If anything this would show that Paterno really wanted Sandusky out of the program.

Its obvious that Paterno fired Sandusky over the 1998 incident.

Does this make Paterno look better or worse?

So it is obvious that Paterno did not turn in Sandusky because he wanted to save the program the bad publicity from that incident as opposed to doing it out of friendship to Sandusky.

But it does come back to the fact that Paterno needed to do something about the sandusky problem right away. JoePa's plan was to force him into retirement and hope he went away and obviously this did not work.

Giving him an office and a set of keys for the next decade probably wasn't the best way to facilitate that.

FWIW, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Sandusky's lawyers tried for an insanity defense; I would just be shocked if it worked.

It doesn't get used that often, but this is the type of case where it sometimes does. Mountain of heinous charges, little chance (IMO) of not being convicted; why not roll the dice and hope to muddy the waters with a psych defense?

It's really rare that it works (for cases where they aren't psychotic or something), but if the lawyers think they have a 2% chance or less of not getting convicted and life without parole, it might seem like a viable strategy. Remember it only takes one person to hang a criminal jury.

SGT RJ:

You're running in synch with my thinking. People that do this kind of thing, (i.e. coerced sex with children), have some kind of "sickness" - this is not normal behavior - and it's certainly not socially acceptable behavior. I sense that a valid argument can be made that Jerry Sandusky is a very sick man. If that is a valid assessment of his mental condition, then an insanity defense would seem to be a viable legal option. Even if such a defense were to work, Sandusky would not walk away a free man. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and was acquited by a jury. To the best of my knowledge Hinckley remains in a psychiatric hospital to this day.

If the prosecutors and Sandusky's lawyer were to reach a plea agreement in which Sandusky pleads guilty in exchange for confinement to a mental hospital, that might be the best outcome for all concerned - short of Sandusky very conveniently suffering a fatal heart attack. That would get him away from children (permanently one hopes) and allow the civil cases to be settled. (Such an outcome would also spare all of Sandusky's victims - as well as Penn State and the general public - the agony of going through a public trial.) On the other hand, if Sandusky and his lawyer decide to "tough it out" and go for broke in a trial, then the man deserves whatever he gets.

I'm just trying to figure out the best way to minimize the damage and heartbreak this case is likely to produce. Too many people have suffered enough already. Coach Paterno, McQueary, Spanier, Schultz, Curley (and countless others) have had their careers and their reputations ruined by this. There comes a point where enough is enough. Going through something like this is akin to having battery acid dripping on the collective psyche. The effect is corrosive. The best way to resolve this is to get Sandusky behind bars or in a hospital, settle with the victims, and tighten up the laws to make sure something like this never happens again. On this latter point, the laws (and officials' responsibility under the law) need to be made so clear that there will be no hesitation whatsoever - and absolutely no doubt - as to how somebody like Sandusky should be dealt with. Hopefully we will never again hear a beloved coach lament "I should have done more."

Former DJ

The insanity defense has no application here and I believe multiple lawyers have said so. Take them at their word and give up on it.

Was there a black child involved? He may be able to present a coocoo for coco puffs defense.

Former DJ, you are out of your damn mind if you think the prosecutors would agree to a plea agreement that put Sandusky in a mental institution.

Aytumious:

I had a private correspondence with a friend (Rocky) who, like you, vehemently objected to my suggestion of a plea bargain agreement between Sandusky and the prosecutors. I responded to Rocky as follows.

Anyone who was involved in the cover up has not suffered enough until they have suffered as much as the victims. Which means a real long suffer for each of them.

[per Rocky]

Rocky:

You are correct with this point, but it's impossible for the enablers to suffer as much as the victims. What can be done to make them suffer as much as the victims? Force them (or their grandchildren) to get naked in the shower with Sandusky with their hands pinned to the wall?

All (or most) of the men involved in this cover up have lost their jobs and their reputations. Paterno and Spanier (the Penn State President) have been fired. Graham Spanier will probably never again be President of any college or university - he's finished. Joe Paterno was being considered for the Presidential Medal of Freedom - the highest civilian award that can be bestowed on a private citizen which is usually presented by the President of the United States in the White House. That will not happen. Mike McQueary, whose testimony will be vital in obtaining a conviction against Sandusky, is probably finished as a coach - he will very likely be fired once Sandusky's trial concludes. Tom Bradley believes that he should be Penn State's next head football coach proclaiming that he "knew nothing" about Jerry Sandusky. The scuttlebutt around Happy Valley is that they all "knew" about Jerry Sandusky. Even the players on the team joked about "Jerry" ... they all knew. Fairly or unfairly, Tom Bradley is likely to be fired along with the entire coaching staff that served under Joe Paterno.

There is a high likelihood (some think a certainty) that the NCAA will impose the death penalty on Penn State once these investigations run their course. Top college prospects are already "de-committing" from Penn State. Imposition of the death penalty (for a period as short as one season) will cripple Penn State. The United States Government (via the Department of Education) is conducting their own investigation to determine if reporting requirements - as required by law for colleges and universities receiving public funds - were not complied with. If the USG makes that determination, Penn State stands to lose millions in research grants and student aid. It was this announcement, (i.e. that the federal government was getting involved), that prompted the Board of Trustees to summarily fire Paterno and Graham Spanier. This drastic action was not an easy decision for the Trustees - especially when one considers the fact that five of the Trustees are former Penn State football players who played for Coach Paterno. Paterno has lost the one thing that probably meant the most to him - his reputation. He will go to his grave with his own words ringing in his ears: "I should have done more" [to stop Jerry Sandusky].

Once the NCAA imposes the death penalty, there will be a wholesale housecleaning within the Penn State football program. Any coach or any university official associated with the Paterno regime will be let go. If they don't "resign" voluntarily, they'll be fired. The Board of Trustees will seek a new coach with a squeaky clean reputation. There will be a lot of changes at Penn State, but the primary change will be the end of all vestiges of the Joe Paterno regime. Recovering from a wound like this is going to be a hard and painful process.

The most important priority at this point is two-fold. First, making sure that Jerry Sandusky is convicted and placed behind bars for the rest of his life. The second (equally important) priority is providing some kind of justice and vindication for the victims. With the way our "system" works nowadays, the way society makes amends for a monumental institutional failure is through the court system. Penn State must pay these victims a very large sum of money for their suffering.

My suggestion concerning Sandusky is motivated out of a desire to make sure he is incarcerated. The risk in going to trial - the risk in any criminal trial - is that the verdict has to be unanimous. It only takes one recalcitrant juror - or one juror who thinks: "We are being unfairly picked on!" - to hang a jury. In high profile cases like this, no one can predict how a jury might decide. Don't forget that most people thought O.J. Simpson would be convicted on two counts of murder - until the jury said otherwise. A plea bargain where Sandusky pleads guilty and is incarcerated (probably for life) guarantees that he won't harm any more children. A trial, even with a mountain of evidence, is always a roll of the dice.

Former DJ

I don't think anyone not facing lethal injection would agree to a plea bargain locking them away forever.

Also, they can't agree for him to stay in a mental hospital forever. You can't take that decision away from a doctor. What happens if the doctor declares him cured after two years? And I'm guessing there are huge constitutional problems with declaring someone mentally ill forever.

It takes more than one juror to acquit. One unconvinced juror could cause a delay, but it seems hugely unlikely all of them would go full-OJ on this one.

Well, they can if the person is actually, you know, crazy, which is basically the only time an insanity plea will work.

Err not especially, insanity pleas work for people who are crazy, but definitely treatable.

You guys need to watch more law and order obviously.

S.E.R.I.O.U.S.L.Y.

HYPOTHETICAL TIME

Prosecutor and Sandusky agree on lifetime institutionalization in a mental hospital. (Assume for simplicity's sake that pedophilia is a mental disorder in the DSM rather than a sick fetish.) After two years of intense therapy, medications, tests, etc., every one of Sandusky's doctors conclude that he is cured and no longer a threat. Which should control: a nonmedical agreement between litigation adversaries stating that someone is to be institutionalized and treated forever in exchange for a guilty plea, or the treating doctors' opinion that the person should be released? If you choose the first, should the doctors be forced to treat someone that shouldn't be treated?

I get what you're going for here but I think this doesn't really work. If the docs clear him, then he just remains confined but doesn't go to his treatment sessions anymore. Basically it sort of defaults to jail at that point.

Not that it really matters but in my state if you are found mentally incompetent to stand trial you are sent to a state institution and subjected to periodic review of mental competency. If/when found competent you go right back into court to stand trial. I thought there was a suggestion well upthread (not the guys immediately above me) that if sent to an institution he might then be let free if treated, but I doubt that is the case in PA.

timotheeeee:

Thanks for pointing out these problems. I (obviously) hadn't thought of these issues. I was more focused on: "How does the prosecution - and Penn State - avoid the agony of putting Jerry Sandusky on trial while simultaneously achieving some form of justice for the victims?" How do you limit the damage?

I don't think anybody can enjoy or look forward to the prospect of putting Sandusky on trial - unless you're a ghoul who actually wallows in this kind of depravity. With 40 charges against him, so far, there's enough "stuff" here to make jurors physically ill. (Imagine you're a mother or father with children and grandchildren having to sit in the jury box listening to what went on in those showers - along with all the other assorted filth that will come out at trial.) How does it do Penn State (or anybody else) any good to have all this crap aired in public?

That's the only reason I was thinking in terms of some type of plea bargain that guarantees Sandusky winds up behind bars for the next 25 to 30 years. (One would hope he might prefer 25 to 30 rather than the risk of getting sentenced to 100 years.) I was talking to a friend who has some experience in the mental health field. This person told me that pedophiles were often victims themselves in childhood and are repeating the behavior to which they were subjected - it's a vicious cycle. Even facing a mountain of evidence, in their minds these individuals are convinced that their behavior is "normal" and they have done nothing wrong. According to my friend, Jerry Sandusky is likely to fight these charges tooth and nail. Short of Sandusky conveniently dropping dead, it looks like there may be no alternative to putting him on trial.

This mess is so sad. I was just thinking (hoping) there might be some way to resolve this without putting more people through hell. I suppose if you were to ask Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier what they would do differently if they could do this over, they would reply: "I would like to kill Jerry Sandusky with my bare hands!" or words to that effect. A long trial, (involving as it does dragging Sandusky, Penn State and Sandusky's victims through the mud), is going to be very debilitating. I was hoping there might be some way to avoid all that.

Maybe I was naive ...

Former DJ

Dude are you seriously concerned about Joe Paterno right now?

DJ Please just stop.... of course he is going to fight the charges.... of course there is something wrong with his brain because he raped little boys... of course he is not LEGALLY insane by any definition used in the US.

Penn State deserves every bit of bad press they get from this... don't want mountains of bad press? Try not enabling a serial child molester for a few decades.

I'm not sure this is true. Some sexual offenders finish their prison sentences and are then transferred to mental hospitals for sex offenders against their will until they can prove they're no longer a threat to society, which is close to impossible. Essentially the state locks these guys up forever after they have already been punished for their crimes under the law. To me it seems wildly unconstitutional, but I guess no one gives a **** about the rights of pedophiles and rapists.

There's an excellent documentary about one of these institutions which I'd recommend if you're interested (a tough watch though given subject matter obv) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Place_for_Paedophiles

I'm looking forward to the trial and eventual further vilification of Joe Pa.

You don't have to assume this. Pedophilia is a recognized sexually based disorder in the DSM-IV-TR (302.2, under paraphilias), along with fetishism, frotteurism, exhibitionism, sexual masochism/sadism, transvestic fetisism, voyeurism, and paraphilia not otherwise specified. I have a copy at my desk. Doesn't everyone? (I kid, I'm writing my Ph.D. dissertation in counseling).

For the curious, the DSM-IV-TR criteria for a diagnosis of pedophilia are:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulties.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in criterion A.

Specify if:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:
Limited to incest

Specify type:
Exclusive type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive type

It's pretty clear Sandusky meets criteria for a diagnosis of Pedophilia (302.2), Sexually Attracted to Males, Exclusive Type (probably).

Also note that it's possible to be diagnosed with pedophilia without actual acting on it; pedophilia is not, in and of itself, a crime. It is a disorder of sexual attraction.

ACTING on it is a crime (ldo).

/psychobabble derail


As I already pointed out, though, meeting criteria for a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis does not equal insanity defense. Something like 75% of convicted felons meet criteria for some diagnosis, yet they still know their behavior is wrong and could conform to the law if they wanted to. They just don't want to.

just curious, is the option of the football death penalty for penn state, growing or fading in popularity as time goes on? Im not normally the eye for an eye type, but if this situation ends how it currently stands with just the coaches getting fired and the school getting some bad press but continuing on, I for one wont be satisfied.

I understand you dont want to punish the students for the faults of the administration but what other way is there to cost the institution a price in which they actually care, rather than just replace the admins with new people and keep going about life as normal.

So I for one am of the opinion that they should cancel football for at least 1 year, allow all scholarship players to either transfer or stay with their scholarship, and then reduce the number of scholarships allowed for the following 2 years.

I rambled on a bit there, but my general question is still what do you think most people are thinking this far after the scandal broke? do they just want it to end? or are there people that are still hoping there is more punishment for the heinous enabling and egregious cover up by the entire university?

Mr. dryice420:

I'll take a crack at answering your questions. Penn State will almost certainly pay for their sins of omission. The civil suits have not yet been filed, but the university can expect a ton of civil litigation. Paying out and settling those claims will be costly. (This is just an off-the-cuff estimate, but I'm guessing that settling civil lawsuits will cost Penn State a minimum of $50 million. The cost could easily top $100 million.) Lawyers are working overtime preparing these cases.

Taylor Branch wrote a lengthy article, (i.e. "The Shame of College Sports"), which appeared in a recent edition of "The Atlantic" magazine. (You might be able to find the article online.) Branch's article did not address the specific situation with Penn State as the story had not exploded into the public consciousness when the article was published, but the article did deal extensively with problems at the NCAA. Combining the issues raised in that article along with the announcement from the NCAA that they have launched their own investigation of Penn State, it's nearly a foregone conclusion that Penn State will be sanctioned with the death penalty. The only question is likely to be the period of the sanction, (i.e. will the death penalty apply for one year or two years?)

The United States Government, (via the Department of Education), has also announced that they are launching their own investigation of Penn State. Their focus is on whether responsible officials at Penn State met their duty (under federal law) to report crimes that occured on campus to law enforcement authorities. It appears that Penn State failed in their affirmative duty to report, but that issue is in dispute. (Assistant coach Mike McQueary is reportedly claiming that he did file a police report while officials with the campus police department and the Centre County police department are claiming that they have no record of such a report.) If the USG determines that Penn State failed in their affirmative duty, federal funding in the form of research grants and student loans could be withdrawn. (This is reportedly the deciding factor that prompted the Board of Trustees to fire Paterno and Graham Spanier. Once they understood that the federal government was getting involved, they realized that the possibility of withdrawal of federal aid could cost the university tens of millions of dollars.) In a nutshell, irrespective of what ultimately happens to Jerry Sandusky, Penn State is not walking away from this unscathed.

One other adverse side effect of all this that is having an immediate impact: Top high school athletes across the country who had previously indicated their intention to commit to Penn State are now announcing they have decided to "de-commit" from Penn State.

Former DJ

Who is it that Former DJ reminds me of? I feel I've seen this exact posting style in the past.