Freddie says:
You’ve had a lot of liberals lamenting the collapse of the rule of law the last decade. This would appear to be a situation where the rule of law and rights of the accused are most important. It’s precisely when the media and the people have already decided the guilt of the accused (and are competing to describe his evil in the most lurid hyperbole) that these principles are the most important. And yet I find silence on that presumption of innocence from most liberal commentators, or the outright abandonment of it, when it comes to this particular case.
Freddie’s usually pretty good on drawing distinctions, but I think he’s missing the difference between condemning someone’s well-documented bad behavior, and advocating against a fair trial for the accused. I hope that Jerry Sandusky gets the best possible legal representation, that he’s given a fair trial, and that he receives justice as defined by our laws and interpreted by our courts. And I don’t pre-judge the outcome, because the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher than the standard for writing about the case in a blog or a newspaper without committing libel. In other words, I can make a (possibly incorrect) moral judgment about Sandusky without advocating that my judgment should replace the operation of the courts.
Freddie also misses that much of the outrage is directed against the institution, not Sandusky. Whether or not Sandusky really did what he’s accused of doing, it’s pretty clear that there was a full-on coverup at Penn State. The rule of law means that possible lawbreaking is investigated, no matter the status of the potential lawbreaker or the place where the alleged crime occurred. Unless and until Sandusky doesn’t receive a fair trial, the coverup is where the rule of law is in danger, not the media circus surrounding the ex-coach.
Finally, this isn’t Canada, where a judge can order a ban on pretrial publicity at the bail hearing for the accused. Does Freddie really want to go where the Canadians have gone? If not, a few liberals shutting up about Sandusky won’t make much of a difference.
Matthew B.
Worth noting that Canada, unlike the States, doesn’t have secret grand jury hearings.
cleek
Freddie’s first commenter gets it in one:
forked tongue
Welll, yeah. But the guy he has now appears to be an incompetent, lecherous publicity whore, and I have to admit I don’t find myself saying “Gee, it would be great if he got somebody better.” I’m nasty that way.
r€nato
Sandusky’s attorney must be Lionel Hutz of “I Can’t Believe It’s A Law Firm!”. That interview with Costas was damning and a really bad idea in the first place, even if Jerry had managed to get through it without sounding like he was in complete denial of being a molester.
Sal
He raped a few kids, the system we have in place…. He will be out in a year. Our system is more worried about drug crimes to keep the private prisons populated with nonviolent offenders.
Baud
Freddie’s argument reminds me of those who complain about their free speech rights being infringed whenever they are criticized. If there were a video of Sandusky having sex with boys, the law still requires that he be presumed innocent and given a fair trial and his guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t require the public to remain silent until the trial is over.
r€nato
@Sal: Um, I don’t think so. Not unless Pennsylvania has some version of California’s celebrity justice of which I’m unaware. Laws across the land are very harsh on anyone convicted of molestation.
anonymous
If he’s found innocent, will anyone believe he didn’t do it? Or will his life be utterly destroyed? If your defense is ‘but he did it, so it won’t matter what the courts say’ then you’re making the argument against letting the press cover it.
A day in court doesn’t even seem to matter anymore, and that doesn’t seem fair.
Lojasmo
@Sal:
If (please Dog let it happen) he goes to prison, he will be lucky not to be every inmate’s semen receptacle prior to his murder.
One horrifying aspect of a child rapist’s time in prison that a part of me feels is terribly fitting.
JPL
McQueary should keep his mouth shut. His grand jury testimony was credible and now he is just muddying the waters.
Ron
@Baud: I don’t know that people have complained about criticism so much as being taken off the air, but it’s the same sort of idea. What the law requires the government to do is not what individuals have to do. There is of course precedent where accusations made turned out to be just false (just as the Duke lacrosse players from a few years ago), but Sandusky’s own interview given in his defense made him sound guilty. And as is often the case, it’s the coverup by people in power that is the real issue, just as it is in the Catholic church.
Raven
@Lojasmo: Yea because THAT kind of rape is really cool. fucking idiot
Shlemizel
The problem is not so much that humans make pre-judgments but that there is an entire industry grown up around cultivating that habit for fun and profit. Nancy dis-Grace screech nightly about how some ‘subhuman’ is getting away with murder and laughing at decent Americans while doing so. All the other talking heads jump on the gravy train to easy outrage without a lick of information or a desire to illuminate. Lawyers have grown gills to swim in this muck and try to steer it for their own ends. Fair trials become impossible in this toxic environment.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lojasmo: I understand the point you are making and note that you use the word horrifying to describe it, so I am really just riffing off of your comment as I say this, but I really am bothered by the fact that people have just accepted the fact that being sentenced to prison is, for a significant number of inmates, the same as being sentenced to be raped. There is no way in which that is an appropriate punishment for any crime.
jcgrim
My outrage is directed at the extraordinary treatment Sandusky received because of his position. If the roles in the shower incident were reversed, that is,if Sandusky had witnessed a janitor showering with a 10 year old you don’t need to imagine how Paterno and the University President would have reacted. Sandusky’s influence and position bought him a cover up and time free of the judicial system.
Samara Morgan
well…. Sandusky gave a presser and now the outraged victims are pouring out of the woodwork.
freddie prolly wants the Catholic Church and the pederast priests to have the presumption of innocence as well.
Lawnguylander
Is there a guy on the internet with less cause to be so impressed with himself than this Freddie guy? He writes like he’s got one eye on his screen while the other admires his bowel movements in the bowl over there.
r€nato
@Raven: no, it’s not. But you know what? If Sandusky becomes a victim of prison rape, I’m not going to shed a tear for this predator.
Shlemizel
BTW – this business of tarring the accused for fun & profit is not new. One of the damning bits of ‘evidence’ used against Bruno Huptman was that reporters ‘found’ the Lindbergh’s phone number written on a wall in Bruno’s house. Years later, well after the execution a reporter admitted to writing it there so he could get a story.
What has changed is the size of the megaphone and the lack of diversity of opinion on these cases.
Raven
@r€nato: I stand by my statement.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: In a court of law, they should have it. Outside of a court, it is less important, but, when people leap to condemn someone and it later turns out that the person was innocent, it creates problems (e.g., Richard Jewell).
r€nato
@JPL: if he really did put a stop to the rape and he really did call the cops, then no he shouldn’t keep his mouth shut… because at this moment he’s been pilloried almost as much as Sandusky.
There should be records if he contacted the police. If he put a stop to the crime, then surely he must have told that to the grand jury, that would have been the time for that to come out.
If there is no evidence to support either, then yes he’s making matters worse by being a bald-faced liar.
Omnes Omnibus
@Raven: I am with you on that.
Cuppa Cabana
Perhaps because ‘outrage’ is appropriately directed at the agents of coverup. Sandusky, on the other hand, is the target of something else. He is being called a monster, inhuman, subhuman, vile and so on. Part of this, I think, is because commentators feel they must decry the horror in order to put in high relief their own moral rectitude, real or imagined.
The odds are overwhelmingly strong that Sandusky himself was once the victim of sexual abuse, but no one goes there — probably because that would sound like an apologist for a child molester (thereby dulling the aforementioned high relief), and partly because that line of thinking involves nuance, which Merkins don’t do.
Freddie
I recognize the distinction. I just think that trial by media is a poor idea, as Richard Jewel could have told you when he was alive. And while I recognize that the legal right to a fair trial is distinct from the opinions on guilt of the public, I also think that it becomes functionally impossible to get that fair trial when the public is convinced there’s no chance the accused is innocent.
It’s a fair point about the institution, but recognize that the same criticism holds: they are accused of crimes and deserve the presumption of innocence.
It seems likely to me that Sandusky is guilty, and thank god we don’t have a legal system predicated on the opinions of those minimally informed by the media. If he is guilty, he should spend the rest of his life in jail. Just like those in Guantanamo Bay should receive appropriate punishments, if they have been proven to have committed crimes in court.
Finally, on the outrage thing– for me, “child rapist” is enough. I don’t need to dig any further into my vocabulary to find appropriately angry terms. “Child rapist” says more than any purple prose ever could. It’s just like with bin Laden. Why is “terrorist responsible for 3,000 people killed on 9/11” not sufficient? When people dig so deeply into their bag of outrage, at some point it ceases to be about the victim and instead becomes about them.
harlana
this does not appear to be the case, did you hear the interview? yikes
Pamoya
I’ve written this before in a comment on this blog–sorry to repeat myself. But the reason for the presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system is because someone’s life or liberty is on the line. That is not the case when you are just talking about the crime on a blog. The exact same case, presented in civil court, only has to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. The reputation and the finances of the accused simply are not as big of a deal as their liberty.
I do think our criminal justice system has problems, but I think those problems are: excessive sentences, watering down the fourth and fifth amendments, the war on drugs, and courts too easily accepting bogus forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony. I have no problem with people judging the accused on blogs or in conversation. In fact, I think it is important that people openly condemn the kinds of crimes that historically have been easy to get away with such as rape and domestic violence. When it seems as if victims have a real chance at being believed and not slandered, it makes it easier for them to come forward.
Egg Berry
Someone at Crooked Timber left a comment that summed it all up:
WereBear
Dayum, I didn’t know that. Sick stuff.
jefft452
“It’s a fair point about the institution, but recognize that the same criticism holds: they are accused of crimes and deserve the presumption of innocence.”
No,” the institution” is not being accused of a crime, individuals that are part of the institution are being accused of a crime
“Whether or not Sandusky really did what he’s accused of doing, it’s pretty clear that there was a full-on coverup at Penn State. The rule of law means that possible lawbreaking is investigated, no matter the status of the potential lawbreaker or the place where the alleged crime occurred. Unless and until Sandusky doesn’t receive a fair trial, the coverup is where the rule of law is in danger, not the media circus surrounding the ex-coach”
This
Equality before the law is a pretty important principal
JPL
Even though Paterno has not been accused of a crime, the big ten felt it necessary to remove his name from the trophy.
Does anyone think he should have had the chance to clear his name?
Pamoya
I just don’t think it is true that excessive publicity makes it impossible to get a fair trial. We have lots of counter-examples: Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson immediately spring to mind, but there are others. The reality is that the most discussed cases are celebrity cases, and celebrities usually have access to the best legal representation that money can buy. I think you are far more likely to see injustice occurring in cases that are well out of the eye of the media.
Slate_reader
Sometimes I think Freddie just like taking positions contrary to most people to get attention and so he can appear holier-than-thou. In that sense, he’s not that different than the Slate crowd (or even Matt Yglesias)he despises so much. I mean, you can even imagine the Slate headline for this: Child Rape: Why it’s not as bad as you think”.
Raven
@JPL: They can always put it back if he’s proven to be clean. This is not a legal issue.
Samara Morgan
@Slate_reader:
bingo!
were you around for his kangaroo slapfighting with Sully’s borg?
Pamoya
@Freddie:
The institution is never going to appear in a criminal court, other than those two accused of perjuring themselves in front of the grand jury. Instead, they are going to be sued in to the ground in civil court, where the victims will only have to prove it is more likely true than not that they covered up the abuse. I don’t have to give them the presumption of innocence and neither will the jury that judges them.
mistermix
@Freddie: So do you support Canadian-style media gag orders?
Eric U.
McQueary is also a victim in this situation. It’s not his fault if he reacted wrongly, others could have saved him from this if they had acted when they first learned about Sandusky. I am getting tired of all the crap this guy is getting.
The other people we know about at Penn State deserve to fry. I was not a big fan of the administration before, they never were very good at what they do. Along with destroying the university, Spanier will be remembered for building a lot of ugly buildings.
r€nato
@Eric U.:
really? he witnessed a crime in progress and, instead of stopping it… instead of calling the police… he treated it as an internal matter. Exactly like his superiors did.
And long after the crime was committed, he was told the matter had been handled internally and Sandusky’s keys had been taken away. McQueary never said, ‘that’s fine, but when am I going to hear about his arrest?’
A grown man, 28 years old. I’m pretty sure that by definition, it’s his fault alone if he reacted wrongly. It may have been shocking to witness a 60 year old he knew well ass-raping a 10 year old, but once the initial shock wore off it’s pretty obvious what he should have done.
Robin G.
@r€nato: Reading his current statements, it sounds like McQ is referring to campus police. So… given how things went down at Penn State, I would not be shocked to find a curious lack of documented evidence.
Mark B.
@Eric U.: I don’t know if I’d call him a victim, but it’s a mixed bag. He fucked up, but he’s the one person who broke this open by taking some steps to tell the truth. Recent inconsistent statements make me wonder just what he did, but I think we can wait for the trial to find out.
He didn’t ask for this, but he could have done much better. In any case, I hope he just shuts the fuck up in public about it now, until it’s time for him to give testimony. He’s already creating too many inconsistencies which Sandusky and the people participating in the coverup can exploit.
El Cid
It would be interesting to hear what sort of rules people think should apply to the public sphere — i.e., the exchange of ideas between individuals, from venues personal to blogospheric — beyond the bounds of the actual legal system and courts of law in order to maintain a presumption of innocence.
In legal cases there is a distinction between “innocent” and “guilty” which pertains to a decision by a government agency on the violation of a particular law.
Outside the legal systems, things happen or don’t happen, decisions or actions are made or not made, and all of which is the subject of discussion, argument, evidence, evaluation, and the like.
For example, there would be no legalish ‘innocent until proven guilty’ presumption asked on whether or not “King Cotton” was a malicious economic and political influence upon the development of the United States, nor would such a standard be suggested to apply in any technical sense to an argument that Gavrilo Princip’s lucky shot launched WW1.
‘Innocent versus guilty’ being a completely different standard than an evaluation of the empirical strength and logical coherence of an argument.
Conversely, it would be perfectly okay for people to rage loudly about the testified behavior of Sandusky even if what he had been described as doing been legal. People are free and correct to determine for themselves what they believe to be moral, immoral, wrong, right, unjust, fair, illogical, uninteresting, etc., and not depend purely upon the legal system.
I think a lot of times people intend to urge people to have caution about making too strong conclusions from a weak argument or insufficient evidence, or not being familiar enough with an issue to render specific pronouncements, or against creating an environment in which people don’t feel comfortable to evaluate the evidence for themselves or to air contradictory views, etc., and end up using a phrase like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ or analogizing to the legal system because it’s the closest well-known tool at hand we can use to express a need for greater caution in evaluation.
Shlemizel
@WereBear:
Yup. I have no idea if Huptmann did it or not but I know for a fact that he got screwed by the press & the courts.
Robin G.
@r€nato:
You know, I’ve been wondering about that part, and came to the conclusion that even though the grand jury testimony does not explicitly state it, the rape must have stopped before McQueary left the room. Both Sandusky and the kid looked right at McQ; if you’re Sandusky (ick) do you just ignore the 28 year old football player and keep going? That’s just… deeply illogical. (And if he DID keep going knowing that McQ was watching, that opens a whole new can of disgusting rotten worms.) Based on what we know of Sandusky at this point, it seems like his more likely reaction would be to quickly stop the actual rape and pretend to be laughing and “horsing around”. Which would mean that in a hair-splitting sort of sense McQ *did* stop it, simply by being present — which is the distinction he seems to be trying to make now, since the current perception is that he turned on his heel and walked out. If I were him I’d definitely want that hair to be split, since in one version I look like a coward and in the other I look like I’m twirling my mustache evilly and contemplating joining in.
Mark S.
@JPL:
Paterno can certainly sit down with Costas or whoever and explain some of his actions or inactions.
I find it a little curious that this came out right after Paterno passed Eddie Robinson on the all time wins list. I guess it’s good Penn St. got off to a good start and they didn’t have to wait until next season.
Snowball
@mistermix:
Would you mind elaborating on this issue as I’m trying to figure it what the merits is on it? Why do Canada have it in the first place? If it is to protect the integrity of the trial, wouldn’t it be a good thing?
The Republic of Stupidity
I find it interesting that Freddie is at a point where he simply has ZERO expectations of rational behavior from the other side… not even tryin’ anymore…
burnspbesq
@Samara Morgan:
“freddie prolly wants the Catholic Church and the pederast priests to have the presumption of innocence as well.”
He should. And so should you. Because there are no possible intermediate states. Either every defendant gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence, or no defendant gets it. And without it, our criminal justice system is no more just than North Korea’s.
If you were falsely accused of a crime, I imagine you would very much want the same protections you seem so eager to deny to others.
burnspbesq
@ The Republic of Stupidity:
“I find it interesting that Freddie is at a point where he simply has ZERO expectations of rational behavior from the other side”
I’d say that lack of expectation is amply justified. Wouldn’t you?
aimai
@burnspbesq:
Why, no, the “presumption of innocence” does not apply to a multinational corporation with a 2000 year old history. The presumption of innocence is a legal term that applies only to legal matters in US courts of law (and in whatever other countries have a similar standard). It does not apply to popular appreciation of the Catholic Church’s well known history of the coverup of child abuse and child rape. I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that someone can walk in and out and piss all over it. Popular opinion and discussion has a right to follow the well known adage “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
Also, by the way, there is a long history in other legal systems of the concept of “forewarning” in which an actor who has once betrayed, sinned, or broken a law is rightfully treated as coming under slightly different laws than one who is in good standing. This also applies, in the court of public opinion, to the Catholic Church.
aimai
The Republic of Stupidity
@burnspbesq:
Absolutely…
I simply find it… telling… that he has no expectations of the other side at all anymore…
I personally find it infuriating that conservatives have managed to condition the rest of us to accept that sort of thing w/out question…
harlana
to me, the biggest concern, as far as a fair trial, is the enormous publicity this is receiving and the inability to be able to get an untainted jury pool, as someone here pointed out a few days ago (i regret i can’t remember who that was). but if they put this guy on the witness stand, oh man, it’s over for him. in his interview, he almost sounded like he was on the very cusp of a confession. very revealing, very disturbing.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Raven: Exactly. It’s not a legal issue; it’s a private organization making a statement. Kind of like the 1st Amendment protects speech from the government, not the public outrage over anyone’s statements. Same principle here.
And as cleek mentioned, the first commenter at Freddie’s nailed it in one. The presumption is a legal concept as opposed to a cultural norm. Which is not to say that it’s appalling that we have an entire entertainment industry devoted to prejudging guilt, and encouraging people to engage it the same. That’s disgusting.
It’s
West of the Cascades
@Freddie: I agree from a standpoint of the legal system Sandusky has to be presumed innocent. But a major difference between his case and Richard Jewell’s or the Duke Lacrosse Team is that, here, there’s already been a three-year grand jury investigation and dozens of statements made under penalty of perjury that all point in the same direction. Based on the evidence that came out of the grand jury, people have a right to make up their minds about the LIKELY guilt or innocence of this man even before the criminal prosecution and blog/comment accordingly.
Also, given the differing burdens of proof, the criminal system might exonerate him, but the civil system might still find him liable. This is what happened to OJ Simpson (ironically one of my childhood heroes), and from what I read of that case it seemed the dual systems of justice got it right — it was more likely than not he committed the murders, but the incompetent prosecution in the criminal trial wasn’t able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That may happen for Sandusky — and in my mind there’s already sufficient evidence to believe that it is “more likely than not” he committed child rape. And that’s enough to justify making a moral judgment even at this early point in the process.
As to the institution — we don’t need any further evidence that it is guilty, because the crime its officials are charged with is failing to report suspected child abuse to the child welfare agency as Pennsylvania law requires. Even the testimony of Schultz and Curley that they understood it to be Sandusky “horsing around” in the shower with a naked 10 year old boy was enough to trigger their reporting obligation.
We talk about it being reported to the “police” and Schultz BEING the “head of campus police” but that doesn’t absolve him from not following the law and reporting it to the child welfare agency — which would have been an outside investigator, and which, consequently, likely would have blown the lid off of this foul stewpot back in 2002. So, again, yes, I think I have enough information to make a moral judgment about the University’s culpability, at least enough to post on a blog.
West of the Cascades
@Pamoya: This.
cat48
I want the man to have a trial, but the young, poor, disadvantaged black males he raped and abused probably wanted a trial or parental consult beforehand, too. This is very GG of him. Standing up for the despicable.
lonesomerobot
and somewhat related if you’re a Steelers fan (which I am), say it ain’t so, Franco – Franco Harris trying to get Paterno re-hired at Penn State…
West of the Cascades
@Mark B.:
Horseshit. McQueary had an obligation to report what he saw to Pennsylvania Department of Welfare/Child Welfare Services, not to Joe Paterno. He kept his mouth shut between 2002 and when he was subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury in 2010. He never made a report to Child Welfare, and somehow forgot in his 2010 grand jury testimony to mention that he had called “the police” in addition to passing the buck to JoePa.
No points for McQueary for finally telling the truth for the first time under oath before a grand jury. It was another allegation of abuse at a local high school where the parent and school officials finally reported it to the proper authorities to launch the investigation that “broke this open.” And THAT abuse (alleged abuse, for the sake of Freddy’s fee fees) would not have occurred if Sandusky had been stopped in 2002. McQueary had the power to stop it with a simple phone call to Pennsylvania’s ChildLine to report what he saw, which (by his own testimony) was “suspected child abuse.” He didn’t, nor did any of the others in the hierarchy of the holy Penn State football program.
r€nato
@West of the Cascades:
the local cops aren’t buying McQueary’s “I reported it to the cops” story either.
r€nato
@burnspbesq:
if you’re the judge or on the jury, all defendants certainly deserve the presumption of innocence.
I’ve not heard anyone here call for a sham trial or mob justice for Sandusky. He’ll get his day in court and he can afford very competent defense attorneys, unlike many other defendants.
Which makes one wonder why he chose Amendola, who, it seems, approved of Sandusky’s phone interview with Costas.
Robin G.
@r€nato: The WaPo points out that campus police would be the most likely to respond — and the university’s denial has a little more tapdance to it.
r€nato
@Robin G.:
I think he is choosing to construe his conversation with Schultz as having ‘spoken with the cops’.
I think he is choosing to construe having witnessed the rape – and having Sandusky being aware of McQueary’s witnessing of his rape – as having ‘stopped’ the rape exactly as if he’d physically intervened.
I think that McQueary’s email is self-serving lawyerly nonsense.
Ron
@Eric U.: How is it not his fault if he reacted wrongly?
Blue Neponset
@jcgrim: I am not so sure about that anymore. A pedophile Janitor would hurt the Penn State football program too, and it seems to me, protecting the program is the most important thing to these sicko bastards. My guess is, the janitor would have been let go and the incident would have been hushed up in order to protect the program. A police investigation and a trial are the last things the cult of Penn State would want.
curiousleo
@r€nato: Well, I’m buying the “we have no official record” line even less than I’m buying McQueary’s reported email. That’s standard CYA.
I can see he could have called the police or particular police officer. And that police officer might not make an official report when, say, Paterno or the AD asks him not to make a report or says ‘we’ll handle it’
I can also see how McQueary didn’t call the police/911 directly but thought Paterno would make sure “the right thing” happened. And I can believe that McQueary did nothing but tell Paterno, the AD, and the VP.
I’ve long doubted that the low arrest rates for PSU football players shows that they are less likely to DUI or whatever than football players at other schools. I’ve just figured the police dept was much less likely to arrest them.
Remember, there’s at least one police officer that knew about the 1998 investigation (and Sandusky’s ‘confession to mom’) but apparently made no moves to get Second Mile to stop letting Sandusky be 1 on 1 with kids.
Robin G.
@r€nato: I agree it’s self-serving. I don’t know that it’s nonsense. I know I’ve come across as a McQ defender, but that’s because I don’t think the conclusion that has been reached and circulated by bloggers, columnists, etc — that McQueary walked into the showers, saw Sandusky raping a kid, then shrugged his shoulders and walked out — doesn’t fit with the facts. I don’t think he should be tarred and feathered for an event that had to be vastly more complicated than what we’ve heard so far. I don’t think for a minute he’s going to come out looking anything better than cowardly and stupidly trusting in his superiors, but that’s different than what he’s currently being gutted for.
r€nato
@curiousleo: I’m not saying cops would never bury or shred or round-file the evidence.
I’m saying that McQueary never seems to have told the grand jury that he contacted law enforcement. That would seem to be the one place, the most important place, to bring up that fact.
I am pretty sure that no non-brain-damaged person would forget to mention that in such a setting.
eemom
No, actually that is pretty damn far from clear. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t. But there are all kinds of disputes about who told who what and who knew what when. That’s what trials are for.
This ain’t the Catholic church, folks. Much as simple little minds love to pack everything in simple little boxes, this is a completely different situation.
Robin G.
@curiousleo: That university response smells like bullshit. Too much wiggle room for them to slither out of at a later date. You don’t use “at this point we have no record” unless you’re worried someone will say later that there *was* a record.
r€nato
@Robin G.: I am sure it was complicated for McQueary. He played for Paterno, he looked up to him and Sandusky. He had inner conflicts most of us who don’t live in State College, never attended Penn State, and never played football there would ever feel.
At some point, doing the right thing (as well as doing what may well have been his legal obligation) should have won out over his inner conflicts. Instead he obediently played along in the ‘pass the hot potato’ game.
He witnessed a violent crime committed against a child. On what planet does one *not* report that to law enforcement, at some point??
r€nato
@Robin G.: yes it’s ass-covering, but not necessarily (though possibly) for nefarious purposes. It could be they are still looking for such records. Or, it could be they don’t want to look too hard but they’re covering their asses for the possibility that such records show up someday anyway.
Mark B.
@West of the Cascades: I think things have become so muddied up by the conflicting statements that we don’t know what McQueary did or didn’t do. I’m willing to wait until the facts come out to judge him.
curiousleo
@r€nato:
Depends on what the DA asked and what the DA wanted put to the grand jury. The grand jury isn’t a trial and DAs often keep powder dry for the actual trial. They don’t have to put all their cards on the table there–only enough to show that there is sufficient evidence to bring to trial.
JasperL
@West of the Cascades:
Exactly. I’d go further and say if you read the testimony and examine the evidence we have to this point, you WILL have some opinion on whether child rape occurred and PSU covered it up.
Those who urge caution – “innocent until proven guilty!” – seem to suggest that we give up our ability to evaluate evidence as thinking humans and come to an informed opinion unless and until a higher authority, in this case a court of law, has rendered a final judgment and blessed a particular viewpoint. At a minimum, those who urge “caution” are implying that only the authority-approved judgement is worthy of being expressed. The proles must remain silent until their betters have rendered their judgment!
Samara Morgan
@eemom:
sure it is. its institutionalized child rape covered up by a large and powerful institution.
And i guess you and aimai would like to put all the blame on poor Mcqueary for not stopping this.
moral poutrage, the banner issue of the balloonjuicers.
curiousleo
There’s now a piece at the Atlantic that looks at the presumption of innocence vs media frenzy angle.
Mnemosyne
@r€nato:
Given that we only have the report from the grand jury and not the full testimony transcripts, what are you basing that opinion on?
And, hey, way to give the defense all of their talking points to get the Penn State guys found innocent of perjury. After all, we can’t trust anything McQueary says since he’s a liar and a coward, so clearly poor Tim Curley was maligned and should be given his job back.
ETA: Do you think that maybe — just possibly — the reason McQueary is not giving a public statement is that he’s the star witness in two upcoming trials and not because he’s a horrible person? Maybe telling everything he knows right now might tank those prosecutions?
Nah, of course not.
Robin G.
@r€nato: That’s one interpretation based on what we know. It’s a completely plausible conclusion that that was his thought process.
An alternative: McQueary walks in on Sandusky, who he’s had a close relationship with his whole life (and I’m damn curious about that, too), raping a kid. As McQueary’s standing there, Sandusky pulls back and pulls a “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” act, kidding around with the boy and pretending like nothing was happening, then getting the hell out of there.
McQueary, pretty sure he saw what he saw but in disbelief, calls his dad. His dad says “Tell Paterno. Paterno’s word is gospel.” So McQueary does, and then the other officials, all of whom look appropriately grim and promise they’ll take care of it. McQueary goes home, relieved that someone in charge is handling the situation.
Nothing happens. McQueary assumes that things are being investigated. After time passes and it becomes clear nothing has happened, McQueary has to make the choice between assuming his superiors have covered it up and calling the real police (and hoping they believe him however-long after the fact and with no victim having come forward), or assuming his superiors followed up and maybe they *did* take care of it and maybe he’d been wrong the whole time and it *was* just horsing around or something. And he picks the path that involves not believing he works with hateful sociopaths. Until the investigation shows up on his doorstep and any attempts at denial are gone.
It’s based on the same facts, and the actions all lead to the same place. And it absolves McQueary of absolutely nothing. My point is that there are different reasons to behave in certain ways than loyalty to a sports team or calculated selfishness.
300baud
@anonymous:
A day in court matters for for criminal sanctions, which are only applied when the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If that has changed recently, it’s mainly for the better. The standard for thinking somebody is an asshole, though, is lower. And it always has been, so don’t go pulling any imaginary “good old days” crap.
At this point we have direct testimony about anal rape from a witness, plus testimony from a number of victims. Sandusky’s defense is a generous portion of “nuh-uh,” marinated in flop sweat and drizzled with creepy. Unless you’ve got evidence of some massive conspiracy, people can reasonably conclude that he is a pederast and a monster.
People are legally and morally allowed to act on that conclusion as long as they don’t violate his civil rights or seek the sort of retribution that is so serious that we reserve to the law alone. And which we safeguard with standards like “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
eemom
@Samara Morgan:
simple little minds, simple little boxes. QED.
Roy G.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a legal term, and, while moral sense dictates that people should proceed cautiously in their personal determination of guilt, for the public the term only means ‘No Vigilantism.’ As in, no literal public lynching.
As for McQueary, he was a lot more sympathetic before he started trying to weasel his reputation back by telling his friends a different story – while not under oath. There’s an easy way to determine whether or not he’s telling the truth: Have him appear before another Grand Jury and have them ask him about his second version, under threat of perjury.
curiousleo
@Roy G.:
Or, you know, at the trials of the various PSU admin folks charged with perjury. Grand juries aren’t the only place where testimony is given. And grand juries aren’t the place where every bit of testimony is given. Good DA’s are able to keep pretty decent “control” of what’s asked/given in grand jury testimony.
Samara Morgan
@eemom: moral scold.
you are in the box of BJ moral certitude.
Samara Morgan
@eemom: shorter eemom. crotch-sniff Assange, bash Mcqueary, moral certitude.
blah blah blah.
oh yeah, Israel Uber Alles.
did i get everything?
gwangung
Hear, hear.
I have a very strong opinion based on what I’ve read. It’s subject to change, given more facts, but they’re gonna have to be one helluva context shift for me to change that opinion.
Mnemosyne
@curiousleo:
That’s the odd thing to me — are people under the impression that the trials that McQueary will be testifying at have already happened? Otherwise, I’m not sure why they’re demanding that he do public interviews revealing everything he knows now now now when doing that could very well tank the prosecution’s cases.
curiousleo
@Mnemosyne: There are many people who don’t really understand grand juries, their purpose, procedures, or rules — mostly b/c grand juries are some what secret & people are more familiar with trials as seen on tv. I know I didn’t know much about them at one point.
burnspbesq
@renato:
“I’m saying that McQueary never seems to have told the grand jury that he contacted law enforcement. That would seem to be the one place, the most important place, to bring up that fact.”
Your comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the grand jury process works.
Witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury don’t walk in, take the oath, and then open the spigot and do a wholesale brain dump. They respond to questions. If the right questions aren’t asked, highly relevant information may fail to be elicited.
It’s also worth noting that the grand jury process is inherently one-sided and biased. The target doesn’t get to give his version of the story. Prosecutors aren’t under any enforceable obligation to present potentially exculpatory evidence. An indictment is no more reliable, in terms of being a complete and balanced telling of all the relevant facts, than the typical Balloon-Juice comment. If you’ve made your judgment about anyone’s guilt or innocence based solely, or even predominantly, on the grand jury report, you’ve set yourself up for an “oh shit” moment.
pseudonymous in nc
The US deals with the implacable First Amendment by having more expansive rules in jury selection, using larger pools and giving both sides greater liberty to question and exclude jurors. Canada, like many countries that follow British precedent, deals with it through sub judice laws. There are pros and cons to both, and I don’t think you can say that one way produces inherently better outcomes than the other: what happens in the US, for the most part, is that juries for heavily-reported cases tend to be made up of people who don’t read any newspapers or watch TV news.
Snowball
@pseudonymous in nc:
Thanks for the explanation. Just what I was looking for.
Nutella
Society has both the right and the responsibility to make moral judgements. Those are, as many have said above, very different from legal judgements.
Despising Sandusky for raping children is a moral judgement we all can make based on our morals and our understanding of what happened. Our understanding can be more or less informed but it can never be perfect. We should still express moral judgement.
Nancy Grace is also completely despicable. That’s a moral judgement, too. Even though she hasn’t done anything illegal as far as I know she is disgustingly immoral and deserves public criticism.