Sandusky Should be Primary Focus of Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2011
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
Former Penn State assistant football coach and defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky now stands accused of sexually abusing several young boys whom he met through The Second Mile, a children’s charity that he created. Athletic director Tim Curley and the school’s senior vice president Gary Schultz have been charged for failing to report these incidents to authorities. They have also been charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury in regard to these matters. As a result, they have both resigned their positions from the university.
In reporting this scandal, the media has focused a lot more on people like Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier than on Sandusky. This doesn't seem right to me. Yes, these guys should have done something to help those boys and nip the sex abuse in the bud, but Jerry Sandusky is the guilty party here. Therefore he should be the primary focus of the reporting and the investigation. He and he alone committed those horrible crimes against those young boys. He should get the lion's share of the blame. It is Penn State’s problem only to the extent that Paterno and others should have done more to stop him, such as calling the authorities as soon as they became aware of what was going on.
In my opinion, that should be a moral issue, not a criminal issue. Laws like the one Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz were charged with violating essentially criminalize passive behavior. Such laws serve no purpose other than to allow the criminal justice system to persecute people other than those who are the actual perpetrators of a given crime. Hopefully, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz will be able to get off the hook. According their lawyers, these men cannot technically be held accountable, since they were not in any way responsible for the care of the boys who were abused. I hope they are right. I would love to see them walk. Besides, it seems to me that the person who actually witnessed the abuse should have reported it the authorities themselves, instead of going to Mr. Paterno, who in turn reported it to Curley and Schultz. And if the grand jury already knew all the facts, or at least enough to determine that Curley and Schultz were lying, then why did it need their testimony?
And consider for a moment the complete absurdity of punishing inaction with incarceration. The furniture at Penn State University took no more action to alert the authorities than Curley or Schultz did, yet wouldn’t it be idiotic to arrest the furniture for its inaction? Ah, but the difference is, you say, is that furniture is incapable of taking action but people are. True, but you must remember that the end result is the same, regardless of whether you are talking about furniture or people – the abuse went unreported. Therefore, people who fail to report it are no more of a danger to society than furniture that fails to report it.
The decision whether or not to report anything, even someone's abuse of children, to the authorities should always be a matter of conscience on personal morality. Some people just don’t feel comfortable getting involved in such things. With the exception of paying money that he or she rightfully owes, a person should always be allowed to not do what they don’t want to do. That's one of our most basic and valued rights. And like many of our other rights, it protects us when we make unpopular decisions.
This Article has been viewed 322 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)I think I have to disagree, Terry. If the guy who drives the getaway car in a bank robbery is guilty along with those who rob the bank, then these guys, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz are guilty as well. After all, their silence (after it was reported to them that Sandusky was using Penn State's locker rooms for his abuse) allowed Mr. Sandusky to continue his crimes on their watch and under their jurisdiction. They in essence "drove" his getaway car. Had they reported his crimes to police or child protective services, he could have been stopped years ago.
You say you'd love to see Curley and Schultz, "mock and taunt" their accusers. Are you referring to the young boys who have already had to endure sexual abuse? You think these two gentlemen should be able to "mock and taunt" them?Jean, it is always an honor to have you comment on any of my articles, even when you disagree. :-)
First, I must clear up an obvious misconception that you have. The victims are not the accusers of Curley and Schultz. The victims accused the man who actually abused them - Jerry Sandusky. They have not accused anyone else. Now members of the criminal justice system (prosecuters, judges, and a grand jury) and the zealots that support their decision are the accusers of Curley and Schultz. Those are the people I hope they ultimately get to taunt.
Now, I'll go back to my original argument. If I am not mistaken, Sandusky was the guy who molested those boys. I don't believe Curley, Schultz, or Paterno ever touched them. Therefore, we should focus our attention on Sandusky. Why is it in our society that a person who perpetrates a crime seems to get less blame that someone who failed to stop them or failed to report them? One possible answer is that when a child has been harmed, people often react based on emotion and suspend common sense. That's understandable to a certain extent.
And in regard to Paterno, I'm not taking up for a guy who took part in a cover-up. What cover-up? Paterno reported the incident to his superiors at Penn State as soon as he became aware of what was going on. Which part of the previous sentence do people have difficulty understanding? A cover-up requires two things: (1) failure to report something and (2) an active attempt to prevent it from getting reported. Now how, pray tell, do you square that definition with what Paterno did? Answer: you can't. So I wish people would quit slandering Mr. Paterno by saying he participated in a cover-up. It didn't happen.
I don't see where Mr. Sandusky is "seem(ing) to get less blame than someone who failed to stop them or failed to report them". I don't see anyone calling for Mr. Paterno or these other guys to serve jail time, they are only losing their jobs, which they should. I believe that in every state it is the law that teacher and school personnel who even SUSPECT child abuse must report it to law enforcement. Teachers and clergy are most definitely held to a higher standard here than the average citizen. Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Paterno broke the public trust and they very likely broke Pennsylvania state law by failing to report things that had been actually seen occurring on their school's property.
Another factor here is Penn State's own reputation - they have built their brand on values, integrity, leadership, scrupulous observance of rules, good sportsmanship, etc, etc. There is nothing that flies in the face of this more directly than allowing a predator to prey on the weakest among us under their very noses. Ask yourself, why would they do this? There is no other explanation than money. They did not want to risk losing football games, ergo, money. I'm sorry, I just don't see any thing other than a cover up here.
So yes, I still think they deserve everything they are getting. It's still MUCH less horrible than what the victims of Mr. Sandusky got who were abused AFTER these fine, upstanding citizens decided not to stop a known pedophile.Jean, once again I appreciate your input. It's hard to disagree with most of what you have written here. However, there is one thing you wrote that I need to correct: Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz ARE facing more than just losing their jobs - they could both go jail.
BTW, after reading all the comments and well as the news reports of this scandal, I have changed my opinion somewhat and have modified this article accordingly. I also have an article coming up later this week in which I will suggest how something this can be prevented (not just responded to appropriately) in the future.
I have to disagree with your claim that it is not Penn State's problem. It is exactly that. According to the grand jury testimony both Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz were aware of at least one rape that happened in the locker room shower. And what did they do about it? They took away Sandusky's key to the facility. And by failing to alert the police, they essentially looked the other way as long as he was a sexual predator elsewhere.
As for your comment, "The decision whether or not to report someone else’s abuse of children to the authorities should always be a matter of personal preference. Some people just don’t feel comfortable getting involved in such things." You have got to be kidding me. Personal preference?
If you witness it, then you are involved, like it or not. And if you are in a position of authority and someone reports that one of your coaches is raping a boy in the shower you are not only involved too, but legally and morally obligated to do something about it.
But don't worry, Mr. Mitchell, if I ever happen by when you are being attacked by muggers have no fear. I will exercise the right of every American and turn the other way, and be a silent witness to the crime that I will not report, like a piece of furniture.But Matt, in the broken world that we live in (the one that I am complaining about), you would go to jail, or at least lose your job, for not helping me. Have you already forgotten what happened to Msrs. Curley, Schultz, and Paterno?
This just in: Penn State has just issued a pink slip to every one of its faculty members. According to its Board of (Mis)Trustees, each faculty member should have known what Jerry Sandusky was doing to those boys and should have subsequently reported it to the authorities. There was no excuse for any of them not knowing. It should have been understood that it was part of their job definition to follow him around day and night and find out what exactly he was doing in his spare time.
And here’s another late-breaking development: Police have issued arrest warrants not just for everyone who knew Jerry Sandusky, but also for everyone who has ever heard of him. That’s right – thousands of people are on the verge of being arrested for violating Article 666, Section 666-666 of the penal code, which states that “You must report any child sex abuse by everyone you have ever heard of, regardless of whether you actually know about the abuse or not. Failure to do so is a felony, punishable by up to 10,000 years in prison."
“Arresting this many people is going to be a monumental task, but we’re going to get assistance from the FBI, the U.S. Marshals, and possibly the Secret Service.", said Bill Peckerhead, chief of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Stay tuned for more breaking news from the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal ...Well, I must say you are very creative, Terry. When you cannot defend your argument with logic or real facts you fabricate your own. You response failed to address any of the facts in the grand jury testimony about the criminal behavior of Curley and Schultz, as outlined in the Pennsylvania Penal Code.
And speaking of facts, you are mistaken when you say that I would go to jail or lose my job for not helping you. Because I would simply be passing by, and would not be someone in authority who is legally and morally obligated to follow the law, like the coaches at Penn State.
I do agree with you that Paterno probably knew nothing of the abuse. However, have you read any of the comments from parents of football players who had been recruited by Penn State, but who were now deciding not to attend?
Many of them are going to play football elsewhere, saying that the Penn State program no longer is about honor and character. And that is a very unfortunate thing. Because of the criminal behavior of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and others, the football program at Penn State will forever be tainted.Yes, Matt, you right when you said you wouldn't go to jail for not helping when I was mugged. But I would help you, regardless of whether or not I thought I might go to jail for not trying. However, I wouldn't judge someone who didn't, and I certainly wouldn't want them to go jail or get fired.
Now, going back to the example of being in authority over the welfare of a child. Let's say that I was and I found out that someone in my orginazation was abusing them. Would I do something about as soon as it came to my attention? You're darn tootin' I would - and fast. In today's political environment, there's no such thing as being too cautious when you are responsible for the welfare of a child. Therefore, I woud report the abuse to at least seven sources: local police, state police, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, INS, and Homeland Security. I would document each contact to include the date, time, and the person I spoke with. I'm going to make sure my butt is covered big time. No child is worth getting into any kind of trouble over.
But still, if someone else in a similar position failed to report the abuse, I would not judge them. I have better things to do than to hold grudges and point the finger of blame all over creation.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.