• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Penn State football pedophilia thread (UPDATE: NCAA sanctions handed down)

Status
Not open for further replies.
womfalcs3

womfalcs3

Banned
"Death penalty" by the NCAA rules means the suspension of the program for one year, correct? The term gives the impression discontinuing the program forever.
 
L

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Roland Garros said:
You're saying that the new leaders, and the school as a whole, should be punished because of horrible crimes committed by people no longer there. You're basically implying the new structure should suffer as a result of association with past leaders. We've so far seen no evidence to suggest the new people are worthy of scrutiny.

If the new institutional heads can lift Penn State from the mire and put it on the right course, they should be allowed to.
Click to expand...


when the NCAA sanctions a school for player or coach infractions, it does not matter if the offenders have already left the school.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
Lane Kiffin didn't ruin USCw's football program. Reggie Bush did.

The present student athletes at SMU didn't ruin their football program did. Craig James did.

Urban Meyer didn't participate in tattoo gate. Terelle Pryor did.

AL Golden didn't participate in the U's scandals. Everyone else did.


Yet, these are the people who are laboring under the majority of the punishment. Just because there will be vast attendant damage to uninvolved parties doesn't mean that the NCAA/DOE should let the involved party escape with zero damage.

That involved party is the University of Penn State.
Click to expand...

This ...

If the NCAA doesn't act becusae this is "uncharted territory" ... whatever. The idea that a punishment shouldn't be enforeced because it would negatively affect those who weren't involved is rediculous though.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
I really think this is the perfect time to enforce the morals clause. It's certainly something that needs to be used judiciously, given the inherent subjectivity of morality, but this case is so extreme that it needs to be addressed.
 
C

Cyan

Banned
womfalcs3 said:
"Death penalty" by the NCAA rules means the suspension of the program for one year, correct? The term gives the impression discontinuing the program forever.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Though the last time it was used, it effectively was like discontinuing the program forever. It took decades for SMU to recover.

For the record, I doubt the NCAA uses the death penalty here.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Roland Garros said:
Fair point. Though you could say that about the 'death penalty' punishment as well. They could be even more willing to cover it up knowing the school is heading for oblivion.

It's a tough one.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be headed for oblivion if they reported the crime to the authorities immediately, they would just have to repair their reputation. The issue here isn't that PSU had a pedophile on staff, it's that they knowingly covered it up for well over a decade. That's what is worth the "death penalty" for the program.

One of PSU's longtime beloved coaches turned out to be a pedophile. That's embarrassing and damaging to their reputation regardless, but you can't really punish PSU if they honestly didn't know anything until one of the crimes came to light. If they had reported it immediately and dealt with Sandusky correctly, they would have to work on repairing their reputation, hiring practices, etc. but the program itself wouldn't be in any danger. But they covered it up, and now their reputation is shattered beyond repair *and* the survival of the entire program is in jeopardy. That's the message that should be sent to other institutions.
 
R

Roland Garros

Banned
Cyan said:
I'm saying that the school as a whole should be punished, yes.
Click to expand...

And I disagree.


What new structure? It's the same institution, with new people at the top.
Click to expand...

Yes. Usually, with a new injection of blood, new structures are implemented and fresh ideologies are formed. I'm talking in terms of management structure, complaint resolution, welfare etc.

The idea that a punishment shouldn't be enforeced because it would negatively affect those who weren't involved is rediculous though.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate?

Also, please elaborate on why spelt ridiculous with an e. It kills me everytime.
KuGsj.gif
 
Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon

Member
Sirpopopop said:
Indeed, Jerry Sandusky was ratted on to the authorities in 1998, and in 2001.

There were no e-mails about Paterno squelching such investigations.
Click to expand...

Lol you have no idea what "harboring a known criminal" actually is. Absolutely no one is guilty of this crime. The people charged have been charged with Perjury and lesser offences like that.
 
R

Roland Garros

Banned
Joe Shlabotnik said:
They wouldn't be headed for oblivion if they reported the crime to the authorities immediately, they would just have to repair their reputation. The issue here isn't that PSU had a pedophile on staff, it's that they knowingly covered it up for well over a decade. That's what is worth the "death penalty" for the program.

One of PSU's longtime beloved coaches turned out to be a pedophile. That's embarrassing and damaging to their reputation regardless, but you can't really punish PSU if they honestly didn't know anything until one of the crimes came to light. If they had reported it immediately and dealt with Sandusky correctly, they would have to work on repairing their reputation, hiring practices, etc. but the program itself wouldn't be in any danger. But they covered it up, and now their reputation is shattered beyond repair *and* the survival of the entire program is in jeopardy. That's the message that should be sent to other institutions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the 'they' you speak of, which I assume were the 4 big players in the cover-up and Sandusky, they're all gone now. I see it as unfair to file the whole of Penn State under this 'they' generalisation.
 
L

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Roland Garros said:
And I disagree.




Yes. Usually, with a new injection of blood, new structures are implemented and fresh ideologies are formed. I'm talking in terms of management structure, complaint resolution, welfare etc.



Can you elaborate?

Also, please elaborate on why spelt ridiculous with an e. It kills me everytime.
KuGsj.gif
Click to expand...


if a school could avoid ncaa sanctions by simply getting rid of guilty parties...
 
K

Kusagari

Member
NCAA wil pass off the entire case and say it's a legal issue. If they actually handed down a minor punishment then they would get blasted. And they won't issue the death penalty because Penn State is too important and brings in too much money.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
As shown by the recent alumni trustee elections, the Penn State community is not willing to own up to the transgressions of the Paterno program. Therefore, I think a substantial punishment is not only warranted, but necessary. This is a culture that needs to drastically change.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Roland Garros said:
Yeah, but the 'they' you speak of, which I assume were the 4 big players in the cover-up and Sandusky, they're all gone now. I see it as unfair to file the whole of Penn State under this 'they' generalisation.
Click to expand...

It *is* "unfair", that's basically the point. That's what "punitive" means. It's why "punitive damages" in a lawsuit are so much more than the actual costs incurred by the suit itself. It's to deter the guilty party or anyone else inclined to act similarly from concluding that their actions were "worth it".

There's no way to deter other institutions from doing this again unless the collateral damage is completely unacceptable.
 
A

Arrowgigantic

Member
Roland Garros said:
Huh? What are you even trying to say here?
Click to expand...
I'm saying I want a quantitative comparison of the negative impact of

1) Being a college athlete and having your team disbanded versus

2) Being a ten year-old who has an old man's dick in his mouth because some other old men thought it would be too embarrassing to a football team if they made sure that he couldn't put his dick in any more little boy mouths.

Obviously both are bad things to have happen, I just want to know how many unarrested old man dicks are equivalent to one teamless college athlete. Greater or less than one? I'm not saying an eye for an eye old man's dick in your ten year-old mouth is a preferable system of justice or anything like that, I just think it will be helpful to have as a starting point the idea of when the injustice of the punishment will exceed the injustice of the crime. The crime being repeatedly looking the other way while an old man puts his dick in the mouths of a series of little boys, in case you forgot.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Hari Seldon said:
Lol you have no idea what "harboring a known criminal" actually is. Absolutely no one is guilty of this crime. The people charged have been charged with Perjury and lesser offences like that.
Click to expand...

Oh right, we're sticking to strict legal interpretations here.

In that case there is no such thing as a law on the books about "harboring a known criminal."

Therefore, how can you call it a crime when "harboring a known criminal" is not a crime. It's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, at all.
 
Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon

Member
Since I have been criticizing the overzealous bloodlust of some people, I will say that the appropriate punishment in my opinion would be (aside from the criminal convictions) to ban all football scholarships for a period of say 5 years, but not remove the scholarships of the players that already have them. This would be a death penalty for Penn State recruiting, which is why the coverup existed in the first place, but not hurt any current players personally nor the rest of the student athletes.
 
G

gutshot

Member
Sirpopopop said:
Oh right, we're sticking to strict legal interpretations here.

In that case there is no such thing as a law on the books about "harboring a known criminal."

Therefore, how can you call it a crime when "harboring a known criminal" is not a crime. It's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, at all.
Click to expand...

There is such a law and as Hari Seldon states, no is accused of said crime in this case as Sandusky was not a wanted criminal.

Harboring a fugitive refers to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Federal and state laws, which vary by state, govern the crime of harboring a fugitive. Although supplying funds may make one an accessory after the fact, supplying financial assistance to a fugitive does not rise to the level of harboring or concealing. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1071, requires proof of four elements: (1) proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive' s arrest, (2) that the accused had knowledge that a warrant had been issued, (3) that the accused actually harbored or concealed the fugitive, and (4) that the accused intended to prevent the fugitive' s discovery or arrest.
Click to expand...
 
C

Cyan

Banned
Roland Garros said:
I've never even been to America, quite honestly.
Click to expand...

In that case, I beg your pardon.

Here's the thing. You seem to be thinking in a sort of "what is deserved" punishment model. Spanier et al are guilty of coverup, and deserve punishment. The new people coming in are innocent, and don't deserve punishment. That's fine. A lot of people think that way.

Another way of looking at it is the incentive model. What caused the behavior of Spanier et al? What different incentives could have caused them to act differently?

There are a number of possible answers to these questions. One take is that what caused the coverup is that Spanier et al wanted to protect the power, prestige, and money of the football program. Perhaps knowing that covering things up would only make things ultimately worse, as far the football program losing those things, would have caused them to act differently.

Alternate angle: if you're on the Board of Trustees of a large institution like Penn St, who do you want to hire to run things? If punishments are reserved only for the people running the institution, and you can avoid any punishment for your institution simply by firing the people in charge if things go sideways, then you are incentivized to hire the type of person who will cover things up. After all, they might succeed in the coverup, and if they don't, your institution will evade any punishment for it having taken place.

These are the two main justifications for punishing an institution rather than just the people running things. The other argument, more specific to this case, is that the coverup was largely due to the massive power of the football program, and so the football program should have its power reduced or removed altogether. I favor the incentive arguments for being more general.
 
V

vas_a_morir

Banned
Pittsburgh.
Sports.
Talk.
Radio.

Some of these people calling in are scrambling to defend the University. One guy just claimed that Sandusky had blackmailed Paterno by having a kid claim Paterno was in the shower. (WFAN)
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
Couldn't you make the argument that the cover up by Paterno and co. did give the football team an unfair advantage? How many top recruits (and in turn, wins) would Penn St have had in the last 10 years if they knew that sweet old Coach Pa was really hiding a kiddy fucker on campus?

NCAA should act and level the program, it's too bad they are nearly as corrupt and money hungry as Penn St was so they probably won't do shit and will hope it blows over.
 
M

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
SolidSnakex said:
untitleddsu30.png
Click to expand...
75% of America doesn't care that Paterno abetted in the molestation of god only knows how many kids. Niiiiice.
BertramCooper said:
So unless I'm misinterpreting the report, it appears that Paterno probably committed perjury, correct?
Click to expand...
I, for one, vote for an exhumation and posthumous trial. If he was cremated and his ashes scattered, then I propose that an effigy be constructed and then put on trial.
 
B

B.K.

Member
I wish Paterno was still alive so he could rot in prison with Sandusky. Everyone involved in this needs to be in prison.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
mre said:
75% of America doesn't care that Paterno abetted in the molestation of god only knows how many kids. Niiiiice.
Click to expand...

I went looking for how this poll was done. It's entirely online and just colors each state with the color of the option of the highest poll option for that state, even if it isn't a true majority. ie Nebraska is at 37% negative/positive and 36% negative.

I just saw Oklahoma switch to "mostly negative" (green) so I expect that map to change over the coming hours.

They should have just done it with "Negatively" or "Positively".

tl;dr mouse over the states for a better look
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Former Bills punter Matt Araiza who was accused of gang rape cleared after evidence shows he wasn't present during incident: prosecutors
2
86
7K
Nobody_Important replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
Remember the CEO who paid all employees $70,000 or more?
23
4K
Konnor replied
Andrew Callaghan, Popular Host of ‘All Gas No Brakes’ and ‘Channel 5,’ Accused of Sexual Misconduct [Rolling Stone]
News Drama
29
4K
Lasha replied
The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
7K
SHA replied
Top Bottom