Penn State Scandal

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
According to a story on SI.com, Paterno could be brought up on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law.
From everything I've read and heard I don't see how. His conduct has touched upon a violation of none of those.

The reports said that Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims.
Now this is a horse of another colour: indeed both the University and its employees such as Coach Paterno and the AD may well be named in civil suits.

indisputable at this point that he failed to report the abuse to police, which he was obligated to do under the Child Protective Services Law.
Actually this is incorrect, under Pennsylvania law (which is really designed for elementary and secondary schools but is broad enough to apply in this situation) a coach is required to report suspected cases of child abuse to the administration, this Coach Paterno did.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
I'm not a lawyer but from what I'm hearing JoePa was not required by law to go to the police, he was required by law to do exactly what he did, go to the AD. The university dropped the ball and did not do it's legal obligations. That's why the Grand Jury did not go after Joe but did go after the ones he reported it to. Every report I've read agrees Joe did what he was required by law. I would guess he retained the attorney as a precaution against civil action which is not required to show illegality, just negligence of some sort.

This does not change the fact that Joe (among many others) had a MORAL obligation to ensure his report to the AD was acted upon for the welfare of the child and those that followed due to their inaction. And Joe has admitted as much with his "in hindsight I wish I had done more" comment. Making that comment is enough to let the sharks circle and open him up for civil damages. He is aware he could have done more, even if not required by law. But he is not alone in that, the list I'm afraid will grow to staggering proportions. Hell, even a DA had a chance to stop Sandusky in the 90s and dropped the ball.
Well put Slurp.

As to the failure to file charges, one of the elements of the Pennsylvania law on "sexual touching" is that sexual gratification of the defendant must be proved. The D.A. felt they could not do so and that was even after a wiretapped conversation between a mother and Coach Sandusky in which they attempted to get him to admit being sexually gratified from the incident.
 

S.C. Joe

Client # 13
Nov 2, 2007
7,139
1
0
Detroit, USA
Its sad that these people felt the crime was not that big of a deal--so no need to report it. Like the lady being punched in the face, OK but what if she was raped, how many folks then would look the other way ?

How come Joe and others looked the other way ? Were they protecting more people, did they think child sexual contact was no big deal ? What was the reason, that is what I would ask.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Its sad that these people felt the crime was not that big of a deal--so no need to report it. Like the lady being punched in the face, OK but what if she was raped, how many folks then would look the other way ?

How come Joe and others looked the other way ? Were they protecting more people, did they think child sexual contact was no big deal ? What was the reason, that is what I would ask.
Joe there is no question that if we were all sitting around saying "what is the moral, the right thing to do" you are absolutely right, frankly I agree myself. The question here is what should happen when someone fulfills their legal duty, but not their moral duty.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Its sad that these people felt the crime was not that big of a deal--so no need to report it. Like the lady being punched in the face, OK but what if she was raped, how many folks then would look the other way ?

How come Joe and others looked the other way ? Were they protecting more people, did they think child sexual contact was no big deal ? What was the reason, that is what I would ask.
Joe reported it to the AD. That is his duty. I am not sure what happened after that. I also heard that some of the parents failed to report it, which is the part I really have trouble grasping.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
Let's not forget that the threshold for sexual assault/harassment has been progressively lowered in the past 20 years. Our company now has a "no hugging" policy and we stopped holding Christmas parties a few years ago.

Are we using 2011 standards to judge what happened in 1885?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Joe reported it to the AD. That is his duty. I am not sure what happened after that. I also heard that some of the parents failed to report it, which is the part I really have trouble grasping.

His duty? What about his responsibility? That's like standing by and watching someone ge beaten up and just going, hey not my problem. Kids were 'allegedly' getting raped and that's his response. Sorry.

I hope that this pops the top off of the demagoguery that permeates the football fraternity, but I'm not holding my breath.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
His duty? What about his responsibility? That's like standing by and watching someone ge beaten up and just going, hey not my problem.
The thing is that for most people on the street what you describe above is reprehensible but it is absolutely no violation of criminal law.

Morally should the Athletic Department at Penn State have done more, absolutely. Further, legally I agree that there most likely is no wrongful termination if the University fulfills the terms of their contracts.

However, the real question seemingly becomes should someone be fired years later for taking action that completely fulfilled their legal obligations if not living up to current standards of "proper behaviour."
 

Pastor Tricky

Banned
Jan 9, 2011
210
0
0
The thing is that for most people on the street what you describe above is reprehensible but it is absolutely no violation of criminal law.

Morally should the Athletic Department at Penn State have done more, absolutely. Further, legally I agree that there most likely is no wrongful termination if the University fulfills the terms of their contracts.

However, the real question seemingly becomes should someone be fired years later for taking action that completely fulfilled their legal obligations if not living up to current standards of "proper behaviour."
I'm not a lawyer but I bet you I can find several instances of coaches being fired for improper behaviour that is detrimental to the organization they belong to. I don't know if you really think Paterno shouldn't have been fired but all legalities aside he should have been. Let him sue the University and let all the truth come out. I doubt Paterno will try that though.
 

MayDay Malone

New member
Oct 26, 2010
459
0
0
Actually this is incorrect, under Pennsylvania law (which is really designed for elementary and secondary schools but is broad enough to apply in this situation) a coach is required to report suspected cases of child abuse to the administration, this Coach Paterno did.
Perhaps I was wrong. The reports I had read/heard had said he was obligated to go to the police. Or, perhaps I was right? There seems to be some confusion of the whole matter dependant on Paterno's role within the school and whether or not he massaged the truth. From CNN:

Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.

Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.

On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.

Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.
So, it sounds like he did what he had to legally do by going to Curley, however he could still be facing criminal charges for downplaying the severity, as the story states.

Either way, this story will not end anytime soon.
 

dcbogey

New member
Sep 29, 2004
3,170
0
0
As to the failure to file charges, one of the elements of the Pennsylvania law on "sexual touching" is that sexual gratification of the defendant must be proved. The D.A. felt they could not do so and that was even after a wiretapped conversation between a mother and Coach Sandusky in which they attempted to get him to admit being sexually gratified from the incident.
One would hope that that the Pennsylvania legislators get their heads out of their asses and change that.
 

fmahovalich

Active member
Aug 21, 2009
7,256
18
38
This is like a game of 'telephone' I used to play as a kid.

The further up the line the message went...the more diluted it became.....

I BELIEVE THE STUDENT WHEN HE DISCLOSED THAT SANDUSKY WAS BUGGERING A KID!!!


Now....

who did the watering down?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Perhaps I was wrong. The reports I had read/heard had said he was obligated to go to the police. Or, perhaps I was right? There seems to be some confusion of the whole matter dependant on Paterno's role within the school and whether or not he massaged the truth.
The argument is over was Coach Paterno an "administrator" with an obligation to contact police. Thus far the Centre County District Attorney's Office is saying no.

This is like a game of 'telephone' I used to play as a kid.

The further up the line the message went...the more diluted it became.....
This I have heard is pretty much what happened. Allegedly by the time the word got to the University President it apparently was no longer "a Graduate Assistant reported seeing an act of sodomy involving a coach and a child on university property" a statement which it would be hard for any administrator hearing not to say "get the chief of the University Police on the phone for me please."
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
Joe there is no question that if we were all sitting around saying "what is the moral, the right thing to do" you are absolutely right, frankly I agree myself. The question here is what should happen when someone fulfills their legal duty, but not their moral duty.
No question there either. A man that doesn't make sure the police are called when there is a reported abuse of minors cannot hold any position that allows him to make decisions that effect others.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
On a practical basis, after you report the problem what to the AD what are you supposed to do? The AD has no duty to report back to Joe what he has done, in fact there may be privacy issues preventing him from doing so. It does not strike me as a simple problem.
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
You follow up and ask if the police have been contacted and if not you call them yourself.
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
It is simple you have evidence a child has been assaulted only a priest would leave children in the tender hands of Sandusky.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
On a practical basis, after you report the problem what to the AD what are you supposed to do? The AD has no duty to report back to Joe what he has done, in fact there may be privacy issues preventing him from doing so. It does not strike me as a simple problem.
Considering the demi-god profile that JP has at Pen State it might not be too outlandish a thing to expect. i certainly can't see any privacy issues. You learn of a crime and are asked/expected/obliged to report to the police. An expectation of privacy for the action, not the details, especially to the one who told you is doubtful.
 

Ironhead

Son of the First Nation
Sep 13, 2008
7,014
0
36
I am just reporting what I heard earlier today. I am not defending Jim Sandusky.

Sandusky is attempting to defend his actions. He was interviewed by Bob Costas and he, Sandusky, claims there was no sexual touching. He admits to showering and horsing around with the boys(it was not clear to me that this happened at the same time), hugging them and patting them on the butt(I assume he intends for it to come across in the coach to player way). He says he is guilty of poor judgement, but did not act inappropriately with any child.
 

fmahovalich

Active member
Aug 21, 2009
7,256
18
38
Rarely does an accused person admit guilt..particularly on NATIONAL NEWS.

However..a graduate student tends to be fairly intelligent....and I tend to trust him more than Sandusky when he states a 10 year old was pinned to the wall being buggered in a shower at PENN STATE!!
 
Toronto Escorts