Death Penalty for Penn State?

[Canceled.2014.1]

MY WORDS: The SECOND that he HEARD of this, he should have called that man into his office and fired him!

Do you somehow READ what I wrote to say something completely different than what you're saying?

The ONLY thing I disagree with, is that Joe Paterno KNEW the allegations were true. I don't think he believed they were, for whatever reason... perhaps he convinced himself of this? I agree, he SHOULD have known! But beyond that, just the ALLEGATION should have been enough to fire Sandusky. It doesn't matter if it was true, and that's what he SHOULD have done.

When you said "Had he realized what was going to ultimately happen, I am sure he would have taken a different course of action, but I think he was just blinded by his love of the school and program so much, that he made decisions based on that, instead of doing what he knew he should have done."

In other words, had he known the scandal was going to happen, he would have done the right thing.

No, fuck the scandal. This is about boys being molested by a pedophile. Not stopping it is facilitating it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...-leaders-disregarded-childrens-welfare-071212

"In 1998, police investigated after a woman complained that her son had showered with Sandusky. The investigation did not result in charges. But the emails show Paterno clearly followed the 1998 case, Freeh said. University officials took no action at the time to limit Sandusky's access to campus.

Then, after the 2001 report of Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the showers, university officials barred him from bringing children to campus but decided not to report him to child-welfare authorities.

Some of the most damning evidence against Paterno consists of handwritten notes and emails that portray him as having been involved in that decision.

According to the report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up an ''action plan'' that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind about the plan ''after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.'' Instead, Curley proposed to offer Sandusky ''professional help.''
In an email, Spanier agreed with that course of action but noted ''the only downside for us is if the message isn't (heard) and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.''"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And my comment of "whitewashing" related to the "We have all taken the easy way out" remarks. What Paterno did was not taking the easy way out. what he did was cover for a pedophile.

No I don't believe he knowingly covered for a pedophile. I think he convinced himself that the "eye witness" was mistaken, and didn't see what he claimed. I think he repeatedly convinced himself, that Sandusky couldn't possibly be doing something like that, and this was why he didn't take further action. Granted, I do believe he HAD to convince himself, against an incredible amount of incriminating evidence over the years, but I believe that was because of his blind love for Penn State.

It's a sad sad story, really. Much like a Greek tragedy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When you said "Had he realized what was going to ultimately happen, I am sure he would have taken a different course of action, but I think he was just blinded by his love of the school and program so much, that he made decisions based on that, instead of doing what he knew he should have done."

In other words, had he known the scandal was going to happen, he would have done the right thing.

No, fuck the scandal. This is about boys being molested by a pedophile. Not stopping it is facilitating it.

WinterBorn, you are completely misreading my intentions here, I have in NO WAY "facilitated" a goddamn thing! Stop the goddamn lying!

No, your "in other words" is COMPLETELY WRONG... Had Paterno KNOWN that Sandusky was IN FACT raping young boys, I am SURE he would have done something. How in the living fuck could you even rationalize a person knowingly allowing that to happen, and not taking some kind of action? AGAIN... I believe Paterno convinced himself this wasn't really the truth, that people had misinterpreted something they saw. AGAIN... Perhaps this was just Paterno not WANTING to see the truth, because of the implications toward his school, which he dearly loved. I am NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR PATERNO OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE DID>>>PLEASE TRY TO LET THAT SOAK IN TO THAT THICK HEAD OF YOURS, AND READ MY FUCKING POST BEFORE YOU JUMP TO THAT CONCLUSION, ASSHOLE!

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

WinterBorn, you are completely misreading my intentions here, I have in NO WAY "facilitated" a goddamn thing! Stop the goddamn lying!

No, your "in other words" is COMPLETELY WRONG... Had Paterno KNOWN that Sandusky was IN FACT raping young boys, I am SURE he would have done something. How in the living fuck could you even rationalize a person knowingly allowing that to happen, and not taking some kind of action? AGAIN... I believe Paterno convinced himself this wasn't really the truth, that people had misinterpreted something they saw. AGAIN... Perhaps this was just Paterno not WANTING to see the truth, because of the implications toward his school, which he dearly loved. I am NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR PATERNO OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE DID>>>PLEASE TRY TO LET THAT SOAK IN TO THAT THICK HEAD OF YOURS, AND READ MY FUCKING POST BEFORE YOU JUMP TO THAT CONCLUSION, ASSHOLE!

I am not rationalizing a damn thing. I have seen that Paterno followed the case that started in 1998 and that he also followed the case that came up in 2001. I see that 3 of the 4 top people were going to turn sandusky in, until one of them "thought more about it and talked to Joe". Paterno knew that Sandusky had been reported TWICE. But Paterno still did nothing.

This idea that Paterno somehow convinced himself that it didn't happen is bullshit. He did nothing to verify the stories and did nothing to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The most they did was make sure it wouldn't happen on campus after 2001.

You keep harping on your belief that Paterno somehow convinced himself of something, when all the evidence points to him simply covering it up.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am not rationalizing a damn thing. I have seen that Paterno followed the case that started in 1998 and that he also followed the case that came up in 2001. I see that 3 of the 4 top people were going to turn sandusky in, until one of them "thought more about it and talked to Joe". Paterno knew that Sandusky had been reported TWICE. But Paterno still did nothing.

This idea that Paterno somehow convinced himself that it didn't happen is bullshit. He did nothing to verify the stories and did nothing to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The most they did was make sure it wouldn't happen on campus after 2001.

You keep harping on your belief that Paterno somehow convinced himself of something, when all the evidence points to him simply covering it up.

Again, you have not proven that Paterno knowingly allowed kids to be raped by Sandusky. I can't accept that he legitimately KNEW this was happening, and didn't do anything to prevent it. Would you? Would anyone? You can't even rationalize WHY he would knowingly do such a thing, because you'd have to know it would eventually come out, someone would eventually spill the beans. Sorry, I just don't buy that he KNEW this was happening and did nothing.

You can say I am harping, but I'll goddamn keep harping... I think he convinced himself this wasn't really happening, and the people who were reporting it had gotten it all wrong, and saw something they mistook for something else. This is COMMON in domestic incest situations, ask anyone with experience. Mothers have 'allowed' their own children to be molested because they CONVINCED THEMSELVES that it wasn't really happening. This happens ALL THE TIME, WB!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Paterno knew that Sandusky had been reported TWICE. But Paterno still did nothing.

And here is where you and I come to complete and absolute agreement. Paterno DID KNOW that Sandusky had been reported twice, and did nothing! You see, I think, as I stated before, the SECOND that Paterno HEARD about this, he should have fired Sandusky on the spot... no questions asked, no further investigation needed. Paterno should have brought him into the office and said; "Sorry, but you have to go. I have too much at stake here for even the allegation itself, doesn't matter if it's true or not, doesn't matter if you are innocent... we can't have the allegations of something like this."

Sandusky was a life-long friend of Paterno's.... Now, I want you to think of someone in your life who has been a lifelong friend, then I want you to imagine someone you've only known a few months or whatever, telling you something totally outrageous your life-long friend supposedly did... aren't you going to be at least a little bit inclined to give your life-long friend the benefit of the doubt? Or would you simply condemn them based on this other person's accusations alone? AGAIN... and I hate to have to keep clarifying this, but I feel I must... I am not condoning, excusing, or justifying Paterno's actions or lack thereof, merely trying to explain why I think he reacted as he did. It doesn't mean he was right, it doesn't mean I think he is getting a bum deal, or that we should just overlook it... I have said none of those things here. I am merely having a conversation as to WHY the man took the actions he took, or my opinion of that. You are welcome to yours as well, but please stop trying to TWIST AND DISTORT my point, into some kind of sick justification, so that you can feel like some kind of big shot in calling me out, or whatever. I'm about fucking tired of that, WB.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Again, you have not proven that Paterno knowingly allowed kids to be raped by Sandusky. I can't accept that he legitimately KNEW this was happening, and didn't do anything to prevent it. Would you? Would anyone? You can't even rationalize WHY he would knowingly do such a thing, because you'd have to know it would eventually come out, someone would eventually spill the beans. Sorry, I just don't buy that he KNEW this was happening and did nothing.

You can say I am harping, but I'll goddamn keep harping... I think he convinced himself this wasn't really happening, and the people who were reporting it had gotten it all wrong, and saw something they mistook for something else. This is COMMON in domestic incest situations, ask anyone with experience. Mothers have 'allowed' their own children to be molested because they CONVINCED THEMSELVES that it wasn't really happening. This happens ALL THE TIME, WB!

I posted it once, but you chose to ignore it.

"In 1998, police investigated after a woman complained that her son had showered with Sandusky. The investigation did not result in charges. But the emails show Paterno clearly followed the 1998 case, Freeh said. University officials took no action at the time to limit Sandusky's access to campus.

Then, after the 2001 report of Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the showers, university officials barred him from bringing children to campus but decided not to report him to child-welfare authorities.

Some of the most damning evidence against Paterno consists of handwritten notes and emails that portray him as having been involved in that decision.
According to the report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up an ''action plan'' that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind about the plan ''after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.'' Instead, Curley proposed to offer Sandusky ''professional help.''

In an email, Spanier agreed with that course of action but noted ''the only downside for us is if the message isn't (heard) and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.''"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like I said before, I am not disagreeing that Paterno should have done something! I wouldn't have even needed a second incident! The FIRST implication would have been enough, and it should have been for Paterno. I am merely attempting to have a conversation as to WHY the man did what he did, and I just don't think that he did this CONVINCED that Sandusky was completely guilty of actually raping young boys... IF I am wrong, then Paterno is one of the most heinous monsters of our time. I just don't think that is the case here.

From my years of study in human psychology, I know for a fact, people do this sort of thing all the time. They build an argument inside their heads, that whatever terrible thing, has not really happened. Denial. I think that was what was happening with Paterno, he simply did not want to believe this was true, and did everything he could to deny the truth, even when it was obvious, or should have been. Again... not excusing him, just trying to explain it. I could just as easily be sitting here trying to explain why Jeffery Dahmer hid bodies inside the walls of his house or whatever, that wouldn't mean that I condone or excuse what he did. It's just an observation of the psychology involved, and I think that played a huge role here. I think Paterno loved Penn State, and was doing everything he though he needed to do, to protect the school and the program. He was completely wrong, and what he did was inexcusable, but I don't think he KNOWINGLY allowed Sandusky to rape boys.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

After reading the exchanges, my opinion is this.
I don['t believe that the NAACP should punish the players for this, unless you can show tha the teams also knew about what was happening.
When criminals are caught, we don't demand that their entire families suffer; unless it can be shown that certain members were also guilty and even then we don't scream for the innocent members to suffer also.

This was not a NAACP violation, unless there's something in their regulations that hasn't been presented; this was a criminal act and those guilty of the criminal acts are the ones that need to be held accoutable.
To tell some Freshman that the only way he's going to have a football career in school and maybe move into the Pros, is to change schools, is wrong.

Just my opinion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

After reading the exchanges, my opinion is this.
I don['t believe that the NAACP should punish the players for this, unless you can show tha the teams also knew about what was happening.
When criminals are caught, we don't demand that their entire families suffer; unless it can be shown that certain members were also guilty and even then we don't scream for the innocent members to suffer also.

This was not a NAACP violation, unless there's something in their regulations that hasn't been presented; this was a criminal act and those guilty of the criminal acts are the ones that need to be held accoutable.
To tell some Freshman that the only way he's going to have a football career in school and maybe move into the Pros, is to change schools, is wrong.

Just my opinion.

Okay, first of all... Student-athletes very OFTEN have to suffer the consequences of something the sports program did before they arrived, nearly every NCAA sanction that has ever been issued, was well after the fact, and the players who suffered for it had nothing at all to do with it. That's just an unfortunate part of the system, and I honestly don't know how you can fix that. But it has always been that way, so to pretend it can't or shouldn't be like that now, is silly.

This WAS an NCAA violation. It is called "lack of institutional control" and the Death Penalty is normally the punishment for it. In this case, you could argue that it didn't directly effect competition, but in a broader sense, that was the entire reason for the cover-up, to protect the 'competition' in the program itself. This was criminal activity that should have been investigated and reported to the authorities immediately, and it wasn't. That is a lack of institutional control, in my opinion. The institution is expected to operate within the letter of the law, and it is their responsibility to deal with this sort of thing and not attempt to hide it or cover it up to protect the institution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

and those guilty of the criminal acts are the ones that need to be held accoutable.

The typical 'rules of law' don't really apply here, the NCAA is the law. Alabama suffered a 5-year probation for boosters paying players... now the coaches and staff had nothing to do with that, they weren't involved in any criminal activity, and of course, claimed they knew nothing of this. STILL... The NCAA found a lack of institutional control, because they SHOULD have known, and SHOULD have prevented it. You can't have the rules set up so that coaches and staff are able to claim 'plausible deniability' because that is exactly what every NCAA violation would come down to, it can't be proven that they knew or were aware... but the NCAA says, it's your JOB to know and be aware... of EVERYTHING regarding boosters contacts with players, etc.

While I agree, those who were guilty of criminal acts should be prosecuted for their crimes, the NCAA is a private organization with it's own set of rules, they don't have to abide by criminal legal standards at all, when it comes to sanctioning members for rule violations. And the "appeals" process is absolutely nothing like criminal justice, it is extremely rare for them to overturn a finding, regardless of how questionable the evidence was. In the case of Alabama, they had ONE GUY who testified against Logan Young, the booster, and based on his testimony alone, they ruled that Young had paid Albert Means. I know Alabama fans to this day, who SWEAR the money actually came from the University of Tennessee, and Alabama was merely 'set up' by Phillip Fulmer. Doesn't matter, once the NCAA gavel falls, that's it... you do the time.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's not really Penn State's problem as much as it's the NCAA's problem, the way I see it. Penn State will suffer, as you say, the civil suits, as well as the stigma of this, and of course the tarnishing of Paterno... but the NCAA is in a predicament here, they can't just brush this off as none of their business and not their concern. If they act, but their action is perceived as a 'slap on the wrist' then the public will scream in outrage over it, and if they go so far as the death penalty, others will scream and cry over that being too harsh... but what exactly IS "too harsh" when it comes to something like this?

That's a good question. I agree with you that the NCAA has to do something but what? Then there's the creditibility issue. The NCAA is overtly political and known for being able to fuck up a wet dream. What can they do here that would be right for the victims of Sandusky? We don't want them screwing that up. This did not involve the players or staff of the football program other than Paterno, Sandusky and the AD. They are all facing legal consequences and Paterno is answering to a higher power. What can the NCAA do that won't make matters worse? I'm not advocating that the NCAA do nothing but that they act with much consideration and sensitivity where the victims are concerned. How would they do that? What would be appropriate?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree with you about this, but I think Joe Paterno was caught up in this and simply didn't do the right thing when he should have. Here is a man who loved that school, loved the football program and everything it stood for, it was his entire life. Had he realized what was going to ultimately happen, I am sure he would have taken a different course of action, but I think he was just blinded by his love of the school and program so much, that he made decisions based on that, instead of doing what he knew he should have done. The SECOND that he HEARD of this, he should have called that man into his office and fired him! I don't care that they were lifelong friends, or anything else... He should have told him, "Sorry, Jerry, I can't have this, not even the allegations, doesn't matter if they are true or not." But here was Joe Paterno, old and feeble, tired and weary, faced with an implication of someone he knew for years, and he simply did the wrong thing. He took the 'easy' way out. So many times in life, people do this... I've done it, we've probably ALL done it... (not turn our backs on pedophilia) but take the 'easy' way out, and not do what we should do. I feel sorry for Paterno, here is a man who earned my respect over the years as someone with character and integrity, and that is all gone forever now. I have no respect for him, and I think he did a terrible thing in letting this slide in order to 'protect' the reputation of the school and the program... I get WHY he did it, but it doesn't excuse it.

I agree and I think that's what the NCAA has to consider before implementing sanction. It was this culture in college football of "The Program First" which lead a distinguished and accomplished man to make a terrible, possibly criminal, decision. Isn't it this culture that the NCAA needs to address? If they don't address that are they not just treating the symptom and not the disease?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree and I think that's what the NCAA has to consider before implementing sanction. It was this culture in college football of "The Program First" which lead a distinguished and accomplished man to make a terrible, possibly criminal, decision. Isn't it this culture that the NCAA needs to address? If they don't address that are they not just treating the symptom and not the disease?

That's why I think they have to give the DP. Sorry, I know it hurts current players and staff, but that's what needs to happen here, to send a clear message. That's ultimately the ONLY way they can address this culture, because that is the only action they have that will effect change in the culture. I know many may disagree, but I think shutting down the program for two years is appropriate, and I hope to hell the NCAA has the balls to do it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't. I hope the lawsuits ruin Penn State. That's a small price to pay for the damage done.

I think this is what I mean about the due process of law, both criminal and civil are vastly more important than anything the NCAA can do. I don't want to see a fine institution of higher education that does so much public good be destroyed. How does that help the victims? However, an example has to be made of the principles, both active and passive, at PSU so that in the future Coaches, Administrators and Universities will understand what the consequences for such a cover up will be. Ultimately it's up the Penn State. They will need to restore their reputation. Maybe they can start by contributing resources spent on the football program to create the worlds greatest center for child abuse research for prevention and therapy and then maybe some good can come out of this. Like I said, PSU has much, much more to be concerned about than what the NCAA will do to the football program.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

After reading the exchanges, my opinion is this.
I don['t believe that the NAACP should punish the players for this, unless you can show tha the teams also knew about what was happening.
When criminals are caught, we don't demand that their entire families suffer; unless it can be shown that certain members were also guilty and even then we don't scream for the innocent members to suffer also.

This was not a NAACP violation, unless there's something in their regulations that hasn't been presented; this was a criminal act and those guilty of the criminal acts are the ones that need to be held accoutable.
To tell some Freshman that the only way he's going to have a football career in school and maybe move into the Pros, is to change schools, is wrong.

Just my opinion.

I think you mean NCAA.....hell of a Fruedian slip there US!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's why I think they have to give the DP. Sorry, I know it hurts current players and staff, but that's what needs to happen here, to send a clear message. That's ultimately the ONLY way they can address this culture, because that is the only action they have that will effect change in the culture. I know many may disagree, but I think shutting down the program for two years is appropriate, and I hope to hell the NCAA has the balls to do it.

No I actually think you have a point. Maybe Penn State needs a couple of years or more to reflect on what their priorities are as an institution of higher education. In fact, if they were smart, they would self impose severe sanctions on the program until they've thought good, long and hard what those priorities are but right now, the football program is a secondary consideration. When a program is so preoccupied with success that they permit a pedophile to abuse children then something is terribly wrong with that program. What scares me though is "There but for the grace of God goes I.". I know Tressel was found wanting when his character was tested in a far lesser manner and he placed his values in protecting the program instead of reporting violations. What would Woody or Bear or Bo have done if they had been is Joe's shoes? I can't honestly say they would have acted differently and that scares the hell out of me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No I actually think you have a point. Maybe Penn State needs a couple of years or more to reflect on what their priorities are as an institution of higher education. In fact, if they were smart, they would self impose severe sanctions on the program until they've thought good, long and hard what those priorities are but right now, the football program is a secondary consideration. When a program is so preoccupied with success that they permit a pedophile to abuse children then something is terribly wrong with that program. What scares me though is "There but for the grace of God goes I.". I know Tressel was found wanting when his character was tested in a far lesser manner and he placed his values in protecting the program instead of reporting violations. What would Woody or Bear or Bo have done if they had been is Joe's shoes? I can't honestly say they would have acted differently and that scares the hell out of me.

And I agree. I attempted earlier to explain what I thought Joe Pa was thinking, and I got hammered by WB, who perceived my comments as 'facilitating' the actions or something. I want to make it clear, that was never my intention. I merely wanted to discuss WHY the man did what he did, not whether it was appropriate, it obviously wasn't. I know from close personal experience with friends, people do 'block out' things like this, in order to avoid the uncomfortable confrontation or consequence. I think that is precisely what happened here. I think Paterno simply convinced himself the allegations weren't true, or weren't that big of a deal, and 'blocked out' the evidence that was slapping him in the face. We look at this from the outside, and we can't rationalize how the man could have done this, but we're not a legendary icon of football, lording over a football juggernaut where we have built a life-long career. Haven't you heard stories of children who were sexually abused by one parent, while the other parent KNEW it was happening and chose to do nothing? This happens all the time in society, and I think that is exactly the case here. Jo Pa simply ignored what he should have acted upon, and I think he did so because of his devotion and love of the school... much the same as the 'blind' parent in the aforementioned example.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I think you mean NCAA.....hell of a Fruedian slip there US!

Yeah, I goofed.