Joe Paterno dies?

[sweensdv]

He is (was) under investigation and a criminal charges were expected. He was not indicted because he died - he almost certaily would have been indicted if he had lived long enough for the investigation to be completed and the grand jury to complete their work.

Sorry but that kind of a statement requires proof to go along with it. Got any? BTW, speculation is not proof either.

[leehljp]

Link? This is the absolute first I've heard of this.

I don't know where the links are, but I read those things about the liability of reporting (or rather NOT reporting) to law enforcements (as my daughter told me before hand) on both CNN, FOX and another news service in Nov & December. It wasn't brought to the forefront, IMO, because at the timing, for one reason or another. That was either because of his health or because it takes time to build a case correctly even when the facts are known.

As to some contradiction - yes it does seem like there could be but when seen from the direction that it came it makes sense. This law of reporting immediately to law enforcement was started and directed at organizations and institutions in which children are the directly central core of their operation in some way or the other. Since businesses do not have children in their care during their operation, the law is not aimed in that direction.

This is not the same but similar: The Saw stop law is aimed at table saws. Not Band saws or Drill presses or lathes or planers. But they all can do the same damage. For now the proposed law is aimed at one. That is the way most laws come into being. I am not saying that the discrepancy between educational law requirements and company law requirements should be the same or are the same. But that there is a different set of circumstances between educational orgs or institutions versus Companies that employ and handle only adults.

As Woodworker wrote, those in educational institutions are supposed to be informed and trained on these things regularly. As we all know, ignorance of the law does not exempt us of the law.

[Cochese]

I don't know where the links are, but I read those things about the liability of reporting (or rather NOT reporting) to law enforcements (as my daughter told me before hand) on both CNN, FOX and another news service in Nov & December. It wasn't brought to the forefront and was in side links on the news of the events, IMO because at the timing, for one reason or another. That was either because of his health or because it takes time to build a case correctly even when the facts are known.

As to some contradiction - yes it does seem like there could be but when seen from the direction that it came it makes sense. This law of reporting immediately to law enforcement was started and directed at organizations and institutions in which children are the directly central core of their operation in some way or the other. Since businesses do not have children in their care during their operation, the law is not aimed in that direction.

This is not the same but similar: The Saw stop law is aimed at table saws. Not Band saws or Drill presses or lathes or planers. But they all can do the same damage. For now the proposed law is aimed at one. That is the way most laws come into being. I am not saying that the discrepancy between educational law requirements and company law requirements should be the same or are the same. But that there is a different set of circumstances between educational orgs or institutions versus Companies that employ and handle only adults.

What I heard about the liability of reporting was made in civil terms, not criminal. Although, I tried not to watch too much of it because it was so depressing.

The contradiction I was referring to, and neglected to mention, was the fact that one could make an argument that a college is not in the business of educating children, but adults. For grade schools, etc I completely agree with you, but I think there might be some room for interpretation when it comes to secondary education. Mind you this doesn't reflect what I think personally, just what the letter of the law says.


Also, as I understand it, the grand jury portion of this is over as it relates to Penn State, which is why indictments were handed down against the three individuals and not McQuery or Paterno. If there is another grand jury investigation ongoing, I'd like to read about it.

[leehljp]

Sorry but that kind of a statement requires proof to go along with it. Got any? BTW, speculation is not proof either.

I am a little surprised at this being brought up. I don't know how much this was noticed last Nov/Dec by everyone but these things that Woodworker wrote - I saw the references, read them and even heard the "possibilities" back then.

I personally will not go back and look up those news articles but they were written as "possible" criminal charges. Again, because of such wide spread news, prosecutors will be slow to build the cases to ensure that what they charge will be correct, in the correct form and in the correct order, in order to stick. The Paterno side will not be a direct issue in the future due to his passing, but look in the future to see what happens to the Chancellor, and to the fellow that reported it to Paterno. Both violated the law. And then think of what could have been applied to Paterno. I think he was a great coach and he did, as a coach, achieve some great things and a great following. His lack of response was an illegal act though.

[dbhost]

My sentiments exactly. Could he have followed up? Yes. Considering he told his superiors, who presumably would be the people to deal with this, I think he did as much as was 'required'.
Remember, he saw nothing himself, he was only relating a story from another individual.
You assume, perhaps wrongly, that they will investigate and deal with it appropriately. Sadly, they did not and there the fault lies.

That isn't the story I recall. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. Didn't Paterno walk in on that Sandusky guy having uh... relations with a boy in the locker room shower? If all Paterno is guilty of is not relating heresay that is a COMPLETELY different story from what I have seen reported.

There is a HUGE difference between reporting a crime that has been witnessed, and passing on gossip...

Sorry to Joe Paterno if I have mistaken his case with one of the other coaching staff child molestation issues... I am not sure if that reporting law covers innuendo and rumor... But if it does, he was still required to report it...

[jackellis]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, even after Paterno was informed and he told the university administration, Sandusky continued to have access to the Penn State athletic facility. Why wasn't he required to surrender his keys right away?

I'm not going to attempt to assess his criminal liability, but as to his ethical and moral liability, poor judgment speaks for itself.

[sweensdv]

That isn't the story I recall. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. Didn't Paterno walk in on that Sandusky guy having uh... relations with a boy in the locker room shower? If all Paterno is guilty of is not relating heresay that is a COMPLETELY different story from what I have seen reported.

There is a HUGE difference between reporting a crime that has been witnessed, and passing on gossip...

Sorry to Joe Paterno if I have mistaken his case with one of the other coaching staff child molestation issues... I am not sure if that reporting law covers innuendo and rumor... But if it does, he was still required to report it...

Yes, you are remembering incorrectly. Joe Paterno did not witness Sandusky molesting that young boy, one of his assistant coaches said he witnessed it. The Assistant Coach then told Paterno what he saw in very general terms. The Assistant Coach did not inform Paterno of what he saw until the day after he saw it. Between the time the Assistant Coach witnessed the incident and before he told Paterno, the Assistant Coach sought the advice and councel of his father. Maybe the coaches father should be indicted too, he knew about this incident before Paterno did.

[woodturner]

The contradiction I was referring to, and neglected to mention, was the fact that one could make an argument that a college is not in the business of educating children, but adults.

FWIW, college students are considered "children" rather than adults, from an educational, reporting, and legal perspective.

[Cochese]

I know it's hard to take emotions out of a case like this, but it's the only fair thing to do for all parties. It's what I've tried to do since day one. And in that respect, I ask for proof. It's not because I think what you say is wrong, it's because I want to have a fully formed opinion based solely on fact.

I have not found any evidence of a federal reporting law that would be in effect in this case. There are state laws, and multiple states have different things on the books as to who can be held accountable. I would think, based on what I know about federal preemption, that any state law conflicted with Title 42, 13031 would be declared without effect. And taking recent examples with Penn State and the Citadel, I have not heard that the laws of Pennsylvania and South Carolina dealing with these instances to be declared without effect. Any evidence to the contrary would help my knowledge.

Indeed it's South Carolina's COL 63-7-310, demanding reporting from the same individuals outlined in the federal statute do not apply to professors, presidents, academic advisors, coaches or athletic directors as it currently stands. One might look toward a case like Doe v Yale for guidance, but that was only argued in front of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Here is where I base this on: http://easley.patch.com/articles/scl...-sex-reporting

While I think that mandatory reporting from anyone should be a federal law, I can't say I've been convinced that it is the law as it stands today. As such, I can't agree with the assertion that what McQuery or Paterno did were illegal as I have not seen any evidence to support it. Indeed, the evidence I have found seems to directly contradict it. Morally bankrupt? Didn't do enough? Clearly. Broke the law? I'm not ready to say that. Did Curley and Spanier break the law in terms of reporting? Grand jury thought so. The relevant information is here, as it pertains to Pennsylvania law:

"Pennsylvania's mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse ... provides that when a staff member reports abuse ... the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours"

...


The law states that when the person is required to report "as a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall immediately notify the person in charge." The person in charge ultimately has the responsibility to report the alleged incident to government authorities.

As that quote says to me, which came from the indictment itself, reporting to the athletic director and president does fall under the letter of the law as it was/is written. And if there was a federal law that contradicted this, I don't know why it wasn't talked about ad naseum on every talk show.

That's not to say that I'm not forming an opinion based upon incomplete facts. I respect everyone involved and simply ask for more information so that I can better educate myself if I am wrong.

[dbhost]

Yes, you are remembering incorrectly. Joe Paterno did not witness Sandusky molesting that young boy, one of his assistant coaches said he witnessed it. The Assistant Coach then told Paterno what he saw in very general terms. The Assistant Coach did not inform Paterno of what he saw until the day after he saw it. Between the time the Assistant Coach witnessed the incident and before he told Paterno, the Assistant Coach sought the advice and councel of his father. Maybe the coaches father should be indicted too, he knew about this incident before Paterno did.

If that is the case, all the laws in the world not withstanding, HAD Joe Paterno truly witnessed Mr. Sandusky committing ANY sort of sexual act with ANY child, male or female, he had the inescapable moral responsibility to put a stop to it right then and there, and to see that it never happened again.

In the society we live in, the primary vehicle we have for that is law enforcement. Thus I state again, with perhaps a bit more clarity.

If it were ME in Mr Paterno's shoes, and I walked in to the locker room and witnessed Mr Sandusky violating a child in whatever form that took place, I would have IMMEDIATELY called 911. I would NOT have taken it to the school administration, their job is NOT law enforcement, their job is education.

Now in Mr. Paterno's defense, he DID inform "higher authorities" to what he knew. And perhaps being so ingrained to the college community, he saw the school administration as the highest authority in his community as he saw the school as his community.

NO it was NOT a good situation to be in. And honestly, if Paterno could have physically taken him on, he should have kicked Sandusky's tail all over that locker room for putting him in the situation in the first place.

[sweensdv]

OK, let me try this one more time.............Joe Paterno did not witness Sandusky molesting anyone! What he might have, should have done if he did witness an act such as that is of little or no practical value because he did not witness anything of the sort. There is no way to know what he would or wouldn't have done if he did witness something like that but because he didn't. Speculation, that's your point?

[dbhost]

OK, let me try this one more time.............Joe Paterno did not witness Sandusky molesting anyone! What he might have, should have done if he did witness an act such as that is of little or no practical value because he did not witness anything of the sort. There is no way to know what he would or wouldn't have done if he did witness something like that but because he didn't. Speculation, that's your point?

Sorry, my bad... I misread your reply...

Then this goes back to my point of huge difference between reporting what was witnessed, and what was rumor...

Is there a legal mandate to report rumors to the police?

[Knottscott]

...NO it was NOT a good situation to be in. And honestly, if Paterno could have physically taken him on, he should have kicked Sandusky's tail all over that locker room for putting him in the situation in the first place.

Now that we agree on!

If Sandusky had molested any of my children, he'd no longer own a pair of hands (disfiguratively speaking of course).

[woodturner]

Is there a legal mandate to report rumors to the police?

In many cases, yes. However, what Paterno was told was not rumor - it was an eyewitness account, reported to him by a staff member who witnessed the act.

Put another way, if anyone who was not a "public hero" had acted as Paterno did, they would already have been fired, convicted, and serving time.

[dbhost]

Okay dumb question. Why didn't the eyewitness turn it in instead of telling Paterno? Something seems, well, weird...