Stopping child rape more important than a winning football team?! In America? I dunno, I’m gonna have to give that some thought.
I don’t really get the point of the NCAA death penalty here. The NCAA punishes violations which are related to football - player eligibility and the like. What deterrent effect does imposing the death penalty on the university serve? It’s already fired everyone involved.
Yeah, the NCAA is primarily concerned with cheating. If PSU gets the death penalty, it will happen as a result of other actions uncovered throughout the course of the investigation.
This really doesn’t matter. See USC, being punished for things that happened while Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll were there. The PSU board of trustees is the same and they admit that they dropped the ball in allowing the kind of environment that Paterno and others operated in.
ETA: Some of the local radio chuckleheads are saying the NCAA would have grounds for applying punishment because PSU gained an advantage on the field (e.g. recruiting) by not reporting Sandusky’s activities. Personally, I do not agree. They didn’t get an advantage, rather they avoided a disadvantage. There is a difference. Kids weren’t any more likely to go to PSU than somewhere else because they DIDN’T know about Sandusky. That said, the reasons PSU didn’t report anything clearly had to do with football. If it had been the underwater basketweaving professor, his ass would have been thrown under the bus back in '98.
In my opinion the NCAA has 2 options here:
- Death Penalty
- Stay the fuck out of it
It’s an all or nothing thing here. Any punishment other than the death penalty is going to look ridiculous. How do you justify taking a few scholarships away when these people harbored a child rapist. This isn’t just a case of lack of institutional control, this is the institution willfully allowing it to continue and covering it up.
I don’t know if enough was said.
I mean, here you were, out on a limb, boldly going where no man has ever gone. While everyone else was hailing Paterno as a hero, and insisting that child rape was fun and exciting, you and you alone fearlessly stood against the mob, standing up to proclaim your opposition to child rapes, coverups, and Paterno.
And now at last, after a long and lonely and hard fought battle, the tide has slowly turned, and your viewpoint has won out.
Really, you’re being too modest here.
I agree about the first part - the report makes clear that they - including JP - knew about the 1998 incident, later denials notwithstanding.
It does not at all make “it obvious that Paterno dissuaded the administration from going to the police”. If you read the entire exchange of the three emails (Exhibit 2F) it seems more likely that the discussion was about whether they should inform Sandusky before going to the other organization(s) or not.
That’s what Curley seem to be talking about in saying “I am having trouble going to everyone, but the person involved”. Spanier’s response seemed to indicate that he thought the idea was a discussion instead of reporting it, to which Schultz responded “I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization with or without his cooperation (I think that’s what Tim [Curley] proposed)”.
It is true that the emails express some uncertainty about whether DPW would be informed at all, but the “discomfort” and “humane and upfront” aspects seem to me to refer to informing Sandusky, and that’s likely what the conversation with JP was about.
If Curley was changing his mind in that email about whether DPW should be informed, it would have had a very different focus. Instead it was entirely centered on the need for a conversation with Sandusky, and what the form of that conversation would be.
No idea what your last comment (about “McQueary’s report in 2011”) is about.
That’s possible, and certainly people would have asked some of the pointed questions then that they have been asking since this came to light in 2011. But if Paterno (and the others) had insisted everybody disclose everything they knew in 1998, made sure Sandusky’s job, status, and all of his connections to Penn State and its facilities were terminated then, I think that would have been less likely. And even if he’d been canned after making sure everyone went to the police in 2001, none of the abuses after that date would’ve happened and people wouldn’t be looking back on this in that light.
As far as the death penalty thing goes, I think the indications are that the NCAA doesn’t want to use it because of the SMU precedent and because this is kinda sorta not a football matter in a certain light, so if they can find a reason not to use that penalty, they won’t. I think if there is a ton of public pressure and they decide it will cost them more not to use it, they might use the penalty. But they won’t unless they think they have to.
Do you believe, as a general principle, that punishment for crime or other rule violations should only ever be instituted when it might have a deterrent effect on the particular individual or institution involved?
What about punishment qua punishment; a penalty for doing wrong?
What about the deterrent effect on others?
Do these play any part in a system of justice, in your mind?
Indeed. If they don’t banhammer Penn State for this, they will never be able to banhammer anybody else for future offenses without looking utterly ridiculous.
This morning I read the statement, and the part where they say “The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept,” made me laugh out loud. That sounds like the words of an earnest teenager who’s been raised in a sheltered environment or something. If I were to somehow reply to the Paterno family, I would say “Three words: Roman Catholic Church.”
And they ultimately didn’t go to those organizations. But it’s possible I’ve gotten some of the details mixed up here. I’ll try to review those emails later.
It was a reference to the shower indicident. I meant to type 2001, but that one actually happened in 2002.
The NCAA is not the justice system, it’s the organization in charge of college athletics. Some parts of this saga are outside of the scope of the NCAA and need to be handled by criminal and civil courts. In that sense, it’s not an argument that PSU doesn’t deserve the penalty; it’s an argument that the NCAA is not the right venue. That said, I don’t think Penn State football should be on the field next year. The football team and the athletic were thoroughly involved in this at every level and it’s just going to look like a joke if sports betting is treated more harshly than this. It’s just football.
I found it amusing that the Washington Post Express, usually an execrably-written rag, managed to come up with the headline “Cowardly Lions” today. 
No such luck. Fotheringay-Phipps is still doing semantic contortions to try to find some wiggle room.
Just about anybody else in this thread could say that slightly tongue in cheek. But not you. When you say it, you look like a dick.
Given the fact that Paterno is dead, Sandusky is in prison, and that Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are gone, there just isn’t that much house left to clean. And since the players themselves weren’t involved, I’d think this would make the Death Penalty moot.
This is actually a tough call. Football helps put a lot of food on a lot of tables in State College, and any punishment has to take that into consideration. Why punish the waitress at the diner for the actions of people she doesn’t even know? So I don’t see the Death Penalty even being a good idea here. (State College is a small town that exists because of Penn State. Dallas… isn’t.)
That being said, however, the NCAA must act; no one will take it seriously if it doesn’t. If I were the NCAA, this is what I’d do:
[ul]
[li]First, I’d give the football program the USC treatment. Since the players themselves weren’t involved, it’s inappropriate to remove scholarships. But it would be entirely appropriate to make them ineligible for post-season play for a period of, say, five years.[/li][li]Require Penn State to forfeit a percentage of their income from TV rights and licensed merchandising for, say, five years. Put that money into a victims’ compensation fund, as well as toward scholarships for PSU students involved either in research or working toward certification in counseling for childhood sexual abuse. Or some other appropriate field of endeavor. This percentage should be large enough to wound, but not so large that PSU is completely fucked.[/li][li]Establish or strengthen regulations concerning the affiliation of youth programs and college athletics programs. Make sure there is some transparency there, as well as some accountability.[/li][li]Require regular background checks of adult staff members, and any staff member suspected of abuse must immediately be removed from any contact with children, pending investigation.[/li][/ul]
Discuss.
“Greased Eel” Debate Techniques: When you run out of ways to prove yourself right, mock the ones who were.
Aww…somebody’s butthurt.
…
…
Isn’t that choice of words inappropriate, given the subject matter? 
That the players weren’t involved doesn’t matter. They will be fine because they’ll have the ability to transfer with immunity from the “sit out a year” rule. Other programs will be eager to snatch up Penn State’s players.
I think the NCAA needs to do something and I would not be against a 4 year death penalty and a subsequent 10 year bowl ban with limited sholarships. That’s 14 years of punishment, same as the school and Sandusky inflicted on the victims.
They said they were definitely reporting to “his organization” (Second Mile) and were uncertain about the other (I assume DPW). Ultimately they did inform the former and not the latter.
Again the specific issue at this point is not whether they were justified in not informing the DPW. The narrower issue at hand is what “next steps” Curley was no longer comfortable with, and what change in process he was suggesting in his email. (This is significant because this is the part that relates to his discussion with Joe.)
IMO, based on my reading of the email, and my experience with group decisions, if they had previously all had a discussion and an agreement to report to DPW and Curley was now saying that he was no longer comfortable doing this, then he would have made this the focus of his email. He would have said why he was uncomfortable doing this, and would have addressed whatever rationale had originally formed the basis for their decision to report it and how he no longer felt they applied. But he never addresses any of that.
Instead, he just says that they can’t tell everyone besides Sandusky himself, and then goes on to a long description of what exactly he intends to tell Sandusky when he speaks to him. So I think it’s more likely that the point at hand was that he now intended to speak to Sandusky first and that there was no change to their prior decision to report to Second Mile and decide later about DPW.
ISTM that Spanier - who likely did not appreciate the significance of the issue and wasn’t paying as much attention as he might have - most likely misinterpreted the email, which is why Schultz “redirected” in his response, asserting his interpretation that they would inform SM regardless, and possibly DPW, adding that this is also what Curley meant.
This could be wrong, and it’s hard to be sure about what other people meant in emails from 10 years ago, but this is my best guess. At any rate, it’s not at all “obvious” that this is incorrect.