Reporting is mandatory under the law. It is not optional. Nor do options magically appear upon observation by ‘distraught’ observers. The actions you suggest (interviewing the person or persons involved and making a judgment) are strictly the province of authorized representatives of the government such as police and/or protective agencies. I am astounded and a bit disgusted at your suggestion that PSU personages should have done so, or that their contemplation of such actions somehow mitigates their failure to carry out their legal duty to report.
In case this hasn’t been posted yet, a very poignant article snippet from America’s Finest News Source:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/joe-paternos-name-to-remain-on-joe-paterno-center,28796/
Are you seriously a fucking idiot? At this point, that becomes a serious question.
Why do you think people get prosecuted for trying to figure it out on their own instead of just reporting? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the professionals that deal with this type of situation know something you don’t?
Again, the question about your mental abilities is relevant here.
Victim’s only get to choose when the state allows them to. What are you smoking?
IANAL but I doubt if what you’re saying is true. AFAIK, mandated reporters are required to report reasonable suspicions. It’s not like someone says the magic word “abuse” and suddenly there’s an automatic requirement. There has to be actual suspicion, and if they believe that based on their assessment there is no reasonable suspicion, then they would not be required to report.
If others disagreed, then I imagine it would depend on what a reasonable person would define as suspicion.
I assume the above is correct. I’m open to correction from people with knowledge of the laws (by which I mean to preclude outragd morons).
We’re talking about a guy who had already been investigated once for sexual abuse of children, so I’m pretty sure this would easily qualify if anyone at the school had given half a shit about it.
In a case where there is suspicion but people think they’ve made the best determination based on the evidence, they would be prosecuted, per my understanding. In a case where they decide that it was an obvious misunderstanding they would not.
Suppose someone comes rushing in claiming he saw a rape. And you speak to all the people involved and it turns out they were rehearsing or performing a play. 17 other cast members agree, as do any number of other bystanders. Do you think you’re mandated to report?
If not, then make a logical distinction. Without blathering. Draw a clear line. When are you required and when not?
I’m not aware of that. If that’s correct, then that’s not a legal factor, though it remains a moral one.
He was investigated and determined by the “qualified investigator” to not be a molestor. See page 44 of Freeh’s report.
I’m well aware of what happened in that investigation, you pedantic moron. I said that since he’d already been investigated for child abuse once, the new allegation of child abuse (based on an eyewitness report from someone everybody found credible) was more than credible enough to require a report. One of the administrators even considered the possibility that more children had been abused based on what McQueary sa. Nobody dropped the ball and nobody forgot. The idea that you could find out a coworker/employee was seen abusing a child and just forget to tell anybody is so stupid that I have trouble believing you think it might’ve happened. They decided not to report because they were concerned about what would happen to them if it came out they had employed a child molester and he was using his access to PSU facilities to rape children.
You are required to when there is any allegation made. This is done for several reasons, one it removes the risk to the University and the state, by creating a bright line. Two, it involves a proper investigation by qualified investigators. Three, it removes personal relationships from the equation. This is why there is the law, this is why the law is necessary, and this is why those who face prosecution now are correctly being attacked.
You need to keep track of the discussion.
My comments that you quoted were not made in relation to whether they forgot to report it, but in relation to whether in theory it would have been possible for McQueary to have been obviously mistaken, should C&S have spoken to the kid and parents. (In that context, the prior conclusion is relevant.)
As it happens they didn’t do this, but for some reason the discussion has turned to what would have happened if they did. Again, do try to keep on track, if possible.
As for your claim that it’s impossible for them to have dropped the ball, well I disagree. The expressed intention was to “play it by ear”, and what I’m suggesting is that they didn’t play it by ear and instead moved on to other things. Inertia is a powerful thing, and as time goes on and things seem normal, that incident receded out of their minds. This is speculation, of course, but it’s a possibility, IMO.
You need to clarify whether you are someone with knowledge of the law or an outraged moron. IOW, what’s your source?
[How about if I allege right now that you’re an abuser. Are the admins - assuming they’re mandated reporters - required to track you down and report you? Are you really saying zero judgment is allowed?]
Showering Lessons: The Musical
All kidding aside, if you have an eyewitness report of an adult male inserting his penis into the anus of a pre-pubescent boy and he, and other observers, say they were rehearsing a play, do you still report it? Why yes, yes you do.
Now given that it had been reported before and the record clearly indicates that they thought there was something there that they needed to do something about Sandusky then it is entirely fair to say they should have reported it to authorities
Yes, which puts “should we tell someone about this allegation a child has been sexually abused?” with “should we order three-hole punches or change to two-hole punches?” That is not superior to a deliberate cover-up.
AAAAaaarrrrgGGGghhhhHHH make it stooooppppp…
This has become idiotic, so put me down as an outraged moron.
If there is an allegation and that allegation is credible on its face (I.e., the person making the allegation isn’t drunk or obviously hallucinating) then you make the report to authorities. Where in fantasyland does your ‘track you [the accused] down’ come from, if not your ass? For the umpteenth time, you do not take any action except to make a report. Further evaluation of credibility or misinterpreted circumstance is up to the authority.
After sentence #1, you call the police. Then you don’t have to worry about sentence #2 because the cops will be the ones to sort it all out.
FYI, there are, indeed, laws in just about every state compelling certain groups to notify officials of suspected child abuse. People who are in a position of trust and who frequently work with children (day care providers, school officials, doctors) are usually included in the group who has a duty to report. There are many reasons for this, aside from the obvious (to try and protect young and defenseless kids from being hurt). They’re also written to protect the reporters from being sued by a person who was investigated and found to be innocent. Society has deemed that it is better to err on the side of caution.
FTR, the simple knowledge that an adult was discovered showering with a child not his own is certainly sufficient to call law enforcement. It’s especially compelling when the adult has already been the subject of another sexual abuse investigation.
049 Pa. Code 42.42 Suspected child abuse
(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. 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 in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).
The laws on mandatory reporters don’t allow for investigation, just reporting.
The minute there is reasonable suspicion, a verbal report must be made within 24 hours.
Repeat after me: “investigation is not allowed”
Example: doctor prosecuted because he suspected kid was pregnant but wanted to verify pregnancy before reporting
I would say something like the following: “we should call 911, what is the location of the victim?”
You see how that works? That’s the way the system, works for pretty much everyone in the country, except for a few oddballs.
When you suspect a problem, you inform the people that are paid to determine IF there is a problem.
Yes, it’s a moral factor related to all of the other potential victims of a serial offender. Which is why we don’t just ignore crimes if the victim doesn’t want to press charges (although they often do depending on the situation).
That’s the dumbest thing, well, one of the dumbest things, I’ve heard floated in this thread yet. If you ask a victim of child molestation if he’s been molested, nine times out of ten, he’ll deny it, because that’s what they’ve been told to say, you fucking dunce.
If he denies it, you don’t just say, “oh well, nothing to see here. I guess those rhythmic slapping sounds must have been a secret hand shake or something.”
Well, if they found the kid, they could have performed scientific testing with a cardboard tube.