Penn State deserves Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by Alex1939, Jul 14, 2012.

?

Death Penalty?

Poll closed Aug 3, 2012.
  1. YES, DEATH PENALTY

    63.6%
  2. No...

    36.4%
  1. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,408
    Damn, no death penalty. booooo.

    Still, 60 million fine, paterno wins vacated from 98-11, and a 4 year bowl ban and scholarship restrictions.
    #61
  2. Titaneers

    Titaneers Ultimate Player

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,615
    basically the death penalty.... dont know how they'll get out of this one...
    #62
  3. jdog

    jdog I like beer!

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    No recruiting, no sponsors will want to carry the games on TV. They will be playing with 3rd stringers at best. Sucks to be them!
    #63
  4. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,408
    I have to admit, I wanted to see what would happen to the big10 if they got the death penalty today. Some Big10 teams would not have enough D1 schools scheduled to be bowl eligible. Would all of the Big10 play one less game this year? Would there be a big10 championship game this year?

    Oh well. Glad Penn State still got massive penalties but I think death was warranted.
    #64
    • High Five High Five x 1
  5. JCBRAVE

    JCBRAVE Tweet me @JCBRAVE

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    46,164
  6. Riverman

    Riverman That may be....

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,799
    I have yet to see the "evidence" that Paterno knowingly concealed criminal information from authorities. I have seen references to the "Freeh" report which has been characterized as lop-sided at best due to the lack of the power to subpeona testimony. It only utilized voluntary testimony.

    In a statement, Paterno's family said the longtime coach made mistakes that he acknowledged but "never interfered with any investigation" and was fooled by Sandusky.

    "The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn't fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events," the statement said. "If Joe Paterno had understood what Sandusky was, a fear of bad publicity would not have factored into his actions."


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/12/report-by-former-fbi-director-finds-that-penn-state-disregarded-children/#ixzz21SMqjCJT



    I think this is lynch mob mentality at its finest. Notice the statement that there will be no more board resignations. This board has "served up" Joe-Pa with very little evidence to save their own azzes IMO. The entire board is as culpable as Joe-Pa was.

    Until I see some credible and tangible evidence, I continue to reserve my judgement that Joe-Pa knowingly concealed criminal information. It just doesn't jibe with his lifetime of otherwise honorable behavior. (And no- I'm not a PSU fan).
    #66
    • High Five High Five x 1
  7. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,408
    Well there was the email that JoePa sent that said something about Sandusky and not being allowed in a certain area with children because it was a liability issue.

    That along with McQueery comments that he brought it up to JoePa is enough for me. There is no way JoePa didn't know what was going on at least to some extent.
    #67
  8. Riverman

    Riverman That may be....

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,799
    Just what was he supposed to do with "hearsay"? He didn't have anything credible. He did report his suspicions it to his superiors and was told they would handle it.

    He is a scapegoat. The then acting president and board members responsible for personnel matters that involve criminal activity. Notice how many board members are being investigated?

    Paterno is the pound of flesh the public wants. I need to see direct evidence that he knew with certainty that criminal activity was occurring and that he knowingly concealed that information from authorities.
    #68
  9. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,408
    Why would he be worried about a liability issue with Sandusky being around children if he didn't know anything?
    #69
  10. Riverman

    Riverman That may be....

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,799
    I haven't seen the e-mail so I don't how he referenced the incident. That might give me some insight to whether his level of knowledge was hearsay or more definite.

    I can understand that a man like Paterno would definitely alert his superiors to the situation particularly if it was simply hearsay. Apparently Sandusky denied the initial allegations. I can also see that a man like Paterno would defer to the wisdom and expertise of the School President and Board members on knowing "what is best" for PSU. Paterno understands he is simply a football coach.

    So I can see how Paterno might not have been compelled to go to the police outside of an investigation that he believed was legitimate. In his mind, the accusations arose, an investigation occurred by the "appropriate" authorities, Sandusky was forced to retire and in Paterno's mind the situation was resolved. When a second round of suspicious behavior came to his attention, he was probably at a loss as what to do as he had been through this situation before. He again alerted his superiors who probably stated something to the effect as they had before. The eyewitness account SHOULD have been enough for Paterno to go outside the school and whistle-blow on the University. But that is SO much easier said than done especially if he was facing pressure by the President the then board members to keep quiet about it. Whistle-blowing is just not something Paterno's generation of men did frequently. It was often frowned upon, especially in academic and athletic environments where "team-play" and institutional loyalty/pride are so highly regarded.

    Again- I think the most likely scenario is that Paterno just didn't have enough incontrovertible evidence to go against his inclination to let his superiors handle the situation. I really think it is shameful the way the current board has "served him up" as the scape-goat and allow him to be the pariah for the school administration's responsibility.

    Let me ask you this- Why isn't everybody jumping on the azz of the "eyewitness" for not going straight to the police? It really is the same situation as Paterno. They both went to their superiors and were told it was being handled. The difference is that sacrificing Paterno to the courtroom of public opinion better serves the institution and those still in charge (current administration and board members) to quiet the maddened crowd.

    It is shameful behavior. I won't be fooled or I at least won't rush to judgement against Joe-Pa without hearing the "full story" as Paterno's family references.
    #70