So what would you do if you saw your coach molesting a child?

[cybercoma]

And another thing, all of this "what if it weren't true" is exactly the problem here. Here you're proposing that people second-guess allegations and look what happened. They weren't wrong and who knows how many victims this predator violated. It all could have ended with Paterno going to the police, but instead he wanted to protect his colleague and the university wanted to protect him so their name wouldn't be tarnished. Everyone was more concerned about keeping up appearances than doing what was right.

[Guest American Woman]

Stacking the deck much?

I would be glad that the person reported what they knew to the police and allowed them to do their job, investigating the allegations.

You would be "that person."

If it turned out that it wasn't the case, at least they had the integrity to do what is right. It's not up to that person to try and solve the case by him/herself. It's up to the police and investigators to do their job.

And sometimes that involves removing children from their home, and parents who turn out to be innocent of the charge, losing their jobs. And this would be the result of YOU reporting what a third person said, as you had absolutely no knowledge of it yourself - and knew and trusted the person who was very close to you.

I seriously doubt if you'd run off to the police and report what a third person said in that instance. But perhaps you would. It certainly would help account for all the false allegations that the police and social services get - with absolutely no basis in truth.

You fail realize that irresponsibly making a report can cause great harm too.

Edited November 13, 2011 by American Woman

[blueblood]

And another thing, all of this "what if it weren't true" is exactly the problem here. Here you're proposing that people second-guess allegations and look what happened. They weren't wrong and who knows how many victims this predator violated. It all could have ended with Paterno going to the police, but instead he wanted to protect his colleague and the university wanted to protect him so their name wouldn't be tarnished. Everyone was more concerned about keeping up appearances than doing what was right.

Paterno going to the cops would have given them a file based on the friend of a friend told me situation. If all cases were delivered to the police that way, that would be such a hard case to prove and the investigation would be so much more complex it would be hard to even take the case. Imagine going to the police station and saying, "somebody told me that somebody else was robbing a convenience store" it looks suspicious in that the question is raised that "well why didn't the person who told you come and tell us as it was happening?". I think Jo pa didn't want to look like an idiot in the police station.

The controversy here is that there is both legal proceedings and university proceedings. The grad student should have confronted the perp, reported it to police for legal proceedings, then report it to Jo pa for university proceedings. What Jo pa did was similar to if a police officer would have chucked the file in the garbage after a complainant would have made a complaint. That's why Jo pa got punted post haste.

Because the grad student made a mistake, we have this kerfuffle.

Edited November 13, 2011 by blueblood

[Argus]

Paterno going to the cops would have given them a file based on the friend of a friend told me situation. If all cases were delivered to the police that way, that would be such a hard case to prove an

Oh come on. He would call the cops, tell them one of his grad students saw the guy raping a kid. The cops would interview the grad student, arrest the coach and find the kid involved. It wouldn't have been hard at all.

[Argus]

Yes...that is the nub of the matter, and all these "hind sight heroes" swear they would have marched down to police headquarters and made a prompt report. It's not that clear cut as you said.

The guy watched the coach having anal sex with a ten year old. How bloody clear cut do you want it to be? Do you think he should have interviewed both parties first before deciding to call 911?

[blueblood]

Oh come on. He would call the cops, tell them one of his grad students saw the guy raping a kid. The cops would interview the grad student, arrest the coach and find the kid involved. It wouldn't have been hard at all.

You do realize the moral hazard of making complaints that way would cause? Why didn't the grad student confront Sandusky and go straight to the police himself? Patterno has nothing to do with the case at that point. You wouldn't be suspicious if someone told you " a friend told me that somebody else did x thing wrong?" there's not enough police resources available to handle cases like that. It makes it so easy to discredit the witness who saw it in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

I bet you wouldn't be defending him for not reporting it if it was your kid or grandkid that was getting raped.

Nonsense...I would be "defending" him all the same. Try to separate facts from your hind sight heroism....if you can.

[bush_cheney2004]

The guy watched the coach having anal sex with a ten year old. How bloody clear cut do you want it to be? Do you think he should have interviewed both parties first before deciding to call 911?

No, that's a job for the police, whom he did not call.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which of these heroes point of view are you referring to, the one who caught the perp with his hand in the cookie jar, or Jo pa?

Today's make believe heroes who claim they would have saved the day AND notified police after having the benefit of hind sight, things that normal people failed to do at the time, for a host of reasons.

[Guest American Woman]

The guy watched the coach having anal sex with a ten year old. How bloody clear cut do you want it to be? Do you think he should have interviewed both parties first before deciding to call 911?

Joe Paterno did not watch the coach doing anything, and that's who we've been referring to in the quotes you are responding to here.

[blueblood]

Today's make believe heroes who claim they would have saved the day AND notified police after having the benefit of hind sight, things that normal people failed to do at the time, for a host of reasons.

So if you got a front row seat to that, you wouldn't confront said individual and notified the police?

I know you don't like using cdn. Examples when talking about the USA, but here I go. In the g8/g20 protests and the Vancouver hockey riots, there are numerous examples of ordinary people stepping up when something wrong is going on.

Like I always say excuses excuses.

[Guest American Woman]

I know you don't like using cdn. Examples when talking about the USA, but here I go. In the g8/g20 protests and the Vancouver hockey riots, there are numerous examples of ordinary people stepping up when something wrong is going on.

Those people saw the "something wrong going on."

[cybercoma]

You do realize the moral hazard of making complaints that way would cause? Why didn't the grad student confront Sandusky and go straight to the police himself? Patterno has nothing to do with the case at that point. You wouldn't be suspicious if someone told you " a friend told me that somebody else did x thing wrong?" there's not enough police resources available to handle cases like that. It makes it so easy to discredit the witness who saw it in the first place.

Your metaphors are terrible. It's not "a friend of a friend of a friend". We're dealing with people in positions of trust and authority. We're dealing with a hierarchy here.

First of all, there's a relationship of authority between the rapist and the student that caught him. People in business situations don't even go to the police when their superiors do illegal things, let alone being a student and seeing a coach/teacher engaging in some disgustingly shocking behaviour. The student did what he thought was appropriate, he approached someone else in a position of authority, someone on the same level as the perpetrator, someone in a position of trust and hoped that he would do the right thing. Now, Paterno went to his superiors, probably expecting them to do the right thing. I think he should have gone to his superiors, that's probably what I would have done (just like the grad student went to a superior). However, when those superiors fail to contact the police and initiate an investigation, those below have a moral obligation to take it to the proper authorities that will act.

[blueblood]

Those people saw the "something wrong going on."

I think bc2004 was referring to the grad student when replying to me. I'm in your camp regarding Jo pa.

[Guest American Woman]

I think bc2004 was referring to the grad student when replying to me. I'm in your camp regarding Jo pa.

I don't think he was - we've been discussing JoePa for awhile now - though I could be wrong. I would guess that we're all on the same page, though.

[cybercoma]

Nonsense...I would be "defending" him all the same. Try to separate facts from your hind sight heroism....if you can.

If you would sit back and do nothing when a subordinate reports to you that they feel one of their superiors is engage in a horrific, illegal and immoral activity, then you're a filthy and disgusting creep. That you would allow your own family to be sexually assaulted and do nothing about it because "the allegations just might possibly be false" is completely unconscionable. That you would not allow the police to do their investigation because you would rather protect the perpetrator than protect a child that is potentially being raped is so beyond disgusting there are no words for it. Because people like you don't bother reporting things, those that are powerless (i.e., children being raped) must suffer in silence so you don't possibly offend someone that might be innocent.

[blueblood]

Your metaphors are terrible. It's not "a friend of a friend of a friend". We're dealing with people in positions of trust and authority. We're dealing with a hierarchy here.

First of all, there's a relationship of authority between the rapist and the student that caught him. People in business situations don't even go to the police when their superiors do illegal things, let alone being a student and seeing a coach/teacher engaging in some disgustingly shocking behaviour. The student did what he thought was appropriate, he approached someone else in a position of authority, someone on the same level as the perpetrator, someone in a position of trust and hoped that he would do the right thing. Now, Paterno went to his superiors, probably expecting them to do the right thing. I think he should have gone to his superiors, that's probably what I would have done (just like the grad student went to a superior). However, when those superiors fail to contact the police and initiate an investigation, those below have a moral obligation to take it to the proper authorities that will act.

The grad student had his superior with his hand caught in the cookie jar. If the kid was worried about losing his job, he wouldn't have reported it in the first place, which is awful in itself. No, the grad student should have went to the authorities and set his layer to stun. Jo pa should have been notified after. Remember the cancer will be removed as quick as possible. When you have the chance to put someone away for rape when they were caught with their hand caught in the cookie jar, you take it.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you would sit back and do nothing when a subordinate reports to you that they feel one of their superiors is engage in a horrific, illegal and immoral activity, then you're a filthy and disgusting creep.

OK....what does that have to do with Joe Paterno (or me).

That you would allow your own family to be sexually assaulted and do nothing about it because "the allegations just might possibly be false" is completely unconscionable.

"Allow" my family to be sexually assaulted? My, we are emotional today!

That you would not allow the police to do their investigation because you would rather protect the perpetrator than protect a child that is potentially being raped is so beyond disgusting there are no words for it.

I have always thought you an idiot....now I have proof for the police. I will call them at once!

Because people like you don't bother reporting things, those that are powerless (i.e., children being raped) must suffer in silence so you don't possibly offend someone that might be innocent.

Put a sock in it...I have reported witnessed events to police and military chain of comand. I hope a false allegation is made about you to police just to teach you a lesson you obviously have not learned.

[bush_cheney2004]

So if you got a front row seat to that, you wouldn't confront said individual and notified the police?

I reported pages ago that I would have shouted "Fire!" and pulled the alarm/called police, just as taught for other sexual assaults on college campuses.

I know you don't like using cdn. Examples when talking about the USA, but here I go. In the g8/g20 protests and the Vancouver hockey riots, there are numerous examples of ordinary people stepping up when something wrong is going on.

Actually, it';s a refreshing change from the usual stunt of pretending American data applies to Canada.

Like I always say excuses excuses.

And I am telling you that on American colleges and campuses it is/was very difficult to prosecute for sexual assault. The defined elements of the offense make it even more difficult to bring a case for child sexual abuse.

[blueblood]

I reported pages ago that I would have shouted "Fire!" and pulled the alarm/called police, just as taught for other sexual assaults on college campuses.

Actually, it';s a refreshing change from the usual stunt of pretending American data applies to Canada.

And I am telling you that on American colleges and campuses it is/was very difficult to prosecute for sexual assault. The defined elements of the offense make it even more difficult to bring a case for child sexual abuse.

Isn't yelling fire/ confronting perp and calling the police being a hero and saving the day? If so welcome to the club.

It shouldn't have been too hard to prosecute of the grad student wasn't a bonehead.

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't yelling fire/ confronting perp and calling the police being a hero and saving the day? If so welcome to the club.

No...it is following establishing policy to arrest the behaviour in place without putting the principals or university in greater legal peril. I sure wouldn't be thinking about sanctioned fights in hockey!

It shouldn't have been too hard to prosecute of the grad student wasn't a bonehead.

If there were more women on this forum we could get a much better perspective on just how pervasive sexual assaults and lack of prosecution is on American and Canadian college campuses. It is not a trivial exercise or slam dunk compared to assaults in other settings.

[Rue]

It's inconceivable to me that the student who witnessed the assault happening did nothing to intervene. It's inconceivable to me that school officials who were informed, including Paterno, did not notify the police. All should face legal consequences.

The university itself has also apparently broken the law.

The Clery Act is a federal law that requires schools to report crimes to police.

-k

100% agreement!

[eyeball]

It's inconceivable to me that the student who witnessed the assault happening did nothing to intervene. It's inconceivable to me that school officials who were informed, including Paterno, did not notify the police. All should face legal consequences.

The university itself has also apparently broken the law.

The Clery Act is a federal law that requires schools to report crimes to police.

-k

This issue of unreported crime raises serious problems with real consequences in other ways. In Canada we have been told there is and has been for some time now a huge amount of unreported crime going on. This has resulted in a sudden need to spend billions of hard to find dollars on new prisons and police etc not to mention forcing society to broaden our criminal code to catch up.

Perhaps the real criminals in Canada are the social vandals and cowards who have not been reporting crime.

[Rue]

No...it is following establishing policy to arrest the behaviour in place without putting the principals or university in greater legal peril.

You are in fact 100% wrong. The above is not established policy. You fabricated that to justify your iresponses trying to rationalize a cover up and I have to call you out on it and your other comments. I may mostly agree with you on foreign policy and like you but hey Bush you are way out of wack on this one and I say that respectfully but I am gonna really challenge you on this one.

If someone has a reason to believe a crime is committed they have a legal obligation to report it to the police-you know that.

The janitors, the coach who witnessed the crime, Joe Paterno and Penn State all had a legal responsibility to report the crime. By failing to do so they became criminal accessories after the fact and they exposes the university to a huge law suit for negligence for failing to report the crime to the police. Its indefensible in a civil law suit for negligence. I know that because I have spent 15 years providing risk consulting to companies on sex crimes and policies. I am not fabricating what I say I do it for a living Bush.

Criminal law does not give us the luxury to decide not to report a crime. We do not have that luxury. It is up to the police not us to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to investigate a crime. The criminal law clearly states if we have reason to believe a crime is committed we MUST report it and over the years criminal law in both the U.S. and Canada has set a high standard of when to report sex crimes or crimes of violence.

Penn State as is the case with all universities to obtain insurance for liability against third parties is required to implement risk management best practices which include training all employees there is ZERO TOLERANCE of sex crimes and if there is even a slight chance one could have happened it MUST be reported to police to avoid exposure to civil liability plus they are obliged to conduct an internal investigation that at minimum must speak to all witnesses and show it attempted to make contact and identify the victim. Without being able to show that, the university has no defence to a liability law suit in civil court. It is expected under the reasonable standard of care test as a defence to negligence to do just that.

I do not doubt cover ups are done to avoid being sued but its not approved or established policy-its what executives do when they are gutless. Its what eventually causes the largest of empires to topple in scandal and it is contrary to established policies all companies now follow on sex harassment complaints.

15 years now I have been serving as a consultant to industry on how to deal with sex crimes-not one executive has evidenced a learning impairment not to understand covering up a crime is tatamount to commiting the crime. Not one.

The executives and people who involve themselves in cover ups are criminal accessories and they fail morally and they know they have. They aren't stupid. They know the cover ups are wrong and eventually one day they will get caught and the longer it takes to come out the more damage will be done.

Bish you know why the other poster is outraged and used the reference to his family being assaulted. It takes a community to bring up children. You know that. Do you really want to live in a community you where your child is raped by an adult and other adults cover it up? Really?

When a child or anyone is raped, yes there is a victim but its also a crime committed against all of us in society. We all are the parents of the children and vulnerable in our community. Surely as civilized people you understand that.

Those janitors, Jo Pa, McReary, the uppity mucks a U Penn they all failed morally and they all became criminal accessories and no rationalization can change that.

All of us, have an obligation to report a crime to police. Many of us donm't out of fear or not being inconvenienced but it doesn't absolve our responsibility both criminally and morally.

In Joe Pa's case its even worse because as a senior official it is indefensible what he did. His level in the organization means by his not going to police, he automatically exposed the university to being unable to defend itself in a criminal accessory after the fact charge or civil liability law suit. He has no defence for not going to the police. The I was only following orders defence has been rejected in criminal and civil courts as loudly and clearly as it gets.

Jo Pa was told by a coach he saw the other coach rape a boy. He had an obligation to not just tell his superiors but go to the police with them and he and his management had the legal obligation if they wanted to avoid exposing the university to civil liability for negligence let alone criminal liability for being accessories after the fact, to suspend his coach with pay pending an internal investigation. That was in fact the established policy.

The established policy was and is to suspend the coach with pay (recognizing presumption of innocence) pending an internal investigation PLUS reporting it to police.

A criminal investigation would need to be completed stating there were NO grounds for criminal charges to then be placed in the internal investigation of the university to be used as evidence to justify a finding of no sexual assault later on. even then the investigation would not end simply with a failure to find a crime.

In criminal law the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Under civil law, for the university to defend itself from a law suit for negligence the test for its investigation would be to asl if on the balance of probabilities, NOT beyond a reasonable doubt could the crime have happened. Not only was there 3 eye witnesses to the crime which suggests a probable criminal finding unless the sob gets off on a technicality.. but that these eye witnesses even if the sob gets off criminally still on the civil side establishes a balance of probability the sex crime happened and should have been sent packing.

The university had an obligation to investigate not just this one incident but whether this sob could have used the university for other sex crimes. It did not follow its established zero sex harassment policy and I would suggest Jo Pa is not the fall boy but a principal participant in the upper management cover up. That is what any court will conclude. You don't continue to work with a man your fellow coach and janitors says raped a boy under any normal reason. It is inconceivable Jo Pa would let this man continue to work with him. Would you?

Would you chance the reputation of your players, on this man? Would you want your players exposed to him? Would you want other children exposed to him knowing he was active in a children's charity and alone with other children? How could Joe Pa do nothing. How could he and Mcreary as basic human beings not do the right thing and go to the police? What role models were they for their players, the janitors, the students, the community?

The university's cover up will cause it far more damage civilly then had it followed its existing established sexual harassment policies and done the right thing I know what those established policies are-I and many other risk manager-lawyers drafted thenm-they are all the same. They call for transparency, accountability and thorough investigation and erring on the side of caution that the crime happened until clearly proven otherwise.

Sorry Bush but you are dead wrong in terms of both criminal and civil law standards of conduct as well as basic moral ones of decency all of us must have.

Holy cow are we that screwed up we don't know when we see a boy being raped we don't step in and pull the sob off him and subdue the sob and hold him until the police come?

Are you telling me we see a man molesting a boy and its good enough to do nothing at the time? What you think we should do nothing as a boy is raped?

If you Bush have no compulsion to say I physically would step in and grab that sob rapist, I think there is with due respect something seriously wrong with you and the other poster is dead on. Would you want me to stand there and do nothing if I saw your child being raped? Really?

Come on man.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

This issue of unreported crime raises serious problems with real consequences in other ways. In Canada we have been told there is and has been for some time now a huge amount of unreported crime going on. This has resulted in a sudden need to spend billions of hard to find dollars on new prisons and police etc not to mention forcing society to broaden our criminal code to catch up.

Perhaps the real criminals in Canada are the social vandals and cowards who have not been reporting crime.

Yes I think. In criminal law the concept is someone who is an accessory before or after the crime is just as culpable for the reasons you are stating. Its the same in the US and in Europe and common law and civil law states.

Our silence makes it possible for crimes to happen not just once, but again and again.

That is what the Nuremberg trials taught us. Silence and following orders is not an excuse to look the other way.

Are the points you are stating raising the responsibility we have as citizens too high? Are what you are suggesting turning us into informants and a police state full of snitches. I do not think so myself. I think we want to avoid vigilantism and leave it to the police to do their job and by assiting police, we avoid vigilantism and keep things orderly. Maybe that is naive but its the basis of Judeo Christianity and most other religions. Its nothing new.