Sandusky is despicable (if the allegations are true, and there seems to be serious evidence). Those who covered up his acts are disgusting. But our ability to condemn these types of acts is only as strong as our own moral rectitude. If we sink to their level through retribution, we lose any claim to justice.
Can this Penn State mess get any more bizarre?
- "the degree of a nation’s civilization can be seen in the way it treats its prisoners". Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."
I am hoping both tenets are served, the truth is revealed, and justice is served.
Both applicable but not necessarily in tension, unless you hold that Sandusky being sodomized in prison would bring some level of justice to the situtation. I'd chalk that up to karma or revenge myself.
While your heart is in the right place, can we never see the phrase "prison cum dumpster" on mgoblog again? Please?
There are about 10 million people who would disagree with you. Let's not go there.
where the hell craig james fits in all this. dead hookers in lubbock and now this in state college. the man could sure cover some ground, and not just on the gridiron.
The HOOKERS CRAIG JAMES DID not KILL are in Dallas, where he attended SMU.
Excuse my language, and I sincerely apologize to anyone I offend.
These SICK motherfuckers.
They changed the rules in North Carolina (where I'm licensed as well as in MI). By rule, one can't have sex with a client while representing him/her unless the parties started having sex prior to the attorney representing the client. How it's enforced and interpreted, however, is that it's only improper if the attorney uses his/her authority as an attorney to obtain sex, e.g., by taking sexual favors in lieu of payment or threatening to not provide zealous representation. I think the obvious rule should be, "Don't sleep with your clients unless you were already in a sexual relationship." Bar Associations don't seem to want to enforce that, however. Sleeping with a client who is a minor is morally reprehensible. Whether it's illegal or a violation of professional standards, I leave to others to figure out.
With your client in CA either. I assume this because of Bob Loblaw and Arrested Development.
AD is where I go for all questions re: legal ethics. And please, no references to the Lemon family having a party.
I don't know anything about the DA, but the local Chicago news reported last night that the judge who freed Sandusky without bail is also on the board of the Second Mile charity. At this point, she has not said she will recuse herself from any further proceedings, despite the clear (in my opinion) conflict of interest. This whole mess is a, um, mess.
but was not on the board
Yeah, it can. The creeper is now releasing statements and shows are airing interviews of him. Full on 3-ring-circus mode commencing.
It sounded like the Prosecution does not know the identity of Victim#2? Sandusky's attorney says they "think we know the identity"? Of course they do. Sandusky would obviously know him. Sounded like they can pressure the poor kid into not testifying, without anyone protecting him, because the Prosecution doesn't know his name.. My point is how could Penn State not even have investigated enough to find out the victim's name?
they can't pressure the kid into not testifying because, i assume, the PA police could get search warrants for phone records, etc., if they have any evidence of witness tampering--which, btw, they do according to the grand jury report. (no idea why charges haven't been filed--maybe unsuccessful, merely attempted witness tampering isn't a crime?)
but more importantly if they get the kid to testify nothing happened, the state will find out who he is. if anything, i imagine they'll find a different kid and get him to claim he was the kid in question and that nothing beyond sliding across the shower floor happened. because i'll bet that even if mcqueary et al can nail down a date for the alleged rape, they won't be able to nail down dates for the kids in question. that'll be tricky, i think.
were not notified of either the 2000 incident (witnessed by a janitor), nor the 2002 incident (witnessed by McQueary), because they were not notified. The janitor did not report because he did not want to lose his job. McQueary's report went to the AD and to VP Schultz, to whom the University Police report, but Schultz did not involve the University Police department.
The University Police *did* investigate the 1998 incident, and sent their reports to the Centre County prosecutor's office, which chose not to prosecute.
Horrific or disgusting are better choices.
I'm with pineapple man on this one.
Apparently Mike McQueary speaks tonight on CBS Evening News.
He says, "I did stop it. I did talk to police."
It might be Sandusky's only shot at delaying prison for a bit. Nice choice of legal representation there, Jerry.