Given the history of college football, that headline seems an absurdity. But it’s true. No one — no matter their status — deserves a pass for willfully turning a blind eye to child abuse and molestation.
To ignore clear evidence of such acts is to put more children in danger. It’s analogous to knowing a car has no brakes or faulty steering, but allowing children to be driven in the vehicle anyway. It is reckless endangerment. And the legal guidelines on such matters may be fuzzy, but the moral line is painfully clear — it’s a form of criminal intent.
Joe Paterno is a college football icon. And to a lesser extent, so was his right hand man, Jerry Sandusky, who engineered Penn State’s ferocious defenses and helped the Nittany Lions capture two national titles at “Linebacker U.” But all that is mere trivia in the story of Sandusky, a man now known as a serial child molester, a man whose biography, “Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story,” now has a new, chilling meaning.
Thousands of Penn State students took to the streets after Paterno was fired last week to express support for the head coach of 46 years. The students chanted “We want Joe!” They yelled “#$ the media!” Some of them complained that they had been “Sanduskied.” A news van was overturned.
Those college students were whipped into a passionate frenzy of support, expressing righteous indignation and school pride. But to the outside world, the scene in Happy Valley was truly disturbing. It had the air of a third-world country in chaos after the toppling of a long-time dictator.
What about priorities? There is so much in the world to protest, so much wrongdoing, tragedy, helplessness, injustice. Yet, it was the firing of a football coach who turned a blind eye to his child rapist friend that aroused the passions of the crowd? Frankly, if this was Georgia, I don’t know if I could remain a fan after this sick story.
I’ll omit the graphic details, but the 23-page Grand Jury indictment, which has been made available to the public, is X-rated and utterly awful. Had these students read that report? Surely not. Surely they couldn’t have read what many of us did and believed they were right in their hearts.
Sandusky used his proximity to Penn State and Paterno to establish a program for troubled boys, which gave him constant access to underprivileged young boys, the kind of kids who might not have anyone to go to bat for them if they complained of Sandusky’s actions.
Sandusky had numerous boys stay with him at his house and his hotel rooms under the guise of being a fatherly figure. He used Penn State’s locker room showers to carry out his crimes. And the awful details of these incidents by the eight victims interviewed by the Grand Jury were eerily similar. He had a clear method of operation.
Sadly, many cases of abuse could have been avoided if someone in authority had just shown some guts. Sandusky was confronted in 1998 by a victim’s mother about what he had done with her child in a shower. Two cops eavesdropped from another room. They heard him confess to the crime. Still, the police were told by their superior that the case would not be pursued. The prosecutor, who received a report on the incident, didn’t go after Sandusky either. Strangely, that prosecutor disappeared in 2005 and has since been declared dead. This could be just a strange coincidence, but what a peculiar story this is.
The following year, Sandusky met with Paterno. And the Grand Jury indictment includes the testimony of one victim, who said Sandusky was emotionally distraught after this meeting.
“Victim 4 remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State and which preceded Sandusky’s retirement,” the report stated.
So Sandusky is investigated for molestation in 1998, meets with Paterno in 1999 and is emotionally distraught about that meeting, then he abruptly resigns. We’re supposed to believe that Paterno never caught wind of Sandusky’s molestation investigation the previous year? Without the appearance of internal memos, it’s hard to prove Paterno’s knowledge about such an incident. But this is highly suspicious. Why did that 1998 case just suddenly disappear despite a confession in the presence of cops? Why did the successful defensive coach suddenly quit? What exactly did he and Paterno talk about in 1999? Was this meeting really about Sandusky not succeeding Paterno, who has never indicated any willingness to step down, or was it about Sandusky’s criminal behavior and how it could shame them all?
But the primary focus of the Sandusky saga so far has been a 2002 incident in which Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary walked in on Sandusky sodomizing a child in a football locker room shower. McQueary said both Sandusky and the victim saw him. He didn’t do anything to stop the crime, but went to his dad and told him what happened, then went to Paterno the next day.
Ugh!
They never figured out who the poor kid was. That is an egregious oversight in itself. How can you not ask questions and find out who this poor child is? Instead, Paterno later met with athletic director Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz, who oversees the Penn State Police Department.
According to the Grand Jury report, “Paterno reported ‘disturbing’ and ‘inappropriate’ conduct in a shower by Sandusky upon a young boy.” Paterno reported this to his boss, the athletic director, who happened to be one of his former players. So who was really in charge here, the coach or his former player?
Nothing was ever done. Sandusky was told not to bring boys around campus. But he did anyway and continued to maintain an office at Penn State. And he was still using the facilities as recently as two weeks ago.
So, a head coach gets eyewitness testimony from an assistant coach of a child rape by a former coach on school grounds, then he fails to alert police and just lets the offender go about his business like nothing happened. He lets the offender continue to draw vulnerable kids to his program without any peep of protest? And thousands of people take to the street in support of this guy?
No one should be immune to the consequences of criminal negligence. Child safety should take precedence over any reputation, no matter how great. Football and fame are secondary here. Coaches and administrators across the land should take heed of that lesson.
Joe Paterno always talked about doing things “the right way.” Unfortunately, the only “right way” now is to jail.
Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.
The people Joe reported the incident to may deserve to go to jail,but I feel like he did what he was supposed to do by informing the chain of command, and then letting them decide what course should be taken.
I believe the media is going after the wrong person, but, how captivating would it be to just destroy the no-names involved? It wouldn't make as many headlines, and that is what's important to the media. Sensationalism sales!
And I wonder where all those reports went; seems there is no paper trail; how convenient. Wonder who ordered that.
If you are a sports fan, especially a football fan and more especially a Penn State fan, I dare say your past support and love of it clouds your view. And you are not the only one. All those people rioting in the street there and all those still supporting him and the rest are only one step away from being as guilty as Sandusky. So vile! Just writing this makes me want to puke.
So Ben guess if you see some prevert behavior with underage child you tell someone and then that is your end of responsibility. I feel sorry for you.
The proper response would be to immediately inform your Director, which he did, and let them decide the course of action to take. The legal department would also be involved before any decisions were made and the police were contacted.
Some may not like it, but that's the way it is!
Should that manager go to jail if his superiors didn't handle the situation the way the public believed they should?
I have heard of families in this area that have had a family a member molest another family member,but it was never reported to the police by the parents for whatever reason. Should they go to jail? Should all of the people in the family with knowledge of the incident go to jail if they didn't report what they heard?
I wish your statistics would have included information about how many children are molested by family members, and how many incidents are estimated to not be reported at all.
I think my position is clear, and that is all I will have to say about this matter.
"The proper response would be to immediately inform your Director, which he did, and let them decide the course of action to take. The legal department would also be involved before any decisions were made and the police were contacted."
Your idea of the "proper response" is that of the company to protect itself, to control how it is perceived. You don't seem to understand that morality clearly transcends the interests of the company! You say the police and the public should remain in the dark until a company can determine how the incident in question will affect them, to give them time to hide or get rid of that which THEY determine to be detrimental to them. This is just plain wrong!
"I have heard of families in this area that have had a family a member molest another family member,but it was never reported to the police by the parents for whatever reason. Should they go to jail? Should all of the people in the family with knowledge of the incident go to jail if they didn't report what they heard?"
I can't believe you would even ask these questions. We have laws involving contributing to the abuse of minors. No one, whether legally or morally, can stand by and not report any kind of abuse of children. It's not about jail time; it's about responsibility to children.
Family abuse is very prevalent. Go to any of the websites I indicated to be overwhelmed by the data in any form you want. It is shocking! I could have filled a column a mile long here.
Using your proper procedure model, the young cousin should tell the uncle who should tell the mother that her husband is abusing their child. Follow that? So the mother tells her husband to stop and that is as far as it goes. In the past, if a wife did tell the authorities, her husband would have gone to jail, in which case the wife and children would have no support and would lose their house and have to beg on the street to eat. So what wife would report it back then? Same goes for her getting beaten all the time.
Thankfully, women's liberation changed that! Now the wife reports her husband and can manage to support her children on her own with a little help or not.
I cannot accept Mr. Had's reasoning. Like Ms. Moss said, it is a very disturbing way to think.
You understand that, Einstein?
It was the responsibility of the AD to report and discipline Sandusky.
For you or this other idiot to mention that piece of crap from Ila to me is insulting, but I've come to expect very little else from you or most of the other contributors here.
I'm pleased that you have an opportunity to take these jabs at me though,because our paths would never connect in the real world,I'm certain of that. Very certain. Blast away.
Farm/FDR issue? I wish you and others could comprehend what you're reading,but, oh well.
Now, If I'm correct, you have me defending the molester? READ what I said, or have your parents read it to you.
How do you people function everyday? Do you have a personal assistant?
As to pedophilia, a true pdophile is way too schrewd to publically support Paterno or in any way defend any of those immoral charactors. Look to the men who would be the loudest accusers and convicters and haters. This is how they hide. They are incredibly accomplished hiders and liers.
EJ I agree with your comment about Virginia's post.
-----------------------------------------------
Counter Pedophilia Investigative Unit. www.cpiu.us/statistics-2/Cached - Similar
A 1994 National Institute of Health survey of 453 pedophiles, conducted by Dr. Gene Abel, showed these criminals were collectively responsible for the molestation of over 67,000 children. That’s an average of 148 children per individual pedophile.
Four data sets (the FBI’s UCR arrests, State felony court convictions, prison admissions, and the National Crime Victimization Survey) all point to a sex offender who is older than other violent offenders, generally in his early 30′s, and more likely to be white than other violent offenders.
3 in 4 child victims of violence were female.
------------------------------------------------
Only one characteristic is clear: Child molesters are predominantly men.
Generally accepted academic studies say one out of every four women was sexually molested by an adult before she was 18. For men: 1 out of 10. Yet only one out of every 10 cases of child sexual abuse is reported to law enforcement, the FBI reports.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-03-12-pedophilia.htm
------------------------------------------------
The Average Child Molester is:
White Male, between the ages of 18 and 55, with some college experience or more, married, working at a steady job, deeply religious, and well trusted. (This basically says that the American Dream man of the Norman Rockwell age is the average child sex addict.)
1 in 20 males is an admitted pedophile
1 in 3,300 females is an admitted pedophile
(Keep in mind that the above numbers do not include all those still undiscovered or unconvicted which can be triple or more these numbers.)
Child Molestation and Prevention Institute;
US Census Bureau
www.childmolestationprevention.org
------------------------------------------------
I remember some years ago a well-designed study showed, in rapid succession, the same series of images to men and to women, then asked them to name the images they remembered. The number one most noticed images for both sexes was babies and sometimes children. Women did not remember images of naked men or women, but men noticed naked women but only secondarily to babies and children. Now what would that information tell us?
The researchers surmised (only guessed) that care and concern for human offspring is primary in our base instincts even over sex, food or shelter. I wonder if that primitive instinct in men gets easily mixed up with the next most primitive instinct in males.
All men seem to have sexual interest in younger women no matter how old they get; question is how young? Where do they draw the line for themselves? Maybe there is no line except for that determined by law to keep all males in line. Such a curious thing to ponder.