Sandusky Questions

Submitted by Ziff72 on

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?

Mitch Cumstein

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.

sheepdog

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.

profitgoblue

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.)

papabear16

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.

profitgoblue

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.

papabear16

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.

Lady in Blue

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.

NOLAWolverine

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. 

buddhafrog

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.

StephenRKass

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.

el segundo

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.

Moleskyn

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.

StephenRKass

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.

triangle_M

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.

 

 

buddhafrog

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.

buddhafrog

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.

WolverineHistorian

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.

Needs

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

profitgoblue

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.

CRex

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.  

triangle_M

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. 

Urban Warfare

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. 

mackbru

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.