Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal

TMetzinger said:
Character is how you behave when nobody's looking - it's "to thine own self be true". No guilt is worse, or more earned, than the guilt that comes from knowing you failed to live up to your own code of conduct.
Click to expand...

You sir are a scholar and a gentleman. It appears today that Paterno would tend to agree with you as well.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I would tell the actual witness, the one with actual knowledge of what did or did not happen, that it was on him/her to evaluate what happened, whether or not it was something that need to be reported to whoever would be appropriate, and that it was on him/her, as the person with actual knowledge, to do the reporting. I would also make clear that I would gladly facilitate any meeting or reporting with whomever was necessary, in any way that I possibly could.

Would you report information that you'd obtained secondhand as a crime? If so, maybe there are some people that I'd like to see harassed and confined in a manner that's really difficult to fight and where people jump to immediate conclusions, whether founded on anything other than newspaper articles or not, and where mere allegations will follow them for the rest of their lives. All I have to do is tell you, and then you'll tell the police, and then I'm off the hook for something like false reporting, because I didn't report anything, and I can always come back and say, "I told you nothing, you're wrongly pointing the finger at me, and you've already wrongly pointed the finger at someone else, too; I see a pattern here officers, hmmm, hmmm, wag of the finger."
Click to expand...

I would dial the police, and hand the phone to the eyewitness.
 
Matthew said:
In this specific case, where sex with a child is involved, a better response would have started with something like, "You did the right thing by calling the police to report what you witnessed."
Click to expand...

I would agree here. The responsibility runs from the witness all the way to the top and all involved share some guilt.

Legal guilt no, but guilt none the less.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I would tell the actual witness, the one with actual knowledge of what did or did not happen, that it was on him/her to evaluate what happened, whether or not it was something that need to be reported to whoever would be appropriate, and that it was on him/her, as the person with actual knowledge, to do the reporting. I would also make clear that I would gladly facilitate any meeting or reporting with whomever was necessary, in any way that I possibly could.
Click to expand...

Wrong answer. Eye witnesses to child molestation are rare. Even suspected knowledge of child abuse should be turned into the police. If no crime has been committed no harm is done, and you might have saved a child from a lifetime of pain and suffering. If Joe had done this a minimum of 6 boys would have been spared sexual abuse.

W ould you report information that you'd obtained secondhand as a crime? "
Click to expand...

Yes, and I have. It is your civic duty to do so.
 
wabower said:
Bull****. All boss has to tell you is that it's being handled. You're out of the deal.
Click to expand...

This is where you are dead wrong. Paterno told the ad in 2003 and watched Sandusky continue to be on campus for the next 9 years with no court, no arrest, no nothing. A moron could see someone dropped the ball and did not report it to the police. It is cleqr Paterno was interested in his legacy only.

Joe Paterno is a disgrace. He should not be on the sidlines of the Penn State football team ever again.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Wrong answer. Eye witnesses to child molestation are rare. Even suspected knowledge of child abuse should be turned into the police. If no crime has been committed no harm is done, and you might have saved a child from a lifetime of pain and suffering. If Joe had done this a minimum of 6 boys would have been spared sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

Again, I would like to know where your knowledge comes from. Were you in the room? Did you inform anyone? Did you fulfill your civic duty? Or would that have been a 5th Amendment issue?

Hopefully, you're able to prove these things untrue. If you can, no harm will have been done if I call the police based on my suspicion that you have knowledge of sexual abuse of children. After all, you're claiming knowledge of sexual abuse of 6 boys.

Yes, and I have. It is your civic duty to do so.
Click to expand...

It's good to know you're OK with asking the government to commence criminal investigations of your fellow citizens without having any actual knowledge of any crime.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's good to know you're OK with asking the government to commence criminal investigations of your fellow citizens without having any actual knowledge of any crime.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a knotty problem. How many parents have had children removed form their homes because some neighbor "suspected" something and called in an anonymous report to police?

The legal system is not really adequate for the problem, which is why loco parentis cannot be abandoned. Parents can't be everywhere, thus must sometimes transfer responsibility to others.

As far as Paterno "knowing" all this -- really? proof?
 
Geico266 said:
This is where you are dead wrong. Paterno told the ad in 2003 and watched Sandusky continue to be on campus for the next 9 years with no court, no arrest, no nothing.
Click to expand...

Which campus? Last time I checked it's a three to four hour drive from State College to Erie, where the behavior is alleged to have occurred.
 
1) The GA just walked on by???? He saw a grown man giving a 10yr old a BLOW JOB and he waited until the NEXT day to report it to JoePa? Not the cops? Not right away?

2) Not to excuse Joe, but here's what I think happened. Joe is an old guy, from a different time. This stuff makes no sense to him, like cell phones, womens' lib and the fall of the Berlin Wall. He is football. Period. I'm willing to bet he has not had a non-football-related conversation in the last 50yrs. Again, doesn't make it right, but in his mind, I fully believe that he believes he did the right thing. Sandusky didn't work for him. The GA told him (allegedly) some crazy scary stuff, stuff that a 70 something couldn't even comprehend. He pushed it up the chain of command so he could focus on football. Pathetic? Yes. Criminal? No.

The bad guys here are the 2 admin who are now "relieved of duties." Whether or not they told the whole story to Spanier will be a VERY interesting little discussion. If he knew, then he is the biggest hypocrite of all.

Disgusting. Horrible. Just. Horrible. If this is true (and the findings and grand jury testimony seem consistent enough to be plausible but not so consistent as to seem like a frame-job, so I'm willing to believe them) then I'd love to see Sandusky dragged face-down behind a Farmall from Happy Valley to Napa Valley.
 
flyersfan31 said:
1) The GA just walked on by???? He saw a grown man giving a 10yr old a BLOW JOB and he waited until the NEXT day to report it to JoePa? Not the cops? Not right away?

2) Not to excuse Joe, but here's what I think happened. Joe is an old guy, from a different time. This stuff makes no sense to him, like cell phones, womens' lib and the fall of the Berlin Wall. He is football. Period. I'm willing to bet he has not had a non-football-related conversation in the last 50yrs. Again, doesn't make it right, but in his mind, I fully believe that he believes he did the right thing. Sandusky didn't work for him. The GA told him (allegedly) some crazy scary stuff, stuff that a 70 something couldn't even comprehend. He pushed it up the chain of command so he could focus on football. Pathetic? Yes. Criminal? No.

The bad guys here are the 2 admin who are now "relieved of duties." Whether or not they told the whole story to Spanier will be a VERY interesting little discussion. If he knew, then he is the biggest hypocrite of all.

Disgusting. Horrible. Just. Horrible. If this is true (and the findings and grand jury testimony seem consistent enough to be plausible but not so consistent as to seem like a frame-job, so I'm willing to believe them) then I'd love to see Sandusky dragged face-down behind a Farmall from Happy Valley to Napa Valley.
Click to expand...

Even though you're a Flyers fan I agree with you.

:yesnod:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's good to know you're OK with asking the government to commence criminal investigations of your fellow citizens without having any actual knowledge of any crime.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard of "See something, say something"? Ms. Napolitano would disagree with you.... :rolleyes:

(please note smiley).
 
Abuse claims are tough duty. From 1987 through 1997 I headed an investment bank and management company that was the capital partner in both skilled-care nursing and child care centers in the DFW and east Texas, and remain an investor in the child care business.

We invested heavily in cameras, technology, training and facilities design in hopes that we could prevent the occurence and eliminate some of the heartburn that accompanies these claims, most of which are false and later recanted by the alleged victim. I'm guessing that we averaged one abuse claim per month (from a total of 6 facilities that accommodated ~900 kids and seniors) all of which later proved to be fabricated. The saddest part is that I'm convinced some of the dementia patients actually believed they had been abused in spite of the recorded proof that they had slept through the night with their door closed.

A memorable example of how these claims can come out of the blue involved a 5-year old at one of the facilities in Garland, on a day when he crapped his britches after lunch but didn't tell anyone. After about an hour, one of the teachers got a good whiff and asked him if he "had an accident." He denied it and refused to cooperate, so the teacher called in the assistant director, who in full view of the camera and with the teacher as a witness, gingerly peeked down the back of his pants and saw the mess.

They together took him to the separate kids' shower (again recorded on tape) stayed outside the door while he showered and cleaned himself and then gave him clean underwear. His dirty underwear was washed out and put in a plastic bag that was then wrapped in a brown sack so he could take it home for proper laundering.

The director intended to speak to his mom about the problem, but he was picked up by his dad who was in a hurry and didn't have time to talk. When the kid saw that he would be riding with his dad, he was afraid he would be punished and discreetly threw the sack and underwear behind the landscape hedge in front of the building.

As he was preparing for bed, his mother saw the loaner underwear and asked why he was wearing them rather than his own. The kid then made up a wild story about being abused by Miss Janet, and how one of the other kids had rescued him and given him some underwear to wear home, etc.

The mom was understandably terrified, and immediately called the director at home and demanded an explanation of what had happened to her child. The director asked the mom if the underwear was a bright plaid pattern with the school name written on the waistband. The mom quickly checked and was relieved to find that the director's description matched the skivvies being worn by the boy, and was then told about the day's events and how the dad had been in a hurry, blah. The kid finally admitted he had tossed his briefs in the bushes, had fabricated the story and the mystery was solved without further action.

Fortunately (for us) the mom had the director's home number and the family had been a customer of the school for several years. If she had called the police or child protective services instead of calling the director, the outcome (and very damaging publicity that can accompany such stories) could have caused us great angst.

As a precautionary measure, we reported the incident to the CPS agent assigned to our facility, to be sure we were on record with them if the event ever surfaced again.

It's hard to believe that the kid is now about 26 years old.

I've been involved in two aviation-related cases with sex since 2002. One involved an FAA inspector who was having an affair (and living with) the office manager of a 135 operation for which he was responsible. She in turn was tapping the till at the business by paying fraudulent credit card charges from the company's bank account. The sexual aspects of the case made the theft issues much more difficult to pursue.

Another more tragic case involved an airplane salesman who was convicted of abusing his teen-age stepdaughter. He was 50-some years old when he was sentenced to 58 years in the slammer. I've been told that he will not be eligible for parole. We all knew he visited numerous porn sites on his work computer, so I've concluded that all men who do that are probably sex offenders as well.




dmccormack said:
This is certainly a knotty problem. How many parents have had children removed form their homes because some neighbor "suspected" something and called in an anonymous report to police?

The legal system is not really adequate for the problem, which is why loco parentis cannot be abandoned. Parents can't be everywhere, thus must sometimes transfer responsibility to others.

As far as Paterno "knowing" all this -- really? proof?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Paterno just got fired along with the President.
Click to expand...

Penn State did the right thing. I hope they continue to do the right thing and take full responsibility for the children and their families that have been devistated by the gross negligence of their employees.

Next they need to fire McNarriari, the grad assistant that witnessed the sex act on a child in the Penn State locker room in 2003 and said nothing to Police or child protectice services. The 28 year old called his daddy instead and asked him what he should do. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Penn State did the right thing. I hope they continue to do the right thing and take full responsibility for the children and their families that have been devistated by the gross negligence of their employees.

Next they need to fire McNarriari, the grad assistant that witnessed the sex act on a child in the Penn State locker room in 2003 and said nothing to Police or child protectice services. The 28 year old called his daddy instead and asked him what he should do. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This looks like it's about to if not already turn U-G-L-Y.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_wertheim/11/09/penn.state.joe.paterno/

http://twitter.com/?photo_id=1#!/jon_wertheim/status/134496542479495168/photo/1

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/11/10/2551233/penn-state-riot-tear-gas-pepper-spray
 
Last edited:
I read the grand jury presentment. The story is sadly all too typical for pedophile cases. With the number of events and the similar stories from different sources it is pretty convincing and quite sickening. Couple of points:


- I think many people over-estimate the ability of child protective services to actually protect the kids. In this case, allegations back in '98 were investigatd by CPS and the county attorney, yet the campus police managed to shut things down without anything leaking out. CPS agencies tend to have high staff turnover, unless the same name comes up in a database search, there is a good chance that nobody would have connected the dots between the '98, '02 and '08 incidents.

- I dont know PA law. When I worked with kids in NY state, I went through 'mandated reporter' training. New York law provides immunity against criminal prosecution and civil liability for information provided under the mandated reporter provisions.

- In my current work, I am occasionally faced with a situation where I am the first one to encounter evidence of (physical) abuse. The institution has staff and procedures in place to further investigate those cases in conjunction with the county social services office and law enforcement. Made the call a couple of times, never regretted it.
 
Unfortunately, the firings were necessary to try and get the story off the front page of the news. From the board's perspective, it also moves things forward in terms of rebuilding the school's reputation.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Herman Cain news conference....
 
weilke said:
I read the grand jury presentment. The story is sadly all too typical for pedophile cases. With the number of events and the similar stories from different sources it is pretty convincing and quite sickening. Couple of points:


- I think many people over-estimate the ability of child protective services to actually protect the kids. In this case, allegations back in '98 were investigatd by CPS and the county attorney, yet the campus police managed to shut things down without anything leaking out. CPS agencies tend to have high staff turnover, unless the same name comes up in a database search, there is a good chance that nobody would have connected the dots between the '98, '02 and '08 incidents.

- I dont know PA law. When I worked with kids in NY state, I went through 'mandated reporter' training. New York law provides immunity against criminal prosecution and civil liability for information provided under the mandated reporter provisions.

- In my current work, I am occasionally faced with a situation where I am the first one to encounter evidence of (physical) abuse. The institution has staff and procedures in place to further investigate those cases in conjunction with the county social services office and law enforcement. Made the call a couple of times, never regretted it.
Click to expand...

Little local controversy along those lines. Woman sees some questionable searches on one of her mental health patient's computer. Takes what she saw to the boss, boss said "not enough to contact police" she did anyway, got fired for it. Police investigate her patient, find the kiddy porn and file charges.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/co...cle_ff20d02a-0a7f-11e1-89e3-001cc4c03286.html
 
bartmc said:
Little local controversy along those lines. Woman sees some questionable searches on one of her mental health patient's computer. Takes what she saw to the boss, boss said "not enough to contact police" she did anyway, got fired for it. Police investigate her patient, find the kiddy porn and file charges.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/co...cle_ff20d02a-0a7f-11e1-89e3-001cc4c03286.html
Click to expand...

A problem you run into there is that if you go to someone for mental counseling - help with your psychological problems - you'd expect to have confidentiality.

Imagine if someone were to come to me for legal help, and I turned him into the police after he said "I think I'm in big trouble." I have reason to suspect a crime, and I clearly have a moral obligation to fulfill my civic duty!

But, this is how America has been going for some time. Wayne and Bill nailed it above - due process is dead, and it's now "see something say something." Even if you didn't see anything. Zero tolerance, criminalization of what used to be considered negligence (run your car off the road in Colo. in a snowstorm, and you're going to get a fairly serious charge), ends justifying the means, so forth and so on.

Poor Mike Pressler.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
But, this is how America has been going for some time. Wayne and Bill nailed it above - due process is dead, and it's now "see something say something." Even if you didn't see anything. Zero tolerance, criminalization of what used to be considered negligence (run your car off the road in Colo. in a snowstorm, and you're going to get a fairly serious charge), ends justifying the means, so forth and so on.
Click to expand...

Don't forget "one strike, you're out". One conviction (and in many circumstances an arrest even without finding of guilt) can (not "will", but "can") exclude you from many things depending on the alleged offense.
 
ScottM said:
It is my understanding that confidentiality does not extend if there is a suspicion of a crime being committed.
Click to expand...

Not to get too OT here but in the case I posted I believe there was a set checklist of what exactly constituted "suspicion of a crime being committed"
Which IIRC, included having witnessed "something illegal" and also having an identifiable victims name.
 
bartmc said:
Not to get too OT here but in the case I posted I believe there was a set checklist of what exactly constituted "suspicion of a crime being committed"
Which IIRC, included having witnessed "something illegal" and also having an identifiable victims name.
Click to expand...

Reporting a crime and reporting a suspicion of child abuse are two different things. The goal of reporting a suspicion of child abuse is to protect the child, potentially by temporarily removing it from the situation. The goal of reporting a suspicion of a crime is prosecution of that crime. While child abuse is often a criminal act, certainly not all cases of abuse that are reported to CPS get referred to law enforcement.

To report child abuse, you have to have 'reasonable cause to suspect'. This is taken from the NYS CPS pamphlet on the issue:

Reasonable Cause to Suspect
Reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or maltreatment
means that, based on your rational observations, professional
training and experience, you have a suspicion that the parent
or other person legally responsible for a child is responsible for
harming that child or placing that child in imminent danger of
harm. Your suspicion can be as simple as distrusting an
explanation for an injury.

If the case you referred to had been about child abuse, not reporting of suspicion of a crime, the following would have also applied (at least in NY Other states may not extend that protection in such an explicit manner, you may still be protected under other provisions that cover being fired for complying with a legal requirement):

Protection from Retaliatory Personnel Action
Section 413 of the Social Services Law specifies that no medical
or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency
shall take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee
who made a report to the SCR. Furthermore, no school, school
official, child care provider, foster care provider, or mental
health facility provider shall impose any conditions, including
prior approval or prior notification, upon a member of their
staff mandated to report suspected child abuse or
maltreatment.
 
ScottM said:
It is my understanding that confidentiality does not extend if there is a suspicion of a crime being committed.
Click to expand...

That may very well be the case. But that certainly encourages people not to seek help for problems involving things of this nature. Thereby directly encouraging continued victimization.

Par for the course, though. As a society, we're more interested in treating symptoms rather than causes. It feels better to take a pound of flesh than it does to encourage a proactive response that might prevent problems from either ocurring or recurring; doing the latter wouldn't allow us to take our pound of flesh as often.

Of course, it's also worth noting the difference between a mental health counselor actually observing you beating a child, and seeing a google search for "naked girls," or whatever it was.
 
wsuffa said:
Don't forget "one strike, you're out". One conviction (and in many circumstances an arrest even without finding of guilt) can (not "will", but "can") exclude you from many things depending on the alleged offense.
Click to expand...

Yup.

We hear alot about "career criminals." No doubt, it's a problem. No doubt whatsoever. There are a lot of people out there who are flat-out bad. No question of that.

At the same time, exactly what do we expect when any conviction beyond a traffic offense will generally prevent holding many if not most jobs?
 
weilke said:
Reporting a crime and reporting a suspicion of child abuse are two different things. The goal of reporting a suspicion of child abuse is to protect the child, potentially by temporarily removing it from the situation. The goal of reporting a suspicion of a crime is prosecution of that crime. While child abuse is often a criminal act, certainly not all cases of abuse that are reported to CPS get referred to law enforcement.

....
Click to expand...

While you're correct, the problem is that the difference between these two things is academic only.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
While you're correct, the problem is that the difference between these two things is academic only.
Click to expand...

For the question at hand, the issue of repercussions from an employer, the difference is not academic.

One means you are terminated. The other still means you are terminated but you can take a year off on the settlement money you got out of your employer for the illegal firing.
 
wsuffa said:
Don't forget "one strike, you're out". One conviction (and in many circumstances an arrest even without finding of guilt) can (not "will", but "can") exclude you from many things depending on the alleged offense.
Click to expand...

I agree that losing rights or privileges on anything less than a conviction is wrong.

I knew an agent once whose wife (they were in the process of separating and living apart) made a false allegation of domestic violence against him. At the time the law was that if you were ever arrested on domestic violence, even if the charges were never filed, you couldn't carry a weapon. So he was therefore unable to do his job. Fortunately the agency found another role for him to do while this got settled and the law was later changed to require a conviction before the 2nd amendment right was stripped away.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Yup.


At the same time, exactly what do we expect when any conviction beyond a traffic offense will generally prevent holding many if not most jobs?
Click to expand...

And this is a bad thing why?

I think a high-prifile coach of a public institution's sports team should have to maintain an impeccable reputation or find work elsewhere. Cry me a river for Joe Paterno :vomit:
 
alaskaflyer said:
And this is a bad thing why?

I think a high-prifile coach of a public institution's sports team should have to maintain an impeccable reputation or find work elsewhere. Cry me a river for Joe Paterno :vomit:
Click to expand...
As long as we are talking about convictions, I agree. Allegations shouldn't count. Arrests shouldn't count. Only convictions should count against a person in a legal sense.
 
TMetzinger said:
As long as we are talking about convictions, I agree. Allegations shouldn't count. Arrests shouldn't count. Only convictions should count against a person in a legal sense.
Click to expand...

And even then it should be a matter of degree. Should someone convicted of a misdemeanor related to "disorderly conduct" for merely participating in a protest that is a matter of personal conviction (for example pro/anti abortion) be subject to the same permanent penalties as someone as one who willfully stole something or had a DUI? Is there such a thing as "rehabilitation" or a single circumstance of poor judgement?
 
alaskaflyer said:
Sure but what does that have to do with employment?
Click to expand...

Many employers will not even consider hiring anyone with any blemish on their records. A smaller percentage will not hire anyone with even an arrest on the record.

As many as 80% of employers report running background checks on prospective employees.
 
wsuffa said:
Many employers will not even consider hiring anyone with any blemish on their records. A smaller percentage will not hire anyone with even an arrest on the record.

As many as 80% of employers report running background checks on prospective employees.
Click to expand...


My current employer, and the last three I have worked for in my career have all run extensive background checks, and drug screening. My current employer's screening agency even called looking for me on vacation in the USVI to ask questions.

We screen all employees, and I've had some new hires fail, and everyone is hired pending drug test and background check. If they any blips at all, they don't get hired, period.

If these kids get arrested, they may be SOL for many jobs.
 
Employment is market-driven. As long as there are plenty of qualified candidates without blemishes, blemishes will be disqualifying. If there's a shortage of candidates, then the standards change. And if someone is a true standout, then those blemishes may be accepted.

Kinda like the airlines.... HEY, we made this aviation-related after all!
 
wabower said:
If you were to be the Monday-morning quaterback re Paterno's decision, should he have:

1. Reported to the AD (with the expectation the AD would report to LEO)
2. Reported to law enforcement
3. Instructed the coach who witnessed the event to report to law enforcement
.
Click to expand...
4. All of the above.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
4. All of the above.
Click to expand...
Same here as well.

What I would like to know, in light of the firing of Joe P and the President of the University, is when the board of trustees is also going to fire Ast. Coach Mike McQueary. He was after the 28 year old who witnessed the acts and failed to immediately report them to police. It was the next day before he made a report and then it was only to Coach Paterno. If Joe Paterno is to be held to a standard of not acting when informed then surely Mike McQueary should be held to that same standard.
 
ScottM said:
What I would like to know, in light of the firing of Joe P and the President of the University, is when the board of trustees is also going to fire Ast. Coach Mike McQueary. He was after the 28 year old who witnessed the acts and failed to immediately report them to police. It was the next day before he made a report and then it was only to Coach Paterno. If Joe Paterno is to be held to a standard of not acting when informed then surely Mike McQueary should be held to that same standard.
Click to expand...

That is my question. I agree that the higher ups need to be fired, but I am wondering why people aren't castrating the guy who actually did the acts, and pounding on the door of the person who witnessed the acts and didn't do much. JoPa is stuck in the middle and, while I agree he should've done more, is getting unfairly focused on when compared to other people who should be held much more accountable.
 
It is interesting to me that Penn State is cleaning house, but yet in the same area in Pennsylvania there are 23 priests convicted of child molestation that are still with the Catholic Church. We seem to be outraged at Penn St (rightfully so) but have become accustom to and accepting of the Catholic Church pedifiles who suffered no jail time and are free to offend again. The cover up within the Catholic Church is 1,000 times worse than Penn St.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top