Sandusky Questions
1. I've never been to Penn St. but based on what I have read the last 3 days about how this is such a tight knit community, is there anyway that most people in the community and definitely all of the PSU top brass didn't hear rumors of his behavior?
I mean in 98 you have police officers and a D.A. aware of what is going on and from there it would seem it would just grow then in 2002 all the PSU brass hear of it. Is it possible such explosive news was not passed around barber shops etc.?
2. In light of all the news his 99 firing/resignation falls under a curious light. Does anyone recall the reason given at the time?
November 8th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask these questions, but I find myself asking myself how it is even possible for someone to do these things to kids? I mean, does he not know it is wrong? Does he know he is hurting the kids? Does he rationalize it somehow, or just conclude that his sick urges are more important than the kids' well being?
I mean, especially for a guy that started a charity, he has to care at least somewhat for their well-being. I have a hard time believing he started the charity just to get closer to these kids, although I don't really know, maybe he did. I'm just so disgusted by this guy I can't even begin to understand how he thought this was OK.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
That's an important question to ask and think about. But I don't think there's any reasonable explanation for this. I'm sure psychologists could point to some mental thing going on, but it boils down to the depravity of mankind. Sometimes there just isn't a good explanation.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
Its very deceptive, and some people are farther gone than others.
I heard a preacher once say,
"sin will take you farther than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay, and cost you more than you want to pay."
November 8th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^
I disagree with your first sentence, but that's a discussion for a different place.
But I agree with the second part of your post. It's a harsh reality of living in a broken world.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^
But attempting to explain why people do the unexplainable things is difficult.
If you believe people are born with a depraved mind, then we are all cabable of something like this. Its just that people are more likely to torture animals before they progress to killing people - thats what I meant that "some people are farther gone than others." thankfully, most people never get near that far...
In Sandusky's case, he probably had some things happen to him in his past or whatever that led to this. Very sad.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
I'm sure trained professionals can give you a correct diagnosis. And its probably true. But, personally, I could care less. There are some actions that should have no mitigating circumstances regardless of how compelling, and molesting children is one of those I put in that category. (This is coming from a lawyer who had the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" hammered into his brain.)
November 8th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
There is a fundamental difference between explaining something and excusing it. Everything has an explanation (even if we don't know it or grasp it). Not everything is excusable.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^
This is the hardest thing for prosecutors bringing these cases. We can convict the thief, because wanting more money makes sense. We can convict the guy who kills his wife's lover, because we all understand jealousy and hurt. We can convict the guy who punches someone in a bar, because we've all been there. All of these things are rational, if improper, actions in our minds. So, when a prosecutor says, "That man over there did this bad thing," we can believe it.
But none of us want to believe that child abuse occurs, and particular child rape, and that the perpetrators are usually great with kids and look normal. Those factors only make sense when you think about it; for a child molestor to be successful, he usually has to be someone a kid would trust, someone who can build a good bond with a kid, and someone who seems "normal" and "safe" to the kid's parents. They often have jobs of trust - teachers, priests, cub scout leaders, coaches.
So, to convict one of these people is scary. A juror who votes guilty has to accept that this "nice man," maybe a "trusted teacher for years," maybe "the great neighbor who always loved watching the kids play basketball," did something monstrous. And that means accepting that your neighbor, your kid's teacher, your kid's coach, hell, your friend or family member, might just be capable of doing the same thing.
That is hard. That is really, really hard. No one wants to believe that happens. Or if it does, it certainly doesn't happen HERE, in MY COMMUNITY, to kids who look like MY KIDS, and perpetrated by people who look like ME. We want to believe that it happens OVER THERE, to THEM, and is caused by THOSE PEOPLE. Accepting that is not true is very hard.
And don't get me wrong. Most people who are "normal," are normal. Most people who seem to like kids and are good with them, are good and kind people. Most teachers, most priests, most cub scout leaders, are good caring people who would have laid Sandusky out on a slab if they walked in on this. I'm not saying that we shouldn't trust.
But these crimes cross every socio-economic, racial, geographical, etc. line. They are inexplicable, and leave us asking, "How could someone do this?" It makes convictions so much harder to achieve.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Thanks for this. The psychology of jury trials is a very interesting topic, especially as it relates to a case like this. Imagine having a hard time passing down a guilty verdict against someone that is overwhelmingly guilty! But, like you said, that's what happens, simply because people don't want to believe something like this can be done by someone so seemingly normal/good. In cases like these, prosecutors have a thankless job to do unless they get a conviction on all or almost all counts.
November 8th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
Thanks, all. Sadly, this is a topic I can write about with some authority, at least second-hand. My wife is an expert in these areas who has testified as an expert witness on these cases. She has a Master in Social Work from U of M, and has dedicated her career to working with the kids whoa re the victims of these awful crimes. As a result, she has a lot of experience working with prosecutors and law enforcement in these cases.
Thankfully, they win more of these cases than they lose, and many bad guys are put away, at least for a little while. But most prosecutor's offices have a higher bar before they'll bring these cases because of the difficulties I've described, and their win rates are usually lower than for other, more "normal" crimes. Other prosecutor's offices have a practice of prosecuting very few of these cases because of their difficulty and the high poltical cost of losing one. ("How dare you, Mr. Prosecutor, go on a witch hunt against this nice, innocent man? You should not be reelected.")
We have a rule in my house - you want to tell me about one of your cases after 8:00, you'd better make me a drink first.
November 8th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
Do you recall the OJ Simpson trial? Short of having a videotape could he have appeared more blatantly guilty?
November 8th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
Logged in just to upvote. This is probably one of the most insightful comments ever posted on this site, and that's saying something.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
"Most teachers, most priests, most cub scout leaders, are good caring people who would have laid Sandusky out on a slab if they walked in on this."
It's also unbelievable that multiple university employees walked in on this and did nothing to immediately stop it. In addition to McQueary leaving and only reporting the incident to Paterno, NYTimes is reporting that a janitor witnessed a separate shower incident and told no one but a co-worker due to fear of losing his job.
November 8th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
That is covered in Victim 8 of the indictment. The janitor was a Korean war vet who was a temporary employee. Walked in on Sandusky sexaully assaulting a kid in the showers. The indictment stated that the janitor was inconsolable and that his co-workers feared that he would have a heart attack. I think the indictment quoted the janitor as mentioning things he saw in Korea, but never seeing evil like that. In addition, Sandusky evidently left with the kid after the shower, then returned alone to the parking lot and stayed throughout the night while the janitorial staff was still inside. Not trying to excuse the failure to report on behalf of the janitor (they may have reported it to their supervisor, but I don't remember from the indictment), just trying to provide additional context.
November 8th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
correct. He told all his co-workers, and they told his boss that night - again it sounds like mostly b/c they though he would have a heart attack he was so upset. The wording is a little unclear, but it sounds like the boss told the employee who he should contact if he wanted to file a report. He didn't. He is now in a mental hospital (hospice?) and unable to testify, but apparently, the other staff that night testified to this.
So, this just adds to the number of adult shitheads that did nothing. The report stats that most of these workers were part time employees afraid of loosing their jobs.
Nice.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
result in convictions especially with collaborative testimony. Juries believe prosecutors because they feel the case would not have been prosecuted if it did not happen and they do not want to set free a child molestor.
November 8th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^
In 1998, Ray Gricar was a Centre County prosecutor, he chose not to prosecute, and in 2005 he disappeared, now presumed a suicide. Read about it here.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
These are very difficult questions to answer. Are you sure you want to go down this path? Are you asking rhetorical questions, or do you really want to know?
Here is a link to a Yahoo article talking about the normalization of pedophilia. (now called "minor-attracted persons.") http://news.yahoo.com/b4u-act-pedophilia-takes-step-toward-being-considered-212800919.html
Perhaps the largest organization that represents this kind of thinking is NAMBLA. (North American Man Boy Love Association.) http://www.nambla.org/ While I know of nambla, I can't even bring myself to read anything they post at their website.
The American Psychiatric Association, or APA, released a report in 1998 "claiming that the 'negative potential' of adult sex with children was 'overstated' and that 'the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.' It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were 'positive,' and suggested that the phrase 'child sex abuse' be replaced with 'adult-child sex.'" Others have coined the term "intergenerational intimacy."
I personally feel great revulsion at this, but wonder if this is simply a reflection of the culture, and our aversion to making statements of moral right and wrong.
Mods, I invite you to delete this post. This is going far afield from why I go to mgoblog.
However, the delusional mindset of someone like Jerry Sandusky is not surprising to me. I feel this is very abnormal, and not at all typical for the general population. However, while I can't personally understand it at all, we live in a politically correct culture where in large measure, it is considered inappropriate to make value judgements on the behavioral choices of others.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
and you want the mods to delete this post . . . or the whole thread (I'm not sure what you mean) . . .
but . . .
you provide a "helpful" link to an organization devoted to celebrating the sexual abuse of boys.
I understand your point about being troubled by the "normalization" of child sexual abuse. But, so far, this case does nothing to suggest that such conduct is being normalized. Who is coming to Sandusky's defense to say that what he did is really not so bad after all.
I think this controversy raises troubling and difficult questions. And, while reviewing this thread, I thought the posters were trying to address in a generally responsible way, even if no-one (understandably) has a real clue on how to make sense of all of this.
I found your post to be an exercise in sensationalism. Did you really have to give free advertising to that organization? Your post is, at best, painfully ironic, given that you complain about the subject matter of the discussion and then go on to suggest that we should not be surprised by this scandal because society is generally becoming more tolerant of child abuse, along with other abberant behaviors.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
I think his purpose was to challenge those of us who are so abhorred by this. Why are we? Should we be, despite the fact that there are some in our country who are actively advocating for this type of behavior? For those who advocate for this (as referenced in SRK's post), are they justified in doing so? Would anybody else be justified to speak out against them, based on the general political-correctness and moral relativism we see in our culture today?
I think that was the point of his post, and why he indicated that he felt he stepped outside the bounds of MGoBlog. Because to discuss that, you must talk about more than Michigan sports.
November 8th, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
My response was a direct answer to an above post, namely the following questions:
"Maybe this isn't the right place to ask these questions, but I find myself asking myself how it is even possible for someone to do these things to kids? I mean, does he not know it is wrong? Does he know he is hurting the kids? Does he rationalize it somehow, or just conclude that his sick urges are more important than the kids' well being?"
The links are to show that such aberrant behavior does in fact exist, and is supported by too many. As distasteful as you may find them, too many people turn away and don't do anything. Further, without links, some would suggest this doesn't exist widely.
Over at Black Shoe Diaries, there was a very painful post from someone who had been abused as a child. The suggestion made there was to "do something for the children." When more of society clearly says, "this is reprehensible and completely unjustifiable, and needs to be apprehended and punished," we are doing something for the children. If posting these links helps more people to know what is going on and to reject it, then the post has served it's purpose.
I can acknowledge that my post is sensationalism, and that there is inconsistency. What I wanted to demonstrate is not my own feelings, but rather, to let other links speak to what society tolerates, and let readers decide for themselves. If anything good comes out of this, it is a clear and wholesale disapproval by society of the kind of behavior shown by Sandusky.
November 8th, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^
Uh, I think people have heard of NAMBLA by now. If you're suggesting that this Mgoboard post is encouraging child molesters, then I'm just baffled.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
I will concede this is a hot button for me. My son's mother (my ex) was a victim. She has multiple diagnoses that the mental health professionals attribute to her abuse. Life with her was a crazy ride with its ups and downs until it turned very dark, and she tried to take her own life with my son in the room. I never knew about the abuse she suffered until after it all unfolded in dramatic fashion, in the ICU and in the weeks and months after. I'm sure I'm not alone here, I am probably just more of an open book than most.
From what I have read, and its limited, the Rind article you reference has been largely dismissed by peers and has been used unsuccessfully in the courts to defend pedophiles. The axiom that children are not capable of consenting to sexual acts and are harmed by them remains. Its good to have this out there though, as I suspect studies like this will continue to come out as long as there are people who want to make a name for themselves by expanding our concepts of socially acceptable norms. For my part, I can tell you its bullshit.
November 8th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
I have worked for many years with abused kids and their families - though never directly with the abusers. But my experience within these situations leads me to believe that::
- no two are exactly the same, of course, and below are generalizations
- however, most serial abusers believe to some extent that they are not hurting the child, possibly even helping or giving love or showing an exciting new world to the child
- this belief is often psychologically created as a coping mechanism so that they can deal with and justify their actions - actions that at other times they wish more than anything they could control and stop
- they rarely completely escape the truth nor fully escape their guilt - thus Sandusky replied to the mom who confronted him in person, "I wish I could have forgiveness.... I wish I were dead."
- Often abusers work with children in authoritative and/or supportive roles. This is for several reasons: 1) It gives them access to kids - sometimes a direct goal to find prey, other times a goal to be near what excites them even if their conscious goal is not to abuse these kids 2) their mind's are obsessed with their sick addiction, like all addicts, and kids are their focus 3) in their mind they truly "love" kids and want to help them and for kids that they do not abuse, they often can be very compasionate and helpful. 4) almost as a make up or in payment for all the harm they consciously or subconsciously know they have brought upon their victims.
November 8th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
Oh, and how can I forget one of the most common and disturbing links:
- most abusers were also abused as kids
This last fact is truly sad, b/c it makes you even more concerned about the abused kids' futures. Many of the kids I worked with also abused others, some in the most horrendous of ways. And while this is the field in which I used to work, I still can not explain it in any way that satisfies my understanding.
It's just terribly sad. It shows both that our minds can be so tortured and melted like ice cream... but also shows that our minds will do almost anything to help us adapt to our circumstances. Sometimes the abused becoming the abuser is a result of a fractured, tortured, and conflicted mind that seeks gratification (power or pleasure) through the abuse. Sometimes the abused becoming the abuser is a result of a mind that is stuck regressed in his past abuse and sees the world through those events.
It's so fucked. To be clear, most abused DO NOT become abusers. However, most abusers have been abused.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
It's so fucked. To be clear, most abused DO NOT become abusers. However, most abusers have been abused.
because it means that mathematically at least, abusers tend to have multiple targets. So sad.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
I remember his last game against us (the 10 point 4th quarter comeback in Happy Valley led by Tom Brady) and every time we scored, the camera showed Sandusky's reaction. Fans all over the stadium were holding up banners saying how much they were going to miss him. Brent Musberger's final words of the broadcast were, "Jerry Sandusky's final game at Beaver Stadium is an unhappy one.
Before the game, the ABC camera zoomed in on Sandusky hugging his son, who was a player on the PSU team at the time. Outside of Michigan, I didn't follow other college teams that closely at the time so I probably missed the reason given. All I remember was the love Sandusky was getting from the media. That seemed to overshadow any reason given for WHY he was retiring. But I'm sure the general excuse was that he wanted to spend more time with his family. There's not a retiring coach in the country that hasn't said that before stepping down.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
Adopted son. He and his wife are unable to have children (thankfully, apparently) but adopted six (oh God).
November 8th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
There's a great article on grantland today by Michael Weinreb, talking about growing up in State College in the 80s and going to school with some of Sandusky's and Paterno's kids, and with Mike McQueary a few years ahead of him in school.
And finding out that McQueary grew up in State College helps me understand his failure to act immediately. This wasn't just his guy who was a coordinator while he was QB, this was someone who he'd likely met as his classmate's dad from high school or junior high onward. I can imagine the brain shutting completely down in a situation like that.
Anyway, here's the article... subtitled "The End of Everything at Penn State"
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
November 8th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
I agree, this adds perspective to McQueary... but he's still morally guilty as all hell IMO.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:21 PM ^
Oh, absolutely. It helps me understand how he didn't immediately act, but he, as an eyewitness, had the greatest moral burden to make sure that never happened to another kid.
November 8th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
yep, I've been wondering about those adopted kids....
November 8th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
This is probably one of my favorite games. I remember how excited I was when we pulled off the win.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
Fcvk Penn State, Fcvk their athletic department, this whole thing is a mofo joke. Let the law handle it, not gonna waste my time on this bs.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^
AMERICA!
November 8th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
Randolph (Randy, like Randy Jackson, of the Jackson 5) Duke.
Mortimer (Mor-TAY) Duke, ftw!
November 8th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
a trial would answer a lot of these questions. Sandusky's testimony may shed light on the actions of some of the others.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
I was thinking about our collective reaction to this PSU story and got to thinking about what the reaction would be if Sandusky had "simply" murdered someone. Would Sandusky having murdered someone off-campus (not premeditated murder) be as heinous as the systematic child abuse/molestation that apparently occurred over a period of time under the guise of PSU athletics?
Its probably lots worse morally and definitely under the law but it would be interesting to see your responses to the question. I remember my criminal law professor telling us that the law needs to protect children above and beyond all other citizens and I definitely agree. But I guess murder should probably be punished more strictly even than multiple counts of child abuse/molestation.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
I don't think its the child thing, so much as it is the helpless and powerless victim thing. Murder of another fully functional adult male would be bad, but its still adult vs adult. You're at least picking on someone your own size (for lack of a better way to say it).
Murdering a kid, murdering someone with a chronic condition that impairs them, a bed ridden senior citizen, basically someone with zero ability to fight back seems worse than adult man A stabbing adult man B to death. It's not just the child part, it's the going after a victim who is powerless to respond in any meaningful way due to their social standing and/or physical condition.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
on the motive for the murder. Even then if it was a random murder of someone he didn't know we would think it strange - but this is just sick.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
I definitely agree that the analysis depends on the degree of killing involved. Accidental killing (involuntary manslaughter) is obviously less heinous than premeditated or even voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion killings, for example).
November 8th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Everybody Murders.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^
I don't know, I think it can be worse if life becomes a living hell for them. Also the tendancy for abuse victims to repeat the crime on others is a real concern as well.
I have several people whom I've met over the years and who have been very close to me who were childhood victims of sexual abuse. And this isn't the case with everyone, but most have a lot of psychological disorders. Its a story that is at the very heart of my family. For the record, I was never abused. But a lot of people around me were and they are totally fucked up because of it. Some are in therapy, a few have killed themselves, some are addicts, the minority have normal lives. Its painful and I have no stomach for any of it. Like Staples said in his article today, I cannot comprehend it and it makes me so enraged that I really can't see straight and am incapable of rational thought.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
That analogy breaks down when you consider that the Sandusky victims who have come forward describe incidents over a period of more than 10 years. The proper analogy is a serial killer with multiple victims (helpless victims, as others have pointed out).
November 8th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^
in my opinion, it's not worse morally, especially when we're talking about the age and number of the victims compared to one murder.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^
murdered someone and Penn State officials helped to cover it up? Or just a murder?
The underlying crime here is bad enough, but the fact that Paterno et al were willing to help cover this thing up and let Sandusky go on molesting kids raises the ick factor to a whole new level.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
FWIW: with child-molesters, it's often the case that they themselves experienced some sort of childhood trauma: molestation, abuse, etc. A University of Pennsylvania (!) study put the number at about 50 percent. Many molesters see boys as representative of themselves back before they were molested. Very dark.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:48 PM ^
I assume & hope your just presenting a fact and are in no way trying to take one ounce of blame off of Sandusky.