Originally posted by normbenignThere is no legal principle allowing conviction of those who merely fail to report a crime to be treated as accessories in later crimes by an alleged criminal.
For once I'm on your side, only I think you are soft peddling. The TA, now assistant coach who witnessed the rape, and reported it the next day, will be on the sidelines for Saturday's game. He is a healthy, large guy. Why did he not stop the rape? How does he escape? Furthermore, Sandusky although dismissed, continued to run a program for young boys ...[text shortened]... himself a man after walking away and going home after witnessing a coach doing a ten year old?
McQueary's failure to call the police or intervene directly is morally condemnable to be sure. Firing him at this time might have legal implications for the University; he testified in front of a Grand Jury so technically he may be considered a "whistle blower" and is the main witness against the two administrators accused of perjury. For Penn State to fire him NOW thus penalizing him for his Grand Jury testimony could leave them legally vulnerable.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are charges which may be applied to those who are considered and proven the proximate cause of events. I await sh76's legal advice on this matter.
There is no legal principle allowing conviction of those who merely fail to report a crime to be treated as accessories in later crimes by an alleged criminal.
McQueary's failure to call the police or intervene directly is morally condemnable to be sure. Firing him at this time might have legal implications for the University; he testif ...[text shortened]... him NOW thus penalizing him for his Grand Jury testimony could leave them legally vulnerable.
I see the problem with going after McQueary, but a lot of the problem now is about the hours between when he allegedly saw something and when he finally spoke up about it. How could he bring himself to back out of that shower without attempting to stop the rape, and then go home as if nothing happened. Where was the nearest phone? Probably in his pocket? My inclination would have been to pound the guy into pulp, then call the cops, but at least call the cops minimum. You don't go home, eat dinner and go to bed, and go to the coach next day. The normal chain of authority is broken the moment a felony is committed. At that point it is a police matter, not a coaching issue.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYou have my legal advice. sh76's will not differ.
There are charges which may be applied to those who are considered and proven the proximate cause of events. I await sh76's legal advice on this matter.
I see the problem with going after McQueary, but a lot of the problem now is about the hours between when he allegedly saw something and when he finally spoke up about it. How could he bring himself the moment a felony is committed. At that point it is a police matter, not a coaching issue.
I don't see why McQueary's admittedly morally cowardly action is a "problem" legally. The Grand Jury found him highly credible.
Anyway, I don't see why a Randian would have any problem with McQueary's inaction; he acted in his own self-interest. What did he have to gain economically by calling the police? Nothing and if there was a conspiracy of silence regarding Sandusky (as is quite possible given he resigned in 1999 after the first shower incident allegation), McQueary might lose his job. Surely if you are consistent in your principles you would praise McQueary; after all you're quite willing to have children starve to death rather than have Big Guvamint feed them - what is the moral difference between that position and McQueary's cowardly inaction in not bringing the heavy hand of collectivist intervention down on poor Mr. Sandusky?
EDIT: From the credo of that great God Man John Galt:
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sure this is the only reason McQueary is not gone. Penn State has essentially cleaned house of all the people who were involved in this and McQueary should have been first and foremost among them. I heard a talk show host today marvel that McQueary hasn't been fired yet and chalked it over to an "oversight." Of course the only reason to keep him on is to avoid looking like they're retaliating against him for his testimony.
There is no legal principle allowing conviction of those who merely fail to report a crime to be treated as accessories in later crimes by an alleged criminal.
McQueary's failure to call the police or intervene directly is morally condemnable to be sure. Firing him at this time might have legal implications for the University; he testif him NOW thus penalizing him for his Grand Jury testimony could leave them legally vulnerable.
It is quite ironic that perhaps the most morally culpable among them (other than Sandusky of course) is the only one who's not gone.
I agree, of course, that there's probably no basis for a criminal charge based on a mere failure to report. There is no "good samaritan" requirement in the US, the last episode of Seinfeld notwithstanding.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignI agree with No1.
There are charges which may be applied to those who are considered and proven the proximate cause of events. I await sh76's legal advice on this matter.
I see the problem with going after McQueary, but a lot of the problem now is about the hours between when he allegedly saw something and when he finally spoke up about it. How could he bring himself the moment a felony is committed. At that point it is a police matter, not a coaching issue.
The proximate cause of a crime must include either some affirmative act or some omission of an act that is required by law. There is no legal requirement to report a crime even if there is a moral requirement. If the police ask you about a crime, lying about it can be a crime. But merely not reporting a crime is not considered a criminal omission.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Of course, there are laws requiring the reporting of certain crimes against children by those in positions of authority; in fact, I believe that there are pending charges here against the administrators for those crimes. But that is separate and distinct from the crimes allegedly performed by Sandusky.
I agree with No1.
The proximate cause of a crime must include either some affirmative act or some omission of an act that is required by law. There is no legal requirement to report a crime even if there is a moral requirement. If the police ask you about a crime, lying about it can be a crime. But merely not reporting a crime is not considered a criminal omission.
EDIT: They were:
On Monday, the two university officials, Tim Curley, Penn State's athletic director, and Gary Schultz, vice president for finance and business, were formally arraigned in Harrisburg on charges of perjury in testimony to a grand jury and with failing to report the alleged abuse to the police or other authorities.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024193891739150.html
Teachers and school administrators are mandatory reporters under Pennsylvania's Child Protective laws meaning they are required to report child abuse. However:
A review by The Associated Press of the abuse-reporting laws of all 50 states showed that Pennsylvania is one of only about a half-dozen states where the protocol for staff members of schools, hospitals and other institutions is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-state-scandal-raises-questions-over-abuse-reporting-laws-in-pennsylvania-and-elsewhere/2011/11/10/gIQAubfP9M_story.html
This is apparently why Paterno himself was not charged under said statute though it seems at least arguable he should have been; after all, he was certainly McQueary's superior.
Originally posted by sh76They should forfeit out the season; play no more games.
You're being an apologist. Paterno may not have committed any crimes, but his unwillingness to report overwhelming evidence that Sandusky was a serial pedophile to the authorities was a mind boggling lapse in judgment.
Paterno should be fired immediately and should not be allowed to coach on Saturday.
Joe Pa is (probably) an old school, denial Catholic, about such things, (I'm speaking as an ex-Catholic) which does not exonerate him. Certainly, he didn't sign up to be a monitor of sexual conduct.
Maybe you could comment on your view of his responsibilities as a 'mandated reporter.'
I think it should be officially investigated. Sorry, PSU.
And it should be a warning for all. That could be the positive outcome, still not making it a net +.
Just when you thought that the scandel could not get any worse, I just read in the Huffington Post there is talk that Jerry Sandusky's charitable organization, the Second Mile Foundation, is also involved in the scandel. The allegations are......I think I'm going to puke......that Jerry was "pimping' out boys to rich donors.
If it is true then there will be nothing left of Penn State.
Originally posted by whodeyEveryone knew? Like the trustees? Like the police? Like the boosters? Like college football fans across the nation?
I'm sure everyone knew but him. 😛
Either everyone knew and there is no need to report what the whole world knows or everyone did not know so it is possible Paterno did not know either. I have no idea what Paterno knew but I'd like to find out before we trash a guy who put in five decades of good work.
Originally posted by quackquackThe more I read about this the sicker I become.
Everyone knew? Like the trustees? Like the police? Like the boosters? Like college football fans across the nation?
Either everyone knew and there is no need to report what the whole world knows or everyone did not know so it is possible Paterno did not know either. I have no idea what Paterno knew but I'd like to find out before we trash a guy who put in five decades of good work.
In 1998 the police were notified of wrong doings by Sandusky. He basically admitted to the mother of one of the boys he was showering naked with them and touching them inappropriately with the police listening in on the other line. Then inexplicably, DA Ray Gricar decides not to press charges and pursue the matter. He later went missing in 2002 with his hard drive from his computer found in the Susquehanna River. No one now knows what exactly went down and why.
This seems to be ballooning into something grotesque and Capone-like. I would begin to distance yourself from defending them if I were you.
As for myself, I find it amazingly suspecious that Joe Pa was afforded his historic win, giving him the most in college football, before this all hit the fan.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is McQuary even still a coach there?
It was clear enough to the Grand Jury what McQueary told Schultz and Curley to indict them for perjury. Paterno's story is equally incredible.
From my understanding, after witnessing the event in the shower, he was later given a coaching position. Could this not be interpreted as a payback not to go public anymore?
All I know is that the insane PSU fans are making death threats to him now.....that is after they are done vandalizing the rest of campus.
1 edit
My speculation seems to be spot on: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/11/whistleblower-law-keeping-mcqueary-on-the-job/related
I suppose Penn State could fire him and say it was not because he reported the incident to his superiors, but because he didn't report a serious felony involving a minor to the police esp. since he observed the same in the course of his employment with Penn State. Obviously that would be a bit dicey legally.