|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 13, 2011 18:03:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Nov 14, 2011 0:47:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 14, 2011 3:36:14 GMT -5
Personally, I think I would have a very, very, very difficult time controlling my rage if I came across a man raping a 10 year old boy. And trust me, you do NOT want an 18 stone, pissed off, BAF vet Scotsman coming at you with the intent to pound you into cheese-flavored dog food. I'm not particularly proud of it, but I'm not sure there would be anything left to turn over to the police. I'd give you a claymore, some woad and a kilt and get you drunk on aged Lagavulin whiskey first! This article is topical. It's amazing how people's judgement of a person changes when that individual has a high status in their tribe.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 14, 2011 4:37:38 GMT -5
Actually, that's a demonstrative article for another reason. It shows the Fundamental Attribution Error. Instead of looking at what the people there actually think, the article is looking at the situation and saying, "They think this."
As I've pointed out before, the students actively protested that Graham Spanier should be fired, so I think you should be a little more skeptical of the claim that they're being fiercely loyal to the heads of their organization.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 14, 2011 6:20:39 GMT -5
Perhaps the media should be talking more about the man who actually did the crime, this is true.
This does not make Paterno less than negligent in failing to report a rape to the police. This was an individual in a position of trust in a position to report a crime that is notoriously difficult to prosecute because there often no corroborating witnesses so it comes down to the rapists word against the raped!
Except in this case, McQueary witnessed it. Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno and Joe didn't report it.
Had either McQueary reported it or Joe then the victim would have had an edge in court afforded to few victims of that crime, a material witness to the act which would have eliminated the whole rapists word versus the victims thing that probably alone dissuades a large number of rape victims from even seeking prosecution.
Yes Sandusky was the most guilty party in this case, this however does not make Mike McQueary or Joe Paterno not guilty! They failed to act in a way that would have secured justice for the victim of the sexual assault, for that reason Joe at the very least deserves the media attention he has received and the sacking. Frankly he also deserves to face criminal charges for failure to report the crime and for failing in his duty of care to the young person who was abused!
EDIT: Reported in this context means reported to the police!
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 14, 2011 8:59:19 GMT -5
Yes Sandusky was the most guilty party in this case, this however does not make Mike McQueary or Joe Paterno not guilty! They failed to act in a way that would have secured justice for the victim of the sexual assault, for that reason Joe at the very least deserves the media attention he has received and the sacking. Not sure if this is what you meant or not, but... Under Rules of Evidence, Paterno would not have been able to testify. All he knew was hearsay (which is defined as "as out of court statement used to prove the matter asserted.") That does not mean he couldn't have reported it, but his word is only hearsay. McQueary on the other hand... I looked up PA law yesterday about this. As I read the law, Paterno is not criminally liable. PA law states "Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made..." Looking at that law, I would say JoePa is off the hook. (1) He does not come into contact with children in the course of his "employment, occupation, or practice." (Well, technically, 16 and 17 year old high school students during recruiting, but those aren't the kids in question.) He had no connection with the charity Sandusky was using to find victims. (2) The children did not appear before Paterno in his "professional or official capacity." (3) He did what the law said to do - report it to those in charge.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 14, 2011 12:51:13 GMT -5
The problem people have is basically "he should have done more."
My point is, the reason people supported Paterno isn't because they think he can do no wrong, or because they only care about football, it's because he DIDN'T do anything demonstratively wrong. The best you can say is that he didn't do something he wasn't required to but maybe should have done in hindsight. So you do have that room for conflict, it's not like Sandusky he obviously did something.
Also, something that sticks out to me is, why is no one upset that the law DOESN'T require you to "do more"? It seems silly to me to be pissed at someone for doing exactly what they were supposed to, just because that turns out to "not be enough."
But, again, my real point isn't "Paterno shouldn't have been fired"--although I still think the only way you can hold that view is if you hold him responsible for the various failings of others--it's "don't project ideas onto the students without first hearing what they have to say."
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 14, 2011 16:43:06 GMT -5
Not sure if this is what you meant or not, but... Under Rules of Evidence, Paterno would not have been able to testify. All he knew was hearsay (which is defined as "as out of court statement used to prove the matter asserted.") That does not mean he couldn't have reported it, but his word is only hearsay. True. I think he should be legally liable, I'm happy to concede that he isn't if the evidence points that way. That being said, rape is rape and if you are aware of it happening within your organization then it is your moral responsibility as a human being to report it to the police. The fact that he did not is, I think fair grounds for his dismissal from his current employer and pillorying in the media!
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 14, 2011 17:28:37 GMT -5
The best you can say is that he didn't do something he wasn't required to but definately, absolutely maybe should have done in hindsight. without question Obviously people should report crimes that they witness. If you fail to do so and the person does it again, you're a monster.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 14, 2011 22:30:56 GMT -5
Looking at that law, I would say JoePa is off the hook. (1) He does not come into contact with children in the course of his "employment, occupation, or practice." (Well, technically, 16 and 17 year old high school students during recruiting, but those aren't the kids in question.) He had no connection with the charity Sandusky was using to find victims. (2) The children did not appear before Paterno in his "professional or official capacity." (3) He did what the law said to do - report it to those in charge. I've read that under Pennsylvania law he actually was legally required to report it. Granted, these were from blogs, but from blogs I'd typically classify as trustworthy. www.thenation.com/blog/164433/college-footballs-logic-why-joe-paterno-and-penn-state-would-shield-child-molesterscienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2011/11/mandated_reporting_the_evil_th.phpAlso, Lithp, inaction is an action. There is a reason for things like criminal negligence.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 15, 2011 8:36:43 GMT -5
I've read that under Pennsylvania law he actually was legally required to report it. Granted, these were from blogs, but from blogs I'd typically classify as trustworthy. He was required to report it, and he reported it to the person he was required to report to. The law does not require reporting to the police. It requires the person who learns about it to report it to the person in charge. The person in charge is required to report to police.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Nov 15, 2011 10:41:37 GMT -5
Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence, and says he should not have showered with those boys.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 15, 2011 11:14:43 GMT -5
I've read that under Pennsylvania law he actually was legally required to report it. Granted, these were from blogs, but from blogs I'd typically classify as trustworthy. He was required to report it, and he reported it to the person he was required to report to. The law does not require reporting to the police. It requires the person who learns about it to report it to the person in charge. The person in charge is required to report to police. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Nov 15, 2011 11:42:37 GMT -5
Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence, and says he should not have showered with those boys. Also the rapes. Probably shouldn't have done that either...
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 15, 2011 20:18:32 GMT -5
Well, I don't think "moral obligation" even means anything, if that was enough of a reason, we wouldn't HAVE laws & procedures in the first place. At the very least, do you guys agree with me that if you want to make sure people report these things to the police in the future, the best way to ensure it would be to change the law that says you don't have to do that? The best you can say is that he didn't do something he wasn't required to but definately, absolutely maybe should have done in hindsight. without question Obviously people should report crimes that they witness. If you fail to do so and the person does it again, you're a monster. He wasn't a witness, he was informed BY a witness, & I don't exactly know what he was told, but he claims to not have known that it was intercourse. Also, that's only for ONE incident, there has yet to be any evidence that he knew about any others. ...I don't even understand why you're trying to rationalize this preoccupation with a football coach. Okay, fine, you think he should have done more. He is not the only one who didn't go to the police. Curley didn't, Shultz didn't, Spanier didn't, McQueary (the witness) didn't, Harmon (the chief of the Penn State police at the time) didn't, and the district attorney Ray Gricar chose not to prosecute. Actually, did any of you know that guy disappeared 6 years ago? There's a lot more to this story besides Paterno that you're not hearing about anywhere near as frequently as you should. And, to be blunt, it's because they aren't as famous.
|
|