11 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoMaybe the next big time football program that has a pedophile working for them that they know about will get reported to the police. That would "prevent child abuse", wouldn't it?
Not looking the other way at all. Sandusky is justly in jail, Paterno is dead. My point is the culprits need punishing, not the students. This was not a football issue. It was criminal in nature and outside the competency of NCAA. They make up punishment as they go. Indeed erasing wins is Soviet style and completely un-American. SMU was dealt even more ...[text shortened]... a existing case law. I'm afraid the PennSt punishment does not one iota to prevent child abuse.
Personally I think letting kids get raped by an assistant football coach on school grounds and not reporting it makes it an issue properly dealt with by severe punishment against the program that benefited from the cover up. To say the NCAA should just ignore this is beyond comprehension.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderJust exactly how did the football program benefit from the coverup? You are grasping at straws. I insist severe punishment against the culprits is in order, but ex post facto stuff does nothing, not one iota, to protect kids. If this is supposed to be a deterrent I doubt it will have any impact at all. For one it is more likely to induce coverups since reporting is decreased when non-offenders end up getting punished along with the pedophile. Also, explain to me what erasing wins does for sexually abused kids?
Maybe the next big time football program that has a pedophile working for them that they know about will get reported to the police. That would "prevent child abuse", wouldn't it?
Personally I think letting kids get raped by an assistant football coach on school grounds and not reporting it makes it an issue properly dealt with by severe p ...[text shortened]... benefited from the cover up. To say the NCAA should just ignore this is beyond comprehension.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzoWhat part of this didn't you understand:
Just exactly how did the football program benefit from the coverup? You are grasping at straws. I insist severe punishment against the culprits is in order, but ex post facto stuff does nothing, not one iota, to protect kids. If this is supposed to be a deterrent I doubt it will have any impact at all. For one it is more likely to induce coverups since ...[text shortened]... d along with the pedophile. Also, explain to me what erasing wins does for sexually abused kids?
Penn State as an institution benefited from the cover up; if it had become public their recruiting would have been hurt, attendance might have slipped and millions of dollars might not have flowed into its coffers.
The rest of your post is the same old BS. The "offenders" in this case the institution is getting punished not any non-offenders. And taking away wins is a standard punishment for wrongdoing in a program; why should letting kids get raped be punished less severely than letting alumni buy cars for athletes?
11 Aug 12
1 edit
From Louis Freeh's statement:
From 1998–2011, Penn State’s “Tone at the Top” for transparency, compliance,
police reporting and child protection was completely wrong, as shown by the inaction
and concealment on the part of its most senior leaders, and followed by those at the
bottom of the University’s pyramid of power. This is best reflected by the janitors’
decision not to report Sandusky’s horrific 2000 sexual assault of a young boy in the
Lasch Building shower. The janitors were afraid of being fired for reporting a powerful
football coach.
http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf
Their motive? To "protect" the program you think should suffer no consequences from their heinous acts:
Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more
reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the
most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and
Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the
authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large.
Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such
sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims.
Under these circumstances, Penn State not getting the "death penalty" was lenient.
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYour whole concept of crime and punishment is highly skewed, as is Freeh's. I insist I fail to see how this will prevent one single instance of anything, let alone child sexual abuse. Ensnaring all sorts of innocents in this huge wave of misguided punishment is un-American, patently unfair, absurd and stinks of Stalinism. So now we punish institutions? Where will this all end? Why not force the whole university to close down since you're so convinced they're rotten? It is not only silly, I daresay if they took this to court Penn St would win!
What part of this didn't you understand:
Penn State as an institution benefited from the cover up; if it had become public their recruiting would have been hurt, attendance might have slipped and millions of dollars might not have flowed into its coffers.
The rest of your post is the same old BS. The "offenders" in thi ...[text shortened]... d letting kids get raped be punished less severely than letting alumni buy cars for athletes?
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzo"Stalinism"? Another right wing nut.
Your whole concept of crime and punishment is highly skewed, as is Freeh's. I insist I fail to see how this will prevent one single instance of anything, let alone child sexual abuse. Ensnaring all sorts of innocents in this huge wave of misguided punishment is un-American, patently unfair, absurd and stinks of Stalinism. So now we punish institutions? ...[text shortened]... they're rotten? It is not only silly, I daresay if they took this to court Penn St would win!
The NCAA has been punishing football programs for violations of the rules for as long as I can remember. If Penn State doesn't like the NCAA rules, it can leave. I've never heard of any institution successfully challenging NCAA punishments in court, but if Penn State wants to waste a lot of its money on lawyers go ahead. They should save some for the wave of lawsuits from Sandusky's victims; it seems almost certain they will be found liable for their suffering since their top officials could have ended his reign of child raping in 1998 by the simple expedient of picking up a phone and calling the police. But they wanted to "protect" the program, something you think they should be successful in doing.
Sorry, I can't think of of anything more rotten than giving an institution that benefited from covering up child sexual abuse a pass.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzoThis is over the top. To INSIST that you see not a single instance of abuse preempted is to be willfully blind. I'm sorry but you're a big part of the problem.
Your whole concept of crime and punishment is highly skewed, as is Freeh's. I insist I fail to see how this will prevent one single instance of anything, let alone child sexual abuse. Ensnaring all sorts of innocents in this huge wave of misguided punishment is un-American, patently unfair, absurd and stinks of Stalinism. So now we punish institutions? ...[text shortened]... they're rotten? It is not only silly, I daresay if they took this to court Penn St would win!
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderNobody is giving them a pass one bit. It seems like this is a case of simple avoidance of the death penalty. Just think about it. Now the NCAA looks foolish for giving SMU the death penalty for minor infractions yet allowing Penn St a modicum of life, although Penn St. will still die a lingering slow death. It appears that the ruling is final and un-appealable. Sure there are impending lawsuits and there will be plenty of rich attorneys as a result and the victims will see little of the money. In our litigious society the deep pockets get chased with a vengeance and the coverup punishments affect many more innocent than they do the guilty. In the end it makes little difference. Just look at the sexual abuse stats pre and post Penn St fiasco. I doubt there will be a dent. These failed policies only serve to make cover ups more sophisticated and insidious. As long as society does little to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade child sexual abuse will continue unabated.
"Stalinism"? Another right wing nut.
The NCAA has been punishing football programs for violations of the rules for as long as I can remember. If Penn State doesn't like the NCAA rules, it can leave. I've never heard of any institution successfully challenging NCAA punishments in court, but if Penn State wants to waste a lot of its money on l ...[text shortened]... en than giving an institution that benefited from covering up child sexual abuse a pass.