Should Penn State get the Death Penalty?

[VTDragon]

Just saw this article in USAToday http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ess/56278226/1, the original victim was harrased so much by the residents of Happy Valley that he had to go into witness protection. This just reinforces my belief that the Death Penalty needs to be applied.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by King James

Those policies don't have any language absolving the insurance companies from paying for intentional acts or when there was knowledge? Can you point me to where you saw that insurance will cover?

I just read the article a few minutes ago, Jim. I went back to look for it and I can't find it, Sorry. (I actually found it as I was looking for what year PS asked Joe to step down as coach, if you want to Google it. It was dumb luck you mentioned it shortly thereafter. )
Erickson also said the board called for an inquiry to make sure that they'll be covered in the future with adequate insurance now that all this has happened. That might prove a bit tougher.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by King James

I don't think there is any disagreement to how disgusting, wrong, and inexcusable the acts of Sandusky and cover-up by Penn State are. The only dispute is to where justice should be served, in the courts or by sanctions from the NCAA. I would hate for anyone to view my disagreement with the death penalty as indicating at all some kind of defense of Penn State in this situation

[357]

Yes. If the NCAA can issue a death penalty for paying players or similar LEGAL rule infractions, how can they issue a lesser penalty for allowing these actions to continue in their facilities?

I think they should lose football altogether for 2-4 years and the BigTen should kick them out. AKA no TV revenue sharing.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

I, generally, try to avoid such comparisons, but I couldn't think of one that better conveys the terror and despair those children must have felt, as well as the institutional hubris on PSU's part. I work at pediatric hospital in Boston (I'm sure you know which one), and I've seen the aftermath of child abuse and rape. It's ugly; as ugly as anything you could imagine. Did I invoke Godwin's Law? Yes, I did, but I did so with good cause.

I had a response typed out, but my computer ate it.

The abridged version: I apologize if I come across as contrarian, and that even though my opinion is that the NCAA doesn't/shouldn't have jurisdiction, it also doesn't mean that I in no way am defending what transpired at Penn State.

Further, I could never do what you do because I'm a big softie that can't stand to see children in pain.

[King James]

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

[jonumberone]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Dom, are you a Penn State fan or just taking that stand?

I think this above question is what the whole debate is about.
Since the situation involves Collegiate athletics, a subject that evokes competitiveness between people,
logic and reason becomes obscured, even if it is done subconsciously.

If you apply the same exact circumstances to another business, you would not look to that businesses governing body to discipline them,
but rather the authorities and law to handle punishment.
If the same exact scenario played out on a dairy farm, would you expect the FDA to get involved?

If you tell the same exact story, but substitute "Penn State University" with "George Washington High School",
do you still feel the Board of Education should lock the doors or cancel the schools extra curricular activities?

To answer your question, NO I am not a fan of Penn State.
As a matter of fact, I could care less about any college sports.
I don't watch Bowl games, or March madness.
The last college game I watched was LSU v Alabama Pt.1
I found that game to be so boring that I didn't bother to watch the rematch.
I do know what the BCS is, I do know what the main conferences are, as well as most of the rivalries.

I honestly feel, I have no bias here.

[shilala]

I'm also sorry if I came across as contrary, it's certainly not my desire.
I just fail to see what the NCAA do that won't hurt people that don't deserve to get hurt. They're powerless unless they can somehow think of something that will help the victims, their families, and stop this from happening in the future.
If PSU and all their memory could be rubbed out without harming so many other kids and families along the way, I'd be right on board and leading the charge.
There's nothing anyone can do to even take the edge off this tragedy, or to assuage the agony of the kids and families Sandusky touched.

As with everything, there's always those things that go mostly unreported.
Sandusky's father hosted a sports boy's camp.
Sandusky hosted a boy's sports camp.
Sandusky molested his own adopted son, Matt.
It's not too tough to fill in the blank there, and I've listened to a lot of detail about this stuff via sports radio (which is nearly my every waking hour). I'm not trying to dredge up any sympathy for Sandusky, I'm suggesting that someone doesn't get that seriously sick and depraved by just being on the planet, and he was very likely taught his propensities, or tortured into them.
Maybe if people can focus their disgust and hatred, then nobody else needlessly gets hurt in the aftermath? I know it's a far stretch to not judge and to forgive in instances like this, and I'm failing miserably. Maybe the best I can do is focus on who's to blame and hope they don't get another chance to do harm.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by King James

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

That's a good point, and the NCAA is supposed to operate to ensure part #2, not #1.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by King James

It is quite likely that insurance won't cover Penn State in this case. It will come down to policy language

Jim,
You are likely right.
Most, if not all liability policies exclude intentional acts.

[King James]

Originally Posted by shilala

That's a good point, and the NCAA is supposed to operate to ensure part #2, not #1.

I think the key factor is, as the current NCAA rules are written, there were not any violations of NCAA rules. A requirement for the death penalty under lack of institutional control is that the lack of control is in regard to NCAA rules.

Therefore, unless the NCAA invents a reason, regardless of what anyone arguably thinks should be the penalty, the death penalty does not appear to be an available option.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by jonumberone

I think this above question is what the whole debate is about.
Since the situation involves Collegiate athletics, a subject that evokes competitiveness between people,
logic and reason becomes obscured, even if it is done subconsciously.

If you apply the same exact circumstances to another business, you would not look to that businesses governing body to discipline them,
but rather the authorities and law to handle punishment.
If the same exact scenario played out on a dairy farm, would you expect the FDA to get involved?

If you tell the same exact story, but substitute "Penn State University" with "George Washington High School",
do you still feel the Board of Education should lock the doors or cancel the schools extra curricular activities?

To answer your question, NO I am not a fan of Penn State.
As a matter of fact, I could care less about any college sports.
I don't watch Bowl games, or March madness.
The last college game I watched was LSU v Alabama Pt.1
I found that game to be so boring that I didn't bother to watch the rematch.
I do know what the BCS is, I do know what the main conferences are, as well as most of the rivalries.

I honestly feel, I have no bias here.

Thanks. Yes, it is just easier to know where you stand when discussing things when the parties are neutral so to speak. When someone has love/faith/emotion involved, sometimes discussing it does more harm than good.

As far as what I bolded above... YES!!!!! Not shut down the school, but the athletic program, YES, YES, YES. If the football coach at my local high school(he is a friend of mine), where I went to school and now my kids go to school, when I played, MY FOOTBALL PROGRAM...was involved in such a thing as this(long time cover-up with numerous administrators involved, all for the sake of keeping the programs image squeaky clean)....I would hope the Board of Education would show everyone in the community that kids are worth more than the program and shut the phucker down. Fire everyone and shut it down! IMO, the cover-up was because of football....

Would it happen, I don't know....probably MUCH, MUCH easier at the high school level.....but it is what I think should be done. Not forever, but for a time....yes. Would it effect the innocent, sure....but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Note, I still am not saying that I think PSU should get the Death Penalty, I'm saying if that happened at my High School...what I think should happen.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by King James

I think the key factor is, as the current NCAA rules are written, there were not any violations of NCAA rules. A requirement for the death penalty under lack of institutional control is that the lack of control is in regard to NCAA rules.

Therefore, unless the NCAA invents a reason, regardless of what anyone arguably thinks should be the penalty, the death penalty does not appear to be an available option.

That's the way I see it, at least from what I understand.
James, I found one story about PSU's insurance, but not the one I initially read.
I read a number of others that were much like this one, and two of their insurers are covering other liability claims, maybe because they weren't didn't include the necessary wording to allow them to avoid it? They're trying to settle the claims quickly.
You guys are apparently onto something.

[357]

Originally Posted by King James

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

If PSU had stopped the criminal acts from happening right away, then covered them up you'd be right. However, they didn't. They may have eventually fired Sandusky, but they continued to allow him access to their facilities, where he continued to commit dozens of crimes over the next 13 years, and then covered those up as well.

Here's an article about the same thing:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/emmert-...96--ncaaf.html

The primary matter for the NCAA is application of its own definition of a "lack of institutional control." If the NCAA can apply it to the alleged cover-up at Penn State, it could harshly penalize the football program and also hand down broad punishment across Penn State athletics.

Penn State's failure to act when presented opportunities to confront assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, from top administration to members of the footbal coaching staff including Joe Paterno, is critical to the NCAA review but bylaws don't contain specific language that would apply to this particular case.

FBI director Louis Freeh...said "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized,"

As part of the investigation, Freeh's team unearthed email correspondence that shows Paterno not only knew of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky which he Paterno previously denied, but also portrayed Paterno as the most powerful figure in the group, advising Curley to abort a plan to file a report detailing the 2001 crime witnesses by assistant coach Mike McQueary to authorities.

I can't see arguing that the NCAA language doesn't specifically define covering up serial child rape as a rule violation. Rule breaking is bad. Covering up for a child predator is much worse, and the penalty should directly and proportionately reflect that.

[King James]

I'd guess a big reason of why they want to settle out of court quickly is to avoid the bad press from a trial. Not sure of the insurance reasons to do so.

Problem is, with the damning content of the Freeh report, Penn State likely has very little leverage. They can throw out numbers to the victims all they want, but it sure seems like the victims have all the power in the world because there isn't a jury out there that won't give them a huge some of money, and deservingly so.

[King James]

Originally Posted by 357

Covering up for a child predator is much worse, and the penalty should directly and proportionately reflect that.

Covering up for a child predator is terrible. But if a necessary element of giving out the death penalty is violation of an NCAA rule, then the penalty cannot be given out unless that element is fulfilled. So unless the NCAA creates some sort of reasoning, I don't see how it is a possible penalty

[357]

Originally Posted by King James

Covering up for a child predator is terrible. But if a necessary element of giving out the death penalty is violation of an NCAA rule, then the penalty cannot be given out unless that element is fulfilled. So unless the NCAA creates some sort of reasoning, I don't see how it is a possible penalty

It all depends on how they choose to define "lack of institutional control". One could argue that covering up felonies at the request of the football coach would constitute a lack of institutional control. I guess we'd have to know the exact language of that policy.

[jonumberone]

Originally Posted by E.J.

..I would hope the Board of Education would show everyone in the community that kids are worth more than the program and shut the phucker down. Fire everyone and shut it down! IMO, the cover-up was because of football....

I guess this is where we really disagree.
I agree that every one involved should be fired, prosecuted, and serve the maximum sentence.
After those that are involved are removed, what purpose does shutting down the program serve?
Is it fair to the students who had nothing to do with incidents to lose their programs?
If it is to lead by example, isn't a better example set, by returning a program to its glory,
using the principles that it was originally founded on?

IMO, the cover up wasn't because of football, it was because the Men in charge of football, lacked the moral character to do what's right,
and others lacked the conviction to challenge those in charge.
Neither of those reasons, is the fault of football.

[357]

Originally Posted by jonumberone

I guess this is where we really disagree.
I agree that every one involved should be fired, prosecuted, and serve the maximum sentence.
After those that are involved are removed, what purpose does shutting down the program serve?
Is it fair to the students who had nothing to do with incidents to lose their programs?
If it is to lead by example, isn't a better example set, by returning a program to its glory,
using the principles that it was originally founded on?

IMO, the cover up wasn't because of football, it was because the Men in charge of football, lacked the moral character to do what's right,
and others lacked the conviction to challenge those in charge.
Neither of those reasons, is the fault of football.

Flip it around. Is it fair that the University continue to bank millions of dollars via a program that hid these atrocities just to protect that revenue stream? PSU allowed the coverup because football = $$$$. They feared losing that money so they ignored the monster preying on children. Why allow PSU to reap the benefits of the football program when clearly the money is what is most important to them?

[King James]

Originally Posted by 357

It all depends on how they choose to define "lack of institutional control". One could argue that covering up felonies at the request of the football coach would constitute a lack of institutional control. I guess we'd have to know the exact language of that policy.

the lack of control could be loosely defined, but you can't even get at that definition if there is no violation of an NCAA rule. The "lack of control" is in relation to NCAA rules, not just lack of control in general.