough to protect your ass and allowing additional children to be abused is morally right!.....disgusting!
Has anyone asked Sandusky who the kid is? The Second Mile would certainly know who he was hanging out with at the time and who was sleeping at his house. Why didn't The SEcond Mile ask Sandusky?
It is morally wrong to allow a man to continue to work and use your facilities with full knowledge of him sexually abusing kids. He is as guilty as every single person involved. These kids lives were completely ruined in order to protect a football "legacy". Get over yourselves and stop trying to justify this.
Another apologist. Disgusting. Too bad for you that the press will seek out the truth and disclose the cover-up that got McQueary promoted to asst. coach.
Not being a lawyer I am having a hard time with the moral argument. A moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code, which is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc). Whose moral code are we using to judge Paterno? Did he have reasonable knowledge that he (paterno) should have followed your moral code (each any everyone of you)? Short of having this mythical moral code defined laws seem to be the best solution. Paterno satisfied 049 Pa. Code S42.42, mandatory reporting, by notifying the appropriate personnel within the PSU organization. I am a parent and have asked myself what if this was my 11 year old son....I would be angry as hell but at the folks that dropped the ball and did not follow thru on their legal obligations. Why are more folks not asking why in 1998 the University Police, State College Police, Department of Public welfare and PA AG did not seek charges after their investigations of sandusky based on a parent complaint? (reference Huff Post timeline http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-scandal-timeline-jerry-sandusky_n_1084204.html) Granted all but two of the alleged sexual assault had already occurred prior to 1998 but it would have prevented the 2002 case when Paterno became involved and the 2005-06 assault. In the end Paterno did what was required and whether in the private or public sectors investigations of this nature must be handled by the appropriately trained professionals within the organization to make sure all laws and policies are followed both to protect the victims and the organization (protecting the organization used in the context of libel not covering up an incident which should never be tolerated).
Firstly, I am glad to see so many comments on this. The fact that so many people are torn on this issue not only shows how JoePa has effected so many people, but also shows the confusion where moral and legal obligations may collide.
Secondly, I am a former Penn Stater, so like tens of thousands of others, this is really hitting home. Id like to bring up a point for those who appose Mr.Anthony Colleluori's case. In business we are taught to follow the chain of command, both for legal reasons and to protect subordinates from making the wrong decision. In this particular case you have a man who went to his employer on ALLEGATIONS towards Sandusky, and nothing more. The most he can do in a business environment, which this was (despite it being a school it is still run like a business and follows the same guidelines), is to speak to his manager. I know many are concerned about how long it took Joe to even do anything, but Like Mr. Colleluori stated, there is a lot to think about in allegations such as this, and even more so because of the emotional connection that is with it. JoePa acted quite swiftly in my opinion ( for those that disagree you may want to do a little more research on response times). Realistically, the deed had been done, as inhumane as that may sound, the next action should have been taken by the authorities of the school to make sure it never happens again by acting swiftly with PA officials to make a proper case. The fault is on Shultz, Curley, and particularly Spanier, who in my opinion as president of the school should be taking the brunt of everything. Joe Paterno has done too much for football, the school, and society to be punished by individuals who dont understand this situation, or others like it. So, again, thank you for your post, and thank you everyone for commenting despite my opposition on how you may feel. This is an important issue, even when the players are taken out of the picture
Reading the initial article as well as the responses has been very intriguing. It would appear that the line between legality and morality can be argued from any number of perspectives and at this point where does it get any of us? Something terrible happened, I think we all can agree, but the proverbial "blame game" is creating a lynch mob starting at the top, Paterno, and likely continuing on until no stone is left unturned. I have a few questions after reading the grand jury testimony and am curious to know how people feel about them.
1) Wouldn't we all like to know what exactly was said to Paterno about the nature of what was witnessed? And is there a point to which the nature of the info he received justified his actions of reporting to the university and not the authorities?
2) The report states that a mother of one of the boys reported to the police and an investigation was undertaken also involving the child protection agency. Nothing came of this, however the authorities had been alerted and do we feel that it would have been prudent for both to take further steps to monitor Sandusky in the future based on his close interaction with minors within second mile? Placing someone in the foundation to oversee the interactions, to question and alert families about the complaint, and to prevent Sandusky from having one on one interactions with minors- including sleepovers? It would seem that the authorities were notified about indecent behavior and chose not to follow up from a very early time.
3) The report also mentioned that Sandusky would remove students from the classroom unannounced. I am sure this violates school policy and wonder if this behavior was reported to the appropriate channels including the parents to deem if permission was granted for these visits?
I am sure more answers will be revealed as this unfolds, in the meantime, I think that as a society we should focus more on being united in realizing that this is a much bigger problem than State College alone and respect each others moral opinions and not sling mud. We are all human and this hurts each of us in our own way. If anything, this will bring more awareness to a real problem
I find it telling that Colleluori hasnt left a comment in like the last 20 hours...
Point one: Yes, a police department has the right to decide its policing priorities, however for a police department to decide its priorities it must be informed that a crime has occurred. The State College Police Force was never informed of the incident in the Fall of 2000 when a janitor witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on a young boy. The Police Force was never informed of the incident on March 1 2002 when Sandusky was found to be raping a young boy by a graduate assistant. Which leads us to
Point 3: If the State College Police are legal law enforcement agency, criminal activities done at State College should be reported to the State College Police. That is not insubordination, that is following the chain of command. Penn State's Vice President and AD are not law enforcement officials. To put it simply, if your neighbors house is burning down, you don't call the mayor, you call the fire department. Should Schultz and Curly be informed by the Police Department about the investigation, absolutely, however they should have not been doing the investigating. Could this have lead to false accusations? Absolutely anytime one individual accuses another of crime it could lead to false accusations, however it is the job of Police Department to determine if the accusation is true or false, it is not the job of the football coach, the AD or the Vice President to decide if criminal accusations are true or false. As for the argument that it could have meant Paterno losing a good friend and trust of his colleagues, that is true also, however not informing the police could cause more boys to be raped because an investigation was never initiated. And if Paterno really thought the grad assistant was wrong, why would you ever hire him to be part of your coaching staff. In the end which is the worse outcome, losing a few friends or young boys being raped for the next 8 years?
As for Point 2 its completely moot by the fact that the grad assistant, Paterno, the AD and Vice President never informed the proper authorities.
As for his Paterno's moral obligations. In 1988 victim 6 's mother reports Sandusky to the police because she finds out he has been showering with her son. An investigation is done between two State College Police Detectives however it is ultimately called off by the Centre County DA. In Fall 2000 a janitor witnesses Sandusky performing oral sex on a young boy in the football building, he immediately tells every other janitor in the building and then informs his immediate superior who tells him to write a report and submit it to the proper officials. He never does. Paterno is the CEO of the Penn State Football, he has full control of the football budget, facilities and employment, it is his job to know what is going on with his coaches, players, fields and buildings. There is no possible way Paterno did not know about the investigation in 1988, there is no possible way Paterno did not know about incident in 2000. Arguing otherwise means you know nothing about coaching in general, much less about coaching in a big money college program. To put it simply, its like arguing Nixon knew nothing about the Watergate break in. Joe Paterno chose to ignore the incident in 1988, he chose to ignore it again in 2000, and he pretended to know nothing about either incident in 2002 and directed his employee to go the people who would most likely be able to stop any form of investigation and cover things up.
If you truly believe Paterno did everything was right, would you feel the same way if it had been your nephew, son or grandson that had been raped in the Penn State showers? If you can say yes to that, well then you truly believe that he did nothing wrong, if you say no then you are just defending Paterno because of who he is.
If you read the legal report, it says it all. Clearly heads are rolling, as they should. Schultz may "oversee" the University Police, but he never told them what happened!
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
It is not enough to report a crime of this nature.
If you witness a child being raped the only appropriate response is to physically step in and stop it. Period.
Where is it reported that Paterno reported it to the Campus Police. I'm not seeing it anywhere except that he reported it to Curley and Schultz.
Could Joe Paterno sue Penn State under whistle-blower laws?
Those laws forbid companies from firing employees that report on internal crimes. Like Joe did in 2002 (and now he's getting fired because of it). Hmmm.
its a shame. i pray for the familes. I don't know Joe Pa personally, so i can't comment on his character. I can only speculate, like the media and everyone else. Sandusky should be on the stick. Not Joe. They fired him because they knew he would be celebrated this weekend. They didn't want that to happen. I think Joe Pa should have said this would be the last game. Tough spot for Joe but I think the Trustees acted too suddenly, and without fact. Whats gonna happen with Paterno Library? PSU is changed forever.
NO way he did what was morally right. if that was one of his grandkids you can be sure he would have called the police in the least. as for legally, an "investigation" come on, thats a joke there was no investigation. paterno is an "aider" and "abetter"
Dear C esquire,
There are 40 counts of sexual abuse by Sandusky. 20 counts are at Penn State. 19 young boys are involved. Sandusky retired in 2002 with an Enhanced retirement package compliments of "joe". Sandusky ws also Joes "best friend" by his own admission. This was repetitive stalking and molesting of underaged boys. Joe Paterno should be in jail for protecting, promoting and absolving himself of multiple felonys occuring inside his athletic facility. You would lose with your arguement in court as well as waste the judiciarys time.
Im sure youve been admonished in court by your peers. A jury would never absolve paternos lack of obligatiory duties. Paterno if not prosecuted in Criminal court will get sued in Civil court. His assests will be taken and distributed to the victims.
This is a fantastic article with great insight. It seems as though people have lost sight of who the real perpetrator is in this case, and have chosen to act as though JoePa saw the whole thing and gave it his stamp of approval. As a lawyer who represents children in abuse cases, I absolutely agree with the way JoePa chose to proceed with reporting any information. Anyone who disagrees certainly does not understand sex abuse investigations, the laws or their implications. In order to be credible, a report of this nature needs to come from an eyewitness, outcry witness or victim. All JoePa had was some third party information which is incredibly hard to base an investigation on.
A few people here & on Twitter have asked where I've been in the last 20 hours. This post evidentially struck a nerve & over 130 people (Ok some were bots)left messages. I'm a pretty busy working lawyer (despite the few of you who question my abilities because you don't like my analysis). I run a business (my firm) & I have a family. I've attempted to moderate comments all day to keep the conversation going.
Some asked: What if it was one of mine that was abused? I gave my answer earlier in the thread, but since some continue to ask: I would be angry at Sandusky to the point of wanting vengeance. I would be furious that Curley & Shultz failed to do their jobs. I would have little respect for the grad student but I would not hate him. Why? See below.
I'd be fine with the fact that the football coach of one of the best programs in the country, took the information he had, so seriously, as to put a long term relationship at risk by reporting it.
A few allege I'm a PSU Grad or fan. I respect Penn State & Paterno because I love football, I'm not a fan. I bleed green all weekend. I’m a Notre Dame & a NY Jet fan. I have no ties or affiliation to PSU. I am a graduate of Tufts University & Hofstra Law.
There have been a number of great posts going both ways here. This is a conversation. I am only one part of this community (usually I am the only part of it) & so the best thing I can do is to thank everyone here for participating & continue to respond when I have the time.
As I write this, Penn State Trustees have decided to fire Joe Paterno. I'll hopefully write another column on the firing before Saturday's game. I will watch the game (if televised in NY) out of respect for the program under Paterno, and for the Seniors. After this season, Penn will be off the list of schools I watch.
One more point before I go. Under Common law, which is where our law comes from, a person had no obligation under law to report any crime. He had no obligation to help another in need. Last month I saw a man get run over by a car. One driver stopped (the guy who hit him hardest) and the other didn't. I had a very important meeting to go to, nevertheless, I stopped. I directed traffic for 20 minutes until police could relieve me. I am involved in the Criminal Justice System. I understand how it works. I do not agree that Paterno, had any moral obligation to do more than he did, based on what he says he knows. The Grad Student however did have a greater moral responsibility. He had the responsibility to stop what he saw.
For those who are "sure" JoePa knew more, well I am just not that prescient. I’ll give Paterno the benefit of the doubt. He’s earned it. He took the steps that he was both obligated & instructed to take. He is not bigger than the University handbook. He’s NOT PENN STATE. WE ARE PENN STATE which means he doesn't dictate how things go. He follows rules. He has a big say, but not the last word. That is borne out by the actions tonight of the Bd. Of Trustees, which ousted Coach Paterno. Their act is cowardly. They are turning their back on Paterno after he gave them his life time. He won't get the happy goodbye or retirement party he deserved; he won't get the car or gifts. He probably won't even get an office to work from in Penn State's facility, a facility he helped build with his years of successful service. The Trustees speak & act for Penn State. Joe, merely worked there.
That answers as many comments as I can now. For those that wrote longer more detailed and philosophical posts I'll try to address some of the things you wrote about in a full post in a day or so. Till then I’ll continue to monitor the comments here. I have only deleted those posts that were spam, or which threatened others. Those comments are not part of rational discourse.
If Paterno confronted the GA and said "you need to go to the police if what you are saying is true" then the GA would have been forced to. I'm not sure if you know who is in charge at Penn State, but it is Joe Paterno. He rules above all else at that school, and is more important than any of the directors.
Why didn't Paterno confront Sandusky? And why, and this is the worst part about it, did he tell Sandusky he couldn't work with children at Penn State, but knew that he would be with kids at other places? Clearly he would not have done this if he didn't know that Sandusky had behaved inappropriately with kids.
This is a stupid and biased argument. You are looking at this form a legal standpoint and not from a moral standpoint. But even so, it is against Pennsylvania state law for an educator, which Paterno most certainly is, to not report an incident like this. Even as a secondary-witness, he was still legally obligated to report this.
You are a disgrace and should be ashamed of yourself for defending this.
"I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct."
"I am married and the father of two teenage boys."
"I like satire and comedy"
...OH this explains everything then!
This entire blog entry is a sick, sick joke!
For a person who is a FATHER to say what Paterno does was morally correct... that's a pretty depraved joke! I'm sure you'd appreciate ANYONE to step forward if one of your kids was abused in any shape of form, right? Golly, you almost fooled me with your silly wording, sir.
Get out your hipboots, the shit's gettin deep with this "legal" opinion.
Matt M. said "I'm not sure if you know who is in charge at Penn State, but it is Joe Paterno. He rules above all else at that school, and is more important than any of the directors."
I'm not sure if you've actually been following the news, but shortly before you posted your screed, Joe Paterno was FIRED by those same directors.
So how can Paterno be "in charge" at Penn State when clearly he was just shown just how much power he actually had.
That fact pretty much invalidates your entire remaining argument.
From the Grand Jury report:
"As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky... The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."
How can you support someone who knew children were being raped in his showers by Sandusky for years and was still be able to sleep at night and win football games?
You claim to know the difference between legal obligation and moral obligation but your entire argument betrays the fact that you don't. I'm not going to attack your character and frankly I'm glad we have people like you who don't understand the difference as defense attorney's, our completely flawed system of justice requires it. But, none of your argument addresses moral points and all of it deals with legal technicalities. You're flat out wrong from a moral perspective.
Matt et al.,
We, meaning you and I, simply do not know enough to expect that Joe should have done more. He may have been instructed to leave the investigation to Admin and maybe he was not instructed. He may have found it impossible to believe the allegation or he may have known about it and turned a blind eye.
We do know that there was an investigation in 1998 by the campus Police and the admin had looked at it in 2002. There is good reason to believe that Joe was expected to stay out of an investigation. By way of example, I work in Admin in healthcare. If there is an abuse allegation we launch an investigation, report to police if serious and called for by law, and always report to State HHS authorities. Those supervisors responsible for receiving the first complaint are expected to leave the investigation to Admin and the authorities. Sure, they can go to the authorities on their own but if its based on hearsay then you could expect that they would not. They have good reason to think its being handled. Paterno fits the role of a supervisor who receives the report.
Its a good thing to see all the outrage and the backlash is an expression of a healthy sensitivity to such a horrible crime. I'm glad the State Police commissioner wants to make it clear that these crimes can be reported directly, but he does an injustice when he hangs Joe Paterno in the court of public opinion without due process.
I would also like to support Anthony's basic argument that Paterno does not have a moral obligation because he does not have the knowledge that the GA had. Its a simple reasoned argument regarding the relationship between knowledge and moral culpability. If Joe does not know then he is not obligated to take the next step. In fact, he may cause harm if he tarnishes the name of the Coach if the coach was innocent. Of course, Sandusky is NOT innocent and we don't really know much about Paterno's knowledge of events. However, The only evidence we have does not suggest enough to hang Joe Pa the way the media has done.
Lets hope that justice is done for all parties involved.
Matt, Look at this interesting quote from the Grand Jury report:
"Schultz testified that the 1998 incident was reviewed by the
University Police and "the child protection agency" with the blessing of then-University counsel
Wendell Courtney. Courtney was then and remains counsel for The Second Mile. Schultz
confirmed that University President Graham Spanier was apprised in 2002 that a report incident involving Sandusky and a child in the showers on campus had been reported by an
employee."
Aside form the univ. officials being very wrapped up in this whole thing, what about the counsel Courtney? He may well be the biggest problem here, he should have advised not just the school but SECOND MILE to distance themselves from Sandusky!
This whole story is strange.
Paterno is Penn State University. In 2009, as the highest paid employee, he was paid >$200k more than the President. He was employed at the institution longer than any one involved. He was 75 when the 28 year old GA came to him with the eyewitness account. At the very least, he should have said, "Son, we are going to the police together".
But, NOOOOOOOO ... he had his legacy to protect. Karma.
I respect your opinion as a lawyer but still agree with others that Joe could have done more. Your defense of Joe is sad and incorrect.The first incident happened in 1998, and nothing was done but a slap on the wrist....why? The second incident occurred in 2002, with what the witness said was anal rape in the shower!This was in the football locker room that Joe oversees. How much info does Joe need? A 60 yr old man, with a 10 year old boy is wrong period. You don't have to be genius to know that is morally wrong and sick. You don't need any more info then that.So, since Joe knew this to be at LEAST the second incident he should have went to the police, NOT the university police. The boy took it to him, because Joe was the higher up in that situation. He then let a known predator have access to PSU facilities for years and years. You're telling me that a friend of 30+ years, he knew of no other allegations and misdeeds! Joe cared more about football and PSU's reputation and wins then children....that simple. This lack of follow threw led to many more molestations and the mess he is in now....which is now termination. Anyone one who preaches ethics, and how to be leaders of men would know to go to the highest authority. Get off your high horse. Would you want your kids around someone who had two known sexual confrontations with a predator?
"For those who are "sure" JoePa knew more, well I am just not that prescient. I’ll give Paterno the benefit of the doubt. He’s earned it. He took the steps that he was both obligated & instructed to take".
I really don't like to resort to personal attacks in an argument, but I'm really questioning your ability(as well as anybody else who has read the report and continue to defend him) to comprehend what you read. It's pretty black and white but ill break it down further...
Your best friend gets investigated and ADMITS to SHOWERING with a CHILD... I repeat, ADMITS TO SHOWERING WITH A CHILD!.....ADMITS! TO! SHOWERING! WITH! A! CHILD!!!!
At which point no charges were filed for reasons only God knows, and Sandusky retires from Penn State. Now are you going to tell me Paterno, Sandusky's best friend and boss did not know of this?
Four years later, a credible source tells you that your best friend Sandusky(same guy who ADMITTED TO SHOWERING WITH A CHILD) had now molested a child in the showers of your locker room....
Is it that hard to put two and two together here? Is it that hard to believe the same guy who ADMITTED TO SHOWERING WITH A CHILD could be capable of molesting a child?
Now after he gets the information he reports it a day later to the AD. Are you kidding me? The AD? If he heard of someone getting stabbed, would he call the AD? If he heard of someones car being stolen, would he call the AD?
And for those naive enough to believe Paterno didn't have as much power as we think...What happened when the board, yes the board, asked him to retire a few years ago? For those that don't know... He told them no and guess what? He kept his job. If that's not power than I don't know what is.
I don't understand the stupidity of people thinking that Joe Paterno should have gone to the police. He had no evidence, all he had was hearsay.
Does anyone understand what happens when someone who heard from someone else saw something that happened? It gets filed and followed up. Do you realize that this is exactly what happened when Joe Paterno went to his supervisor (of whom he is supposed to send it to,) regarding the incident?
Other arguments of Joe Paterno apparently supposed to confront Sandusky? Are you out of your mind? He wasn't even in the picture anymore.
Because Joe Paterno is the head coach of Penn State is he supposed to start video taping showers and watching Sandusky's every move?
Even after Sandusky was banned from bringing children on campus he continued to do so because it's 'impossible to enforce such a ban,' as stated in the grand jury write up.
But the 82 year old Joe Paterno should be responsible? It's not Joe Paterno's decision to determine if Sandusky should or shouldn't be allowed back on campus, banned from bringing children, banned period, it's not his choice, it's not his debate.
I think many of you see this whole debacle and assume this is like 10 coaches in total who's involved with a little kid. Get a dose of reality to the size of the situation, go to a state campus and walk into the gymnasium, chances are you aren't going to be monitored the entire time, now pretend you are a privileged retired coach of the same organization, you're telling me it's Paterno's job to keep an eye out? Get real.
Some of you people are amazing. You think that just because he's Joe Pa, he shouldn't be untouchable. But you retort saying that he should have confronted Sandusky on such a topic, or should have brought a hearsay argument to a police station and expected immediate results.
And enough of the personal bashing, it's really pathetic to go after the writer of this article, whether you agree with him or not. Pathetic.
As a social worker, I think that the author of this blog is absolutely right. First of all, Joe Paterno would not be considered a mandated reporter. A mandate reporter is one who has a legal obligation based upon their consistent professional contact with children to report abuse. As a university staff member who does not necessary come into contact with minors on a consistent basis, he is not a mandated reporter. Therefore, since the incident happened on campus, he would have a legal obligation to follow a chain of command. Additionally, those of us who are mandated reporters have a specific protocol to follow. We can make reports to Child Protective Services or the Police, but we cannot go to the media or make a personal crusade against someone until they are formally charged after an investigation has been done. Furthermore, child abuse allegations and investigations are kept confidential, so Joe would have not had a legal right to inquire about the nature of the investigation. As a person making a report, he would only have the right to find out the results after the investigation had finished. If the investigation came back unstubtaniated, he would not have a legal right to try to do more to investigate. As a social worker, once I make a report of child abuse, I do not have the right to personally investigate the allegation or personally inquire about the nature of the investigation itself because that is kept confidential. I cannot assume that the person who has been accused is guilty and base my actions upon that because I am not a proper investigative authority. So Joe would have been wrong to ethically and legally to do anything more than he did. I think in his case, the chain of command issue is more relevant than people are understanding. As a celebrity figure, for him to go directly to the police could cause the story to be sensationalized and publicized in a way that would harm the investigation and the child himself. Child abuse allegations cannot legally be made public by any other entity than the police who have jurisdiction over the case. That is the law. Furthermore, Sandusky has never been found guilty of sexual molestation, that is what a lot of people seem to be ignoring and that is irresponsible. People have the right to due process and allegations such as these have to go through a proper protocol. The vast majority of allegations of abuse are found to be false after a thorough investigation. So it is not unreasonable that for non-mandated reporters they should be required to go through a chain of command and a proper process for reporting. Joe Paterno has just been made a scapegoat and that is wrong. He did what he should have done ethically and morally. That is an unpopular position, but again, he had no legal authority or right personally go after Sandusky or make a media issue of it as it would have interfered with the investigation and he could have been sued and criminal charges possibly bought before him. Additionally, he would have not been allowed any information regarding the investigation because he has no legal right to this information, therefore any personal crusade or influence he may have exerted would have been based on heresy evidence with the assumption that Sandusky was guilty and would have obstructed a proper police investigation. He had no authority to do what people think that he should have done because he had no legal basis or moral basis upon which to do so except the assumption that an allegation is proof of guilt.
The intentional conflations and obfuscations being used to frame Paterno's actions as morally acceptable, or even morally complete (not to mention the intentionally inadequate descriptions of the GA and intentionally misleading characterizations of why he might have been there, when he was doing exactly the type of task GA's do at a time when they would do it)...it's all too much...though, ironically, it probably does a lot to explain why predators like Sandusky become so emboldened, and are allowed to behave to heinously and victimize so many for so long.
i cant believe anyone would defend him. I couldn't live with myself if i went to work every day and worked with a child molester. I dont care what the rules are... moral obligations mean rules are meant to be broken. Only a sick attorney would think this up, or a sports fan that thinks winning is everything, regardless of who gets hurt - like most of America
Let's not forget the fact that Paterno sat on the board of Second Mile and allowed Sandusky to continue to interact with young boys as a representative of that charitable foundation after he had a first hand account of the 2002 Anal Rape.
If you put together all of the pieces you begin to see a completely different story
Paterno has had NO "chain of command superiors, " for a LONG TIME, until nov 9, 2011. If he had he would have been fired when Curley and Spanier went to his porch after the 2004 season. Please keep hiding behind technicalities and legal nuances. Just for one minute stop to think about your kids if you have any or nephews etc and then ask yourself how do you water down a reported child rape (as reported by Mcqueary) to a "horsing around" or something of sexual nature" remark when you tell Curley. More dirt will come out, I am sure all those sat down with lawyers like you and decided a plan of action to cover things up long time go.. Problem is, it did not work.
Never mind what the man has done for the university and for college football. Never mind how many players the guy suspended for bad behavior or low grades. Never mind the ethics he brought to college football. America wants Paterno to hang!
Paterno was a hired manager. He didn't run Penn State. He wasn't the athletics director. He was an employee (fancy title as he may hold). The man was informed of something that occurred and he reported it to his superiors. His job is to coach the football program. His superiors jobs are to investigate reports and run the institution.
As a former college athlete, if I were in his players shoes, I don't think I'd walk out on that field Saturday. Yes, he may have let people down, but he certainly made a HUGE impact on a great deal of lives over the past 60 years. You can't take that away from him.
I think you are dead on Mr. Colleluori...the issues is that people like to believe the hype the media is "selling". Hello folks wake up! Paterno did all he could legally, otherwise he would have been prosecuted for Libel and Defamation of Sandusky without the support of the university! Many of you clearly do not work in Higher Education (I do), and the politics and chain of command are very serious and not to be skipped. Paterno reported all that he knew in the appropiate manner, and it was up to the others to take the lead and do something with it.
I hate the way society likes to hop on bandwagons of persecution without all the facts. This is all happeneing because you all buy into it....you are helping the media continue the path of destruction, and Paterno is now being held in the moral eyes of society for no reason!
Grow up people, Joe Paterno didn't condone this behavior, and was powerless....even if the media or your way off sense or morality tell you different. You have to be objective and you are all failing at that task.
I only have one question for you. How does JoePa (and McQueary) allow Sandusky to "workout" in the PSU weight room ~ 1 week ago and how was Sandusky allowed to bring a boy to practice in 2007?
Simply explain this. Thank you.
all of this doesn't change the fact that joepa, as a preeminent leader and arguably the face of the university, still allowed someone under investigation for heinous sex crimes against children to continue to use the university's and the football program's facilities. that alone screams of moral irresponsibility.
For all those casting stones at Joe Paterno; let’s talk morals. Yes, Joe should have done more and what he did not do was immoral. But let me ask you this. Did you vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I’m sick of everyone saying how immoral Joe is and he could have done more to prevent those children from being raped. This is true but many of the people calling Joe immoral voted for a pro-abortion president. They are saying its ok to murder and slaughter unborn babies. How is that moral? You could have done more to save the lives of the unborn! Every vote counts and if you voted for candidate that supports abortion; does that make you immoral? OVER ONE MILLION babies are murdered due to abortion every year in the United States. I’m not defending Joe Paterno. What he did was wrong. I’m just asking those who are throwing him under the bus to make sure you are a moral person before you cast your stones. If you are moral… cast away!
Ok, so Joe Paterno has an assistant coach/GA tell him that he saw one of his best friends and a well regarded assistant coach, a legend for assistant coaches if you will (Sandusky), doing something improper with a boy. Joe lets the campus police know about it, then that's it? That's all he needs to do? He continues on a relationship with, at best, a guy who falsely accuses someone of this, or at worst, a guy who is actually doing it? That doesn't add up. Neither situation, the false accuser, or obviously the abuser is acceptable to continue on. At that point he needed to rsolve the situation one way or another.
"Penn will be off the list of schools I watch."
Please do not confuse Penn State with Penn..
Penn is a separate private institution in Philadelphia and has nothing do do with this situation..they also have a pretty good 1AA football team that is well worth watching.
As for the legal arguments you make I find them well reasoned and thank you for taking the time to publish them & moderate this thread.
One comment that I find interesting was the statement that "No one could lose their job at a university for doing the right thing" Having worked in academia I assure everyone reading that you can.
Far too many people fail to realize how difficult it is to follow the moral high ground, and how often each and every one of us fails to do so...even when we think we are. The fact that so many sit in judgement of Mr. Paterno when they have failed to walk a mile in his shoes well illustrates this fact.
As a fellow attorney, I agree completely with you. It is so easy for people to get caught up in the moral outrage and forget there are laws and procedures in place. Thank you.
I am proud Penn Stater and quite frankly disgusted with the entire situation. We don't need to cover ourselves under the blanket of the legal system when 'Common Sense' should prevail. If you saw someone attacking or raping a kid on the street you would immediately call the police and or intervene yourself cause it's the right 'Common Sense' moral thing to do....PERIOD
This is not about football and as much as I love Joe Pa, it was time for him to retire years ago and let other people have a chance to lead the team. In my opinion, he exercised poor judgement and has already admitted that fact.
Now, let's devote our energy, time, money, prayers, etc. to protecting the victims...the children!
Proud Class of '89 Penn Stater
Amazingly put and factually enriched unlike those who seek to discredit you. I suggest everyone get past the context of what happened and seek to discover the truth before letting your opinions get the best of you. Joe Paterno is neither a "pedophile enabler" or a criminal. He did go to Gary Schultz (head of the University Police Department). He took the same actions you and I would have taken under the circumstances and to hold him to a higher standard than you hold yourselves is absurd. Everyone seems to be more focused on the acts of Joe Paterno than they are the acts of the alleged perpetrator. Paterno is not the person to be angry at and everyone should direct their anger to the ONE person who could have stopped this from happening....Jerry Sandusky.
Do you have children, Anthony?
I hold a BSCJA and post graduate studies in Forensics and agree with your opinion. Yet understand that unless you have a law background few will understand why your opinion is valid.
The plea for morality that is the most common response to your comment is, as you stated, '20/20 hindsight'. And, without having been there at the moment these allegations were presented to Mr. Paterno no one can offer anything but a 'hindsight' moral opinion.
The legal question of a "Duty to Report" has been mentioned. Yet this falls on an individual "witnessing" a crime. Paterno heard allegations and did report these.
A Duty to Report IS required in the following professions, "applies to any person who is an attorney; physician, including a hospital intern or resident; dentist; podiatrist; practitioner of a limited branch of medicine as specified in section 4731.15 of the Revised Code; registered nurse; licensed practical nurse; visiting nurse; other health care professional; licensed psychologist; licensed school psychologist; independent marriage and family therapist or marriage and family therapist; speech pathologist or audiologist; coroner; administrator or employee of a child day-care center; administrator or employee of a residential camp or child day camp; administrator or employee of a certified child care agency or other public or private children services agency; school teacher; school employee; school authority; person engaged in social work or the practice of professional counseling; agent of a county humane society; person rendering spiritual treatment through prayer in accordance with the tenets of a well-recognized religion; superintendent, board member, or employee of a county board of mental retardation; investigative agent contracted with by a county board of mental retardation; or employee of the department of mental retardation and developmental disabilities."
Paterno appears to be implicated as he falls under the law as a "school teacher; school employee; school authority" yet this too is hindsight in an issue that can only be judged by the letter of the law and a full disclosure of the facts at the time of the incident.
Media reporting is often askew and the goal is not for justice but for an audience. This case will be decided in a court of law and this is where it belongs. The court of public opinion is fraught with emotion and legal ignorance.
Mr. Colleluori, you are way off base. This sordid affair is not as nuanced and grey as you are making it out to be. No obligation under common law? Are you seriously taking that tack? And you're putting this on McQueary, the graduate assistant, stating that he had "a greater moral responsibility"? You can't be serious. McQueary went to Paterno, believing that Paterno's power trumped Sandusky's and that Paterno would do the right thing to remedy the egregious wrong that McQueary witnessed. Instead, Paterno kept it in house and watched as school officials quietly swept the whole affair under the rug and allowed Sandusky the freedom to victimize more young boys. Shame on PSU. And shame on anyone who defends Paterno's actions in this case.
sorry but obviously you would be wrong in stating that Joe rules above all here...He was just fired so I would say he obviously does not rule above all.
"3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man’s word against anothers.”
So it’s worse to take one man’s word over another’s than to investigate child rape accusations, just to be safe? Just to have a clear conscience? Just to make sure that little 10 year old boy was okay, and that he wasn’t the only one? That there wouldn’t be more like him?
So Joe Pa shouldn’t have done more in case it was wrong? He shouldn’t have tried to find out who the victim was, talk to them, talk to Sandusky, as well as go to the police? Would people really lose faith in Joe Pa if they saw him taking a stand against child rape allegations?
(Apparently not, because even with all of his influence and power at Penn State, he DIDN’T follow up on the case and people like you are finding ways to defend him.)
I would hope that JoePa would be willing to sacrifice a friendship if it meant that children wouldn't be getting abused.
It's just another case of emotion overriding reason. It's sad because even folks who normally fight for justice are throwing Joe under the bus and picking up their pitchforks: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/11/penn-state-students-protest-joepas.html
Matt M - You obviously know nothing about Penn State. Joe was just fired....how could he run Penn State if he was just fired from it??? He did what he thought was right at the time, and not one of us here knows anything at all about what Joe did or didn't know back then, let alone what he was thinking or what his motives were.
I also find it interesting that most people assume guilt where none has been proven. Yes, the grand jury report is very graphic and very disturbing, but it is not guilt. A jury will decide Sandusky's guilt, thankfully, and not this bunch of knee jerk reactionaries who were not there, don't have all the facts, and no next to nothing about the people involved.
Where were the Trustees? Is there anyway that they were not made aware of the 1998 incedent? or the 2002 incedent? When were they informed about the Grand Jury investigation? The Trustees waited until the crap hit the fan to do anything then it was lame. They fired the only guy who did anything - JoePa. They should all be thrown out of office and be on the hotseat for not doing anything for the past 13 years. I believe everyone of them is amoung the most guilty and since their big issue seems to be 'liability' then they can just call their lawyers because they should all be sued by the victims and by the University for not doing their job.
Mr Colleluori
You are a true litigator. By reading your take on this scandal I would guess a fairly successful one. I guess there is no other way you could defend criminals if you could not take your emotion out of what you are doing and who you are defending. What you say about Paterno and how if he did any more he would be putting himself/university at risk is complete and utter BS.
Nobody is/was more at risk than these kids. Joe Paterno caught wind of Sandusky's actions in 1998, and had them confirmed on a March morning in 2002 when McQueary showed up at his doorstep.
The fact that Joe Paterno and Penn State merely told Sandusky you cannot bring kids around here anymore is criminal. They were saying they knew he was up to no good and wanted to wash their hands of it. I dont care what the "Law" says about Libel, or Slander, or insubordination. This is not a criminal trial. The bottom line is that Joe would have pushed and pushed until Sandusky was behind bars, more CHILDREN would not have been raped...period.
That is not a point of opinion or up for argument, that is fact.
Joe Paterno himself says that in hindsite he wished he would have done more. By not doing everything possible to keep those children safe and allowing Sandusky access to PSU facilities and the Second Mile program UP UNTIL LAST WEEK! Paterno and Co might as well have been holding these kids down for Sandusky.
I am a lifelong Penn State fan and have worshipped Joe Paterno since i was a little boy. But Penn St Board of Trustees absolutely did the correct thing last night. They have carved out the rotten wood and can now start to move forward with helping the victims, convicting Sandusky and starting the new chapter in the Pennsylvania State University story.
Dear dumbasses:
JOE DID CALL THE POLICE. JOE DID REPORT THE INCIDENT TO THE POLICE. The police then interviewed the grad student to find-out what he witnessed. Then they dropped the investigation.
Do not blame the citizen who reported the crime.
Blame the police for not doing their job.
Matt M, check out pa statute title 23, sections 6311, 6312, especially 6311(c). Your assertion about pa law is incorrect
There are valid points to both sides of the argument. However, I would encourage anyone who is arguing Paterno's (im)morality to do some reading in the area of social psychology, which studies people's behavior in the context of others, the situation, and the environment. You may believe that Paterno could have done more (he COULD have...), and you may believe that you would have acted differently in the same situation (and maybe you WOULD have..), but you may be surprised to know how people tend to act in these kinds of situations. In fact, you are probably most likely to have acted as Paterno did, too. Research says it, not me.
As a side note, has anyone heard of/read the story of child in China who was hit by a car and run over several more times, with 7-12 witnesses who did nothing? Do you know why they did nothing? Because in the past people in their country have been put in jail for not helping ENOUGH. Who wants to be the innocent bystander and good citizen who goes to jail because he tried to help someone? When are going to stop blaming the help and start placing the responsibility on the perpetrators themselves?
Remember the case of Kitty Genovese? There's this thing called diffusion of responsibility. When someone thinks that someone else is taking care of the problem, s/he no longer is no longer responsible. As Paterno reported the incident, he'd done his part.
Like it or not, there's also this thing called informational social influence. This is when people are unsure how to act in a situation, they look to others who they believe will know better for guidance. Paterno reported the incident to his superiors, who allegedly followed up on it. He inferred from others who were presumed to know more and be more important that his behavior was appropriate and sufficient.
Pick up a text book. Keep reading. You'll be amazed at what you'll discover about human behavior.
It's not pretty. It's not wonderful, or even good. The violation of these children was a tragedy, but Paterno's behavior was moral and correct. HE is not the perpetrator. He could have done more, yes, but decades on research in human behavior tells us that's just not the way people work. Now, being aware of the situation, and knowing what we know, we can make an effort to overcome human nature and behave better in our future.
Just a little perspective.
There are valid points to both sides of the argument. However, I would encourage anyone who is arguing Paterno's (im)morality to do some reading in the area of social psychology, which studies people's behavior in the context of others, the situation, and the environment. You may believe that Paterno could have done more (he COULD have...), and you may believe that you would have acted differently in the same situation (and maybe you WOULD have..), but you may be surprised to know how people tend to act in these kinds of situations. In fact, you are probably most likely to have acted as Paterno did, too. Research says it, not me.
As a side note, has anyone heard of/read the story of child in China who was hit by a car and run over several more times, with 7-12 witnesses who did nothing? Do you know why they did nothing? Because in the past people in their country have been put in jail for not helping ENOUGH. Who wants to be the innocent bystander and good citizen who goes to jail because he tried to help someone? When are going to stop blaming the help and start placing the responsibility on the perpetrators themselves?
Remember the case of Kitty Genovese? There's this thing called diffusion of responsibility. When someone thinks that someone else is taking care of the problem, s/he no longer is no longer responsible. As Paterno reported the incident, he'd done his part.
Like it or not, there's also this thing called informational social influence. This is when people are unsure how to act in a situation, they look to others who they believe will know better for guidance. Paterno reported the incident to his superiors, who allegedly followed up on it. He inferred from others who were presumed to know more and be more important that his behavior was appropriate and sufficient.
Pick up a text book. Keep reading. You'll be amazed at what you'll discover about human behavior.
It's not pretty. It's not wonderful, or even good. The violation of these children was a tragedy, but Paterno's behavior was moral and correct. HE is not the perpetrator. He could have done more, yes, but decades on research in human behavior tells us that's just not the way people work. Now, being aware of the situation, and knowing what we know, we can make an effort to overcome human nature and behave better in our future.
Just a little perspective.
I think you are correct in your argument and agree that this is a witch hunt. While Joe Pa could have possibly done more hind sight is 20/20. It is a sad story and so many people failed those children. After reading the grand jury report I am mostly shocked that more was not done by victim 6's mother. She is the one who reported Sandusky for showering and touching her son in 1998. Sandusky was investigated but not charged. I cannot believe a mother would just accept that and not try to do more to contact other parents and warn them, appeal to the charity to have him banned from contacting children, and gone to the press. Her son spent time with Sandusky with another one of the victims. How she didn't publicize and warn all of the other is beyond me. She was observant enough to notice that something wasn't right but not all of the other parents were. I just can't imagine not making a major public stink if a grown man showered with and touched my son and was not charged and remained in a place of power with access to other children.
first off i would like to say this is a great article that is very true. next for all you so called penn state alumni or students stand behind Joe and defend him. Ill admit i have not always agreed with Joe's ideas and sometimes despised him however as a current penn state student i will defend him for doing so much for the school.
Now what is bothering me is that everyone says he was morally wrong when he did what he thought was right at the time and the information he had. As many said we are all human and make mistakes and he admits he made one, but to take the advice of a grad student over a close friend is hard to do.
Anyone in a similar place would have done the same thing and not thrown their best friend under the bus after hearing a distraught student, and if you were you are a disgrace to humanity.
in batman their is a quote "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." it looks as if Joe has become a hero for doing nothing wrong. It is a sad day for all the world.
I love how the people on here keep coming up with Joe was the top power in the organization and how he was a god. It's funny that he is now without a job. If he had such great power as you all think he did then clearly you don't realize what being 'fired' means, as in someone else 'fired' you.
The statute in PA specifically gives a person different avenues to report sex abuse of children. One way or the other is equally correct in reporting. There is no better way to do it.
Joe is being smeared for complying with the law.
See my entries on the scandal at:
www.obpopulus.wordpress.com
As the leader of that team, Mr. Paterno hears almost everything going on under him. How many times do you think he heard rumors or wispers about things going on, other than the 2 investigations in '98 and '02. I have to admit that you make a wonderful defense of his legal actions but a less than piss poor defense of his moral actions or should I say lack of action. Those children deserved more, foremost, that university deserved more and his team deserves a real leader.
Sincerely,
Scott
has anyone mentioned that the district attorney already knew of Sandusky's behavior YEARS before the grad assistant or Joepa were involved in this case? The case was dismissed and the DA at that time has gone missing and is presumed dead, with a wiped hard drive. The public persecution of Joe Paterno is disgusting and is nothing more than the use of a public figure as a scapegoat. The issue should have never gone to Joe Paterno in the first place -- the grad assistant should have gone directly gone to the police immediately, or at the very least BROKEN UP the assault rather than walk away like a coward. But this man will be on the field on Saturday. The only reason the rest of the men involved in this case aren't being discussed as widely is because know one knew who the hell they were until 3 days ago.
One other issue i would like to bring up (which may have already been mentioned but this feed is entirely too long to read through at this point) ...where is Sandusky's wife in all of this? I would really enjoy some sort of statement from her -- can she honestly say she had no idea her husband was sneaking out of bed for 10+ years to go downstairs with his overnight guests? The whole thing completely blows my mind.
In Pa, there is a simple way to alert authorities about child abuse. It's called ChildLine, a toll free and anonymous method of reporting an incident for investigation. A reporter (any old Joe who calls) has the right to call back and follow up on how the case was handled. The follow up is not made public, but assures the reporter that the right action was taken.
From the website: "Reporting Child Abuse, Call 800-932-0313:
The Intake Unit (800-932-0313) is available 24 hours to receive reports of suspected child abuse. Professionals who come into contact with children are required to report when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child under the care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of their agency, institution or organization is an abused child. In addition, any person may report suspected abuse, even if the individual wishes to remain anonymous.
Each call is answered by a trained intake specialist who will interview the caller to determine the most appropriate course of action. Actions include forwarding a report to a county agency for investigation as child abuse or general protective services, forwarding a report directly to law enforcement officials or refer the caller to local social services (such as counseling, financial aid and legal services).
If you have any concerns or questions about how your call was handled, please contact one of our Intake Managers or the Director at 717-783-1964."
And so the GA and his Father meet with Paterno and tell him something about a 10 year old and Sandusky. Who cares about the 10 year old ....where is Paterno's concern for the kid??? The BS politics and legal rhetoric be damned....where is this child and is he OK! No worries Joe Pa's got your back. No moral highground in happy valley....
I am not a lawyer, rather I am a teacher. I believe that kids have to be cared for and protected. Nothing sickens me more than abuse of a child.
I had originally believed (from listening to media reports) that Coach Paterno had know about the child molestations and had attempted to cover them up (either to help his long-time friend or to protect the university). However, the fact that Paterno notified the proper authorities, AND that he himself had no direct knowledge of the crime (he did not witness anything himself), I feel that he acted appropriately. Had he seen Sandusky's actions with his own eyes, and then after an investigation nothing happened, then I could see him pushing the issue. The way the events actually occurred, I think that Coach Paterno acted properly. He did not have any more knowledge that he could pass along that could help protect any children. Furthermore he is not a pedophile. It was not Paterno that molested the kids, nor did he attempt to cover it up. It was told to him, he reported it to the proper authorities. I can't imagine if I was told that one of my close friends had done such a thing.
-Lewis Duttry
Anthony: Thanks for writing this. I, too, believe Paterno is being lynched. You have made his case much more eloquently than I could. After the career Paterno has had, I think the least the public and the media could do is hear what he has to say. Too late now, I guess. He's been charged, tried, and executed in the court of public opinion.
If nothing else the sometimes extreme reactions here show that when child abuse is involved many people cannot respond rationally. They are more than willing to jump to conclusions, eagerly point out scapegoats, rudely tell off a lawyer who knows his law in this matter that he is scum or worse for daring to, you know, insist that the rule of law should prevail instead of (I guess) a summary lynching of the accused, and pretty much any other act that lets them satsify their lust for vengeance no matter how irrational or illegal their recommended actions would be.
These crimes are terrible, but that doesn't take away our responsibility to still act ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Likewise, we owe all involved to hear their side of the story before leaping to judgments. To suggest otherwise is to make a bad situation even worse.
Looking at this from a standpoint of law enforcement, which is my field, there really wasn't anything else Joe could do. If he had called me and said "Someone told me they saw Sandusky doing something to a child in the locker room" Well I would have told him, "sorry but being a 2nd hand hearsay witness, there isn't anything I can do, unless the witness comes forward."
Like it or not, thats how the law goes. So lets say the investigation starts after McQueary contacts me... Then Joe calls and asks about the progress of the investigation. I cannot say anything about it because it involves a minor and is a case of sexual abuse of that minor.
So knowing this law, what else would you want him to do. Get a pitchfork and chase Sandusky? As absolutely awful as the allegations are, that doesn't mean you can circumvent the law or rules or do anything that would jeopardize the possible or ongoing investigation.
Joe absolutely did what he could have and should have done. If he breaks PA law and goes outside of his institution to report this first, then the ugly truth of it is that there is great chance if gone to trial then Sandusky would be found not guilty based on that technicallity. And who would want that? No one.
My prayers to the victims and their families.
Like it or not, there's also this thing called informational social influence. This is when people are unsure how to act in a situation, they look to others who they believe will know better for guidance.
You might be able to pull that wool over the eyes of the college age liberals you're attempting to appeal to, but remember that you're talking about a man who was the supposed moral compass of this community for 40 years. This behavior flies in the face of what Paterno was supposed to have represented for decades, and is qutite possibly the most hypocritcal act I've ever been witness to.
Paterno's behavior was moral and correct.
So first you minimize his responsibility, then claim he fulfilled his duties? I can entertain the first point as an argument, but what Paterno did was the equivalent of finding a bomb on his doorstep, then dropping off that bomb at the doorstep of his boss...who happened to live next to an elementary school. He knew there was something very wrong with Jerry Sandusky, and at the very least could have made sure that his lifelong friend was not, in fact, the evil monster he was. Joe did not do that. The fact is, Sandusky's inclination to perform these acts in the football team's locker room shows that he was practically begging someone to make him stop. Joe had the opportunity, and all the influence he needed. He failed. Is he the worst villain in this scenario? Of course not. But he is most certainly a villain.
No matter which side you come down on on this argument, it is hard to read it and not see that there are certainly two sides to this story. That is not something you would conclude from watching the media feeding frenzy which clearly wanted to see blood in the water, and were happy to get it from a board of trustees that clearly either panicked under pressure or took this opportunity to settle past scores. They should be greatly ashamed for firing Joe without discussing these issues with him. If they were concerned that he would be too great a distraction they could have put him on administrative leave (which is where, I believe, the two Penn State officials actually indicted, currently reside -- treated less harshly then Joe!).
I greatly appreciate this article and all the comments. It is clearly a very emotional subject.
Regardless of opinion, I do not think it is right to make point-blank accusations of what Joe did or did not think or care about. To say that he did not care or did not question is to say that you are in the mind of the man. None of us can say that.
@A Real Penn State student:
You say that JoePa did what he "thought was right with the information he had." None of us knows all of the facts, but I'm pretty sure that the information now shows that JoePa must have known about Sandusky's pedo side a couple of years earlier, when Sandusky was forced to retire. If you believe the rumors, the entire athletic department knew about it.
The McQueary incident wasn't a case of JoePa choosing to believe a friend over a GA. Instead, it was *yet another* report of Sandusky's pedo ways. And JoePa chose to do nothing.
There may be times when you get in trouble for doing the right thing, but you never have to apologize.
Nine years; not exactly a fluid situation. Nine years to put a stop to his best friend; a serial rapist. Nine years to protect innocent children from abuse. What part of a 10 year old with his hands being held against a shower wall did he not understand? How many times did he see his best friend on campus with young boys? On trips to bowl games with young boys. Everywhere Sandusky went he was accompanied by young boys. Paterno has a degree from an Ivy League school, do you think he noticed that his best friend who liked to shower with 10 year olds, who was thrown out of the charitable foundation for inappropriate behavior with young boys and who was seen having anal sex with a 10 year old in Penn State's team showers had a serious problem? Paterno knew exactly what was happening and did nothing. If that is OK with you then you are part of the problem. If these were little girls who had been raped they would be putting Joe behind bars. He behaved just like the Catholic Bishops who watched their priests bring alter boys for overnights in the rectory. How sad.
What a bunch of legalistic nonsense. If you know that your associate, your boss, your friend, your business partner, your priest is sexually abusing young children, you do whatever is necessary to make sure they do not ever have the opportunity to do it again.
End of story.
Sandusky was investigated for pederasty in 1998 and the findings were swept under the rug. In 2002, he was witnessed sodomizing a young boy in the showers of the Pederast State University football team. The coach--a 28 year old man who was a former PSU player--did not have the fortitude to stop him at that moment and instead went and called his father for advice. The advice was to tell Paterno. And Paterno told the guy above him and the message traveled up the chain to the University president. And 9 years later, this sociopath is still welcome on the sideline with young boys during Penn State football games.
And you can rationalize this?
I think you need to recalibrate your sense of moral outrage, counselor.
Al Fox... that's a stupid comment. The national media fired JoePa. PSU had no choice but to pull that trigger. Have you not heard the multiple stories about his "bosses" asking him to retire in the past? He says no, I'm staying and they listen. What bosses do that... yes, those that have employees who hold more power than themselves.
Something stinks here. Joe Pa knew Sandusky for over 30 years both personally and professionally. He served on the board of trustees for the Second Mile Foundation. How could he not know about his buddies pedophilic tendencies? In 98 Sandusky is caught showering with a 10 year old and Joe Pa chooses not to cut his friend loose? He is merely retired with a fat pension and privileges. Even in 2002, when a 28 year old man (one of Joe Pa’s most junior assistants) sees Sandusky raping 10 year old boy, nothing happens…..except that the GA moves up the coaching ranks??? What kind of alternate universe is Happy Valley? How much more horrible than rampant pedophilia must the story be for every individual involved to close ranks? What is the dark dirty secret that everyone is keeping? Can’t wait for the story to play out and see Joe Pa, that sad excuse for a man McQueary, and that filth Sandusky get their just deserts.
To add to this, you imply that Paterno might not have trusted Mike McQueary, the graduate ass't who brought this to his attention. Considering he knew his family and knew Mike his whole life, that Mike played QB for him, and then he hired him for his coaching staff...that doesn't hold water.
Also, he couldn't confront Sandusky so as to not tip him off? WHAT? This wasn't some spy vs spy scenario. In fact, if he had confronted Sandusky and gotten him help, he would have likely prevented multiple instances of abuse.
Lastly, pederasts don't often sue for libel when the information is true.
Here are my thoughts on this as a citizen of State College, PA and a retired DC area police officer.
First you cannot convict someone on moral judgement. It goes back to the "Monday Morning quarterbacking". You need to put yourselves in the shoes of the ACTUAL witness (McQueary) and witnesses of hearsay. (JoePa, Curley,& Schultz). McQueary had more obligation to take this to the authorities than JoePa did. He was a first account witness, who in turn choose to walk away then act. Is that wrong of him? Who can really say. Retired or not, Sandusky was still a "coach" and a mentor and McQueary being grad assistant, NOT a COACH, was in a position where he could loose a lot by stepping in and making allegations against a "superior". Most Americans have no idea how they would react in McQueary's situation. A majority of people run away from it. Not saying they don't report it, they just remove themselves from the incident. Fight or Flight. Just as I have faced may accusers in my years as a police officer. As I told them, put yourself in my shoes and see how you would react. It is very easy to say NOW that you are not in his shoes, and I pray you never will be, as to how you think you would react. But truth is, you don't really know.
Second, what fired JoePa was a few things. Media pressure - Penn State was not liking their reputation being tarnished in the NATIONAL media. Public pressure - There are several people in this area, including members of the BoT (Board of Trustees), who wanted to see JoePa leave years ago. Political pressure - The Governor of PA was at the BoT meeting when the decision was made to fire JoePa and Spanier. Why is that? Because it's a State school? How about because this was affecting the whole State. And now last but not least, Financial Supporter pressure - I am sure that big financial supporters to Penn State threatened the BoT's that they would pull their support if they didn't clean house now.
People cannot and should not acted based off from emotions. That is what is happening here. People are letting their emotions cloud judgment and facts here. The fact is that no one has been convicted of any crime here. Sandusky has only been charged and last I looked it was still on the books, we innocent until proven guilty, not matter how horrifying the crime may be. Please do not assume that I condone or support Sandusky. I DO NOT. I am only stating that we must let our legal system prevail on this.
Let's take a look at a few years ago with the Duke Lacross team. Emotions played a big part with some bad decisions there and look what happen. It was found that the alleged victim was lying about the incident, but the University started why before any proceeding started with firing and removing people. The damage was done, which in turn set up law suits.
RosiesDad, your statement is an example of playing to your emotions. First by calling the University the "Pederast State..." Which I take offense too, but the other in that you are confusing the facts. Fact, McQueary was not at the time of this incident a coach on the PSU Football team, but a Grad student working as a Grad Assistant, there is a difference.
Once again, you cannot convict or judge someone based off from what you think is a "moral obligation". Please put your emotions aside and let justice prevail for the victims. Also let's think about those victims and their families healing.
Thank you!
Thank you for this post. I grew up in State College and am a proud PSU grad. I know Hofstra is a great law school and I value you posting the facts. Others don’t understand that to most of us PoePa is not our football coach he is part of our family and it is very hard to watch your family go through something so awful no matter what you think should or should not have been done. The only thing that people know who don’t know this town and its people is what they hear in the media. Sadly they are hyping up the wrong issues and people. They have forgotten about the kids and the horrible man who needs to be put away.
When the truth comes out, you can bet that Paterno knew about the 1998 incidents followed by the 1999Alamo Bowl abuse and that is why they forced Sandusky to retire in 1999. 2002 would never have happened if the school and the charity had done their job in the 1998-99 time frame and Paterno was at the center of both.
If it was only from 2002 on when McQ witnessed this, but what about the fact that these allegations 1st arose in 1998, 4 yrs before, given what happened w/ Sandusky shortly after, leads one to believe that PSU knew more & continued a conspiracy of silence to keep this hush hush. A scandal would have rocked PSU's football program, recruiting, $$$$, etc, etc. They didn't care about the kids, they cared abt themselves. This is proven by the fact that PSU tells Sandusky to no longer bring kids on campus (in other words, molest them elsewhere, just not here). Further, Joe PA should have done more in '02 when he heard of this, given knowledge of the '98 allegations. The entire PSU admin let these children down & turned a blind eye towards them solely for their own self interests.
"After contacting his chain of command superiors..."
This is not the military. Paterno was not bound to follow "a chain of command."
What he was bound to do, by law, is report a crime to the police when he found out about it. While we can pretend that the Penn State VP is the same thing as a police captain, in reality, that's not the case.
Let's ask this. What if this didn't happen on the Penn State campus? What if this happened on Joe Pa's street? What if it was some guy he didn't know, instead of a longtime co-coach and friend? Would Joe Pa have merely reported it to his wife and gone to bed? Or would he have called the cops?
Unfortunately, Joe Pa's decisions, and the decisions of all involved, were based on "what was in the best interests of the university," not what was in the best interests of the child or the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. If this had been a murder, would Joe Pa also be excused from reporting it to police? Come on...
I've seen a number of people posting the phone number for ChildLine and saying that all Joe had to do was dial that number to report the incident.
Obvious question though...in what year did PA actually implement the phone line? What year did it go into effect? Joe isn't exactly a heavy user of the internet, so not sure if he could have just "googled" the number like everybody else did now AFTER the fact. And its quite possible that if you took a time machine back to 2002 and gave the phone number to Joe, he could just as well have dialed into Hi-Way Pizza, because its possible the number didn't even exist. You see, its 2011 and its REALLY EASY to find a phone number today, but if the number didn't exist in 2002, it wouldn't have mattered much.
Just another example of 20/20 hinsight making everybody SO much smarter than they actually are.
"Sandusky was investigated for pederasty in 1998 and the findings were swept under the rug."
Actually, in that case, the University Police force investigated and the evidence was forwaded to the District Attorney of Centre County. That is NOT exactly what I would call "swept under the rug." It was the DA who decided not to prosecute because he didn't feel he had enough evidence to prosecute.
Just ANOTHER example of misinformation being passed along by people with little knowledge of the facts. When you form opinions based on lack of facts, your opinions aren't really strong.
Yes, let's continue to blame Paterno and not the person who actually committed the (alleged) acts. Or the person who allegedly witnessed the anal rape of a young boy and WALKED AWAY. I think it should be pretty obvious who should have done something or at least called the police and it wasn't Paterno.
Wow to the person who said that he or she hopes his kid is the next victim of something like this you are just a bad a jerry sandusky himself whether or not you agree with the man he is presenting the facts and you are a disgusting person to wish that on any child at all dont act like you cared about those kids if you are willing to sit there and wish it upon another one i for one would never wish that upon anyone requardless of how i felt about someone else grow up and next time think about what your saying before you open you mouth you are acting like a scumbag in this situation and as for the person who wrote this he is right JoePa as completly in the right with what he did you made a great statement!
As a Pennsylvania Attorney and as someone who myself experienced sexual abuse as a child, I agree with this article 100%. The real criminal here is Sandusky and the authorities who knew about him for years and had what was basically a taped confession from him, but did nothing for years.
There is nothing morally right about what Paterno did. I give him a pass legally (because the law in PA protecting minors from predators is a little weak IMO). I also give McQueary a pass for not stopping the rape -- I assume the scene left him reeling and in shock.
However, the morally right thing for Paterno to do would have been to insist McQueary go to the police with what he saw. Paterno could have accompanied McQueary. Paterno might be legally off the hook -- McQueary also -- but I don't see any moral goodness in what they did not do.
Why is everyone saying that everyone HAD to know about this for a long time?? Statistics have shown that most sexual predators are the guy next door that nobody would ever suspect. Me and several neighborhood kids were sexually abused by a neighbor, with children, whom my parents were best friends with. I....as the victim....grew up and realized the gravity of what had happened to me and still kept my mouth shut for years. The guy was not caught until I was 24 years old.....after many, many more victims. I had a lot of guilt to deal with and finally came clean to my parents who were shocked and devastated. NOBODY knows how they will react in situations like this, so NOBODY should be too quick to judge. Stop the witch hunt and concentrate on the real criminal.
pennst21...to the question that i keep hearing over and over. WHy was Sandusky allowed on campus? Sandusky retired professor of Emertus......by Penn State Policy when ANY retired prfessor recieves Emertus they are granted access to use all school facilities and have a private office. Joe has notihng to do w/ Sandusky being prof of Emertus(or giving him an office), from what i read the BOard of trustees can review the application of this status but the Pres of the Univ grants a prof Emeritus. The only way a prof of Emeritus can have this status recinded is if he/she are found guility of a crime. SO just as the tax payers are still paying Sanduskys retirement and PSU can't take away his prof of Emeritus status. Please tell me how Joe Paterno can control whether or not Sandusky is using the facilities. Joe Paterno prob goes th campus once a day that is to practice, Im sure he has no idea who is using what facilities at anytime, just my thoughts on how just one misnomer has caused public and media opinion to be swayed towards Joe Paterno.
JoePa was part of this university for 61years. he has been agreat legacy, philanthropist and someone for people to look up to. Taking his statue away is so beyond wrong. Using JoePa as a "scapegoat" to leave the blame is wrong. If Sandusky was suspected of being a pedophile back in 1998, it is the local law and authorities that should have stopped it then. There are too many people affected by this. These boys who were victimized will never be the same. JoePa and his family are being "stripped" of everything good they've done. Sandusky used his "charity" to find his victims and "feed" his sick behavior. There are two very seperate issues here. If/when Sandusky is found guilty of his heinous crimes, he needs to be punished swiftly and justly. If JoePa had to go, everyone from him up thru administration should go too. I am still a PSU proud alum.
but very saddened by all of this
April said....this is a great discussion going on. Thanks for the article. I ony wish somehow this discussion can get into the hands of real journalists that can take thier biased opinion out of what really happen. I feel truly sad for everything that has happen to the victims, and Joe Paterno. I say this as a victim of child abuse of this kind.....only one person to blame and that is Mr. Sandusky. Child molestion is a very difficlet subject to discuss for anyone. It y has so many different emotions to it. Everyday this happens and people have a very difficult time to deal with or handle it, that sad thing is most child moleston is by someone you have a close reltionship with. In this case everyone was close to Mr Sandusky to inlcude the victim. Everyone keeps saying this is what I would do but nobody really knows what they would do. We have no moral authority to persecute Joe Paterno on what we tought he should of done. Im really sick of poeople saying if that was my kid, as parents of course we would react differently. In my view Joe did what he thought was the right thing to do and acording to the law. Of course now he wishes he had done more, everyone invloved is thinking the same thing. For us to judge him is just unfair.
Wow, a lot of comments here. I read the first few and it got me heated. Your analysis is solid and logical. Unfortunately, what is governing this debate (if it can be called that) isn't logic or law. Something horrible happened to young children. The crimes committed were so unspeakable and immoral that they leave people wondering how such a thing could happen. Given that most people are good and well-intentioned they cannot relate to the thought process of such individuals that commit these crime, so they look for a reason. Often these reasons defy logic and have no basis of truth, but they make the people feel like there is an explanation. As such, they can feel safe knowing that this wasn't necessarily random. Rather, they come up with a story-line in their head that maps to the events and it make more sense to them. These are normally called conspiracy theories.
The interesting thing about this event is that most conspiracy theories don't gain much traction and are limited to a few, such as the 9/11 "truthers." In this case we have a large percentage of the population that believe Joe Paterno is involved in the "theory" called a "cover up." My take on why this is happening:
I believe there are two amplifying factors:
1. We are dealing with a very high profile individual (Joe Paterno) and an as equally high profile university. So with inaction there were already a large number of "haters."
2. The crimes weren't witnessed directly (like 9/11 and the moon landing on TV). So there is a lot of black space to be filled with ones imagination.
Those two things are what separate this event from others. Of course there are some events that are similar -- the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair comes to mind (in regards to the amplifying factors).
The bottom line: There's nothing that can be said or done to convince someone to believe the truth. At this point it's like a religion. You believe or you don't. I happen to support Joe Paterno and hope he is vindicated in some way. The board of "trustees" need to be investigated and/or fired. They are mishandling this situation and the poor children that were harmed will continue to be harmed by their actions. I found several inconsistencies with their actions. They disassociated the university with one of the only credible witness the grand jury had, but are still associated with the two that were arrested (one is on admin leave and the other retired). Sounds like something is worth looking into there.
I pray for the people wrongfully crucifying Joe Paterno and ask them to channel their energy to the victims and the true criminals. I hope they find peace in knowing they sought to ruin someone else's life in addition to the children involved.
Wow, a lot of comments here. I read the first few and it got me heated. Your analysis is solid and logical. Unfortunately, what is governing this debate (if it can be called that) isn't logic or law. Something horrible happened to young children. The crimes committed were so unspeakable and immoral that they leave people wondering how such a thing could happen. Given that most people are good and well-intentioned they cannot relate to the thought process of such individuals that commit these crime, so they look for a reason. Often these reasons defy logic and have no basis of truth, but they make the people feel like there is an explanation. As such, they can feel safe knowing that this wasn't necessarily random. Rather, they come up with a story-line in their head that maps to the events and it make more sense to them. These are normally called conspiracy theories.
The interesting thing about this event is that most conspiracy theories don't gain much traction and are limited to a few, such as the 9/11 "truthers." In this case we have a large percentage of the population that believe Joe Paterno is involved in the "theory" called a "cover up." My take on why this is happening:
I believe there are two amplifying factors:
1. We are dealing with a very high profile individual (Joe Paterno) and an as equally high profile university. So with inaction there were already a large number of "haters."
2. The crimes weren't witnessed directly (like 9/11 and the moon landing on TV). So there is a lot of black space to be filled with ones imagination.
Those two things are what separate this event from others. Of course there are some events that are similar -- the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair comes to mind (in regards to the amplifying factors).
The bottom line: There's nothing that can be said or done to convince someone to believe the truth. At this point it's like a religion. You believe or you don't. I happen to support Joe Paterno and hope he is vindicated in some way. The board of "trustees" need to be investigated and/or fired. They are mishandling this situation and the poor children that were harmed will continue to be harmed by their actions. I found several inconsistencies with their actions. They disassociated the university with one of the only credible witness the grand jury had, but are still associated with the two that were arrested (one is on admin leave and the other retired). Sounds like something is worth looking into there.
I pray for the people wrongfully crucifying Joe Paterno and ask them to channel their energy to the victims and the true criminals. I hope they find peace in knowing they sought to ruin someone else's life in addition to the children involved.
Thank your sir. This was my gut feel when this whole thing broke (and I'm not even close to being a lawyer). I just wish the media would have taken the time to read and get the facts instead of riding the emotional tsunami.
So from above comments I am to take it that Joe Pa was in charge of the police investigation in 1998 and had it swept under the rug, or are you applying he pressured the police to drop the case. Then in 2002 when Sandusky is not a coach he reports him to the AD, whom I would think would be in charge as to whether he could have keys or not, but apparently from previous comments folks feel Joe Pa made the decisions who came and went at PSU. There are other sports at PSU that have winning tradition, womens volleyball national champs for what 3 years, mens volleyball for 2 years, wrestling, etc. Am I to believe that Joe has control over who comes and goes in all those programs. Do you folks actually believe a head coach has the ability to know where each coach and player are of every minute of the day. And as for Joe should have know since he knew him for 30 years, it seems every day there is an article about some horrid act or scam that had been going on and low and behold the people closest to the accused knew nothing. I feel too much time is being wasted on one individual instead of where it needs to be in helping the children. And lastly being a PSU alum I am smart enough to question why Joe was fired Wed night as the University begins to rebuild, circle the wagons to help kids get through this crisis and yet the person who witnessed and did nothing to help the kid was originally going to be allowed at game. How was allowing McCreary to stay with program allowing it to move on?
There is an interview with the child services representative from the 1998 case in the New York Times. He says that at the time, there was only an indication of "violating boundaries", no indication of any crime. Inappropriate behavior, but not criminal. He, like Paterno, wishes he had had more information back then so that the future (and likely, current, at the time) abuse could have been stopped. He simply didn't have it. There is no reason that Paterno would have has much information about this inquiry, and even if he did, there was no crime committed and no harm done to the child (as far as ANYONE involved knew at the time).
Anyway, thanks to all the intelligent people who have posted here suggesting that maybe people are believing theories that are just that, theories. They are connecting dots in ways that seem logical to them, since they want to see blood for this. What they are doing is pushing a conspiracy theory that they have no clue of the truth or falsehood of. They are just angry that children were abused.
Well, let me tell you, any normal human being is angry about that, but there is only one person to blame for it, and it is the accused Sandusky. Until more facts come to light, until a jury finds Sandusky guilty, none of us knows a damn thing about how all this went down. Of course, the media is all to happy to attack a high profile person like Joe, and a high profile university like PSU. It's what they do, regardless of facts. They want to get attention, and they've certainly got it. Personally, I don't swallow the medias obvious bias and sensationalism as easily as most people here do. Take a deep breath, and realize that you weren't there, you don't know all the facts, and you weren't inside these people's heads then and you still aren't now.
"After contacting his chain of command superiors..."
This is not the military. Paterno was not bound to follow "a chain of command."
Adam, please know the law before you comment on it. Here is the PA statute that is in question
§ 3490.13. Reports by employes who are required reporters.
(a) Required reporters who work in an institution, school, facility or agency shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the person in charge’s designee of suspected abuse. The person in charge, or the designee, shall be responsible and have the obligation to make a report of the suspected child abuse to ChildLine immediately. Nothing in this chapter requires more than one report from any institution, school, facility or agency.
(b) The person in charge or the designee may not make an independent determination of whether to report. The person in charge or the designee shall notify the employe when the report was made to ChildLine.
So there you have PA law says he does have to follow that chain of command. Is the law vague and poorly written? Yes, but it's the law, no matter how mislead it may be.
As I've stated before, if Joe calls to follow up with the superiors they cannot tell him the progress of the investigation until it is completed. This is because it involves a minor.
Joe could try to report to police outside of the university police, but they would tell him there is nothing they can do, because he is not a direct witness. He is a 3rd party hearsay witness, the witness would have to come forward before the investigation could begin. Also it should be known that he couldnt even be used as an outcry witness because too much time had passed between when it was witnessed and when it was reported to Joe.
Its extremely unfortunate that these are the laws, but they need to be changed so there is more that can be done so the children who are victimized can be helped as soon as possible.
Personally, another thing that really bothers me on the law enforcement side of things here is Commisioner Frank Noonan. The way he questioned Joe's morals after clearing him legally. Its pretty well known with us State Police that this man is trying to make a name for himself, as its believed he wants to persue a political career. What better way to start than to take down a name like Paterno? Its simply not his job as a law enforcement official to question someones morals who is legally cleared.
He should only be concerned with the investigations and the people who broke the law. If he focuses on this then justice can be had for those victims in this case. Thats what should be the focus of this case.
Your last point is especially important. You definitely don't want to be guilty of insubordination. Enabling the rape and molestation of young boys is one things, but insubordination is where you've got to draw the line.
I am dumber for having read this article.
I think this lays out the best possible defense of Paterno's actions that I have read. But I don't think it truly addresses the moral obligation question. This defense lays out a few strawman possible courses of action that were pretty easy to knock out of the park. The list of other possible courses of action that (a) were perfectly reasonable and doable,(b) would have easily addressed the issue, (c) would have put Paterno at zero risk, and (d) would have met the moral standards of most of us, are myriad.
But another thought: The question of whether or not Paterno acted morally is not the same question as whether or not the Board was correct in firing. Keep in mind that Paterno's moral duty was likely specifically not discussed at the Board meeting; that's minefield the board was surely too smart to walk through. The head of the Board repeatedly said the reason for the termination was that it was in the "best interest of the university," not "Paterno did wrong." That's not just empty language. That was the standard they used to make the decision.
There's no arguing that in the midst of the firestorm, the absolute best action was to terminate Paterno to look as if the school is IMMEDIATELY moving on, cleaning house. There is no question that getting clear of the Paterno hot potato was in the best interest of the school. The only argument in favor of keeping him was that he had done so much for the school for so long. If I am a board member, I say "That's not enough of a reason to keep him. He's a huge liability. He's gone."
A hypothetical Board member in that meeting could say the following realpolitik statements and be completely logically consistent: "I have no problem morally with Paterno's actions. But I do have a problem with his business sense. He knew that at the very least a potential child molester (and maybe rapist) was walking around the athletic facility, and that at least one person was saying they saw him do it. How could he not understand that if that were true and it ever got out it would stain the university forever. Think of the risks of ignoring that. He clearly is not (or no longer) capable of guiding the crown jewel of our university, i.e. the football team. Under his leadership, he steered our ship to where we are today, the laughing stock of the world, because he casually handled an obvious gigantic time bomb.
"Secondly (still hypothetical board member talking), of course it is in the best interest of this school to (a) get beyond this as quickly as possible, and (b) to look like we are getting beyond this as quickly as possible. Add that all up, Paterno is fired immediately. It's a no-brainer. Our loyalty to him and his contributions weigh on the other side of the decision to fire, but those considerations pale in comparison to the benefits of getting rid of him immediately."
The moral obligation is a very important issue, and one that deserves much consideration, but that may have never come up in the board meeting. (And I don't know if Semer's original comment was about Paterno's moral obligations or if was about whether the school was right to fire him. I can't get to that comment. It appears to have been deleted.)
Deciding to get clear of Paterno immediately was probably very easy.
The harm to children is the biggest issue here, and I haven't even mentioned it. I don't mean to minimize that aspect, I am just addressing a different issue in this post.
Legally, one should be judged to the full extent of the law in a judicial court. Morally, one will be judged in heaven. Not one of us has the right to judge the morality of something still so nebulous. That is, unless, one is absolutely perfect in every sense of the word. Last I checked, there's no such things -- humans are imperfect. "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone..." John 8:7
Dear sir:
I appreciate your effort to lay out the facts in the Paterno case. I saw a headline over at Scientific American that alleges that Paterno's defenders are deifying the man, but as far as I can tell it's his detractors who believe he has supernatural powers to make the police do their job, get the evil doer to mend his ways, etc. The only thing I think he might have tried was to do was to contact the charities this guy was connected with to alert them, but he is more than entitled to think that is something the police would do.
Anon
Warren would not apply to this case. It is a COA decision from a Federal Court coming from the smallest federal circuit, and it is outside of Penn State's jurisdiction. So even if the Sandusky case was in the Federal Court's it would have no binding effect on the 3rd circuit. Furthermore the matters surrounding these circumstances all have to do with state law. The Federal constitution at best defines only the minimum protection which must be afforded fundamental rights. The PA government is free to afford its citizenry rights going beyond that which the federal government allows us.
How ironic that the very same schmendriks who say "Paterno acted legally but not morally" cannot even begin to tell you where "morality" comes from. Isn't it also ironic that the one person who actually did do something about the allegation (Paterno) is fired while the entity with the ultimate authority (The Board of Trustees) remains in power along with that McQueary character who turned his back on a rape in progress. How does this disparity make children safer? And is there any PA law that could be used to prosectue McQueary for failing to intervene.
if they didn't think anything wrong was going on, why did they prohibit Sandusky from bringing children on to campus?
Post a Comment