So you're conscience is totally clear if what you've been told is true, because you notified your superior or HR, but nothing was done at that level? You don't say to yourself, "boy I was told about that, and if I would have gone the extra yard, perhaps it could have been stopped"? No guilt thinking about those affected by your lassez faire demeanor concerning a very serious offense? Really??

 

Not to mention, it's against the law to not report it to the authorities per Mcpapa's link....

An interesting link:

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/11836/Child-Abuse.html

 

 

At issue here seems to be the duty to report (and to whom) suspicion of vs. knowledge of abuse.

 

 

What is fascinating here are the wildly differing entities to whom suspicion or knowledge is to be reported. IN Pennsylvania, it is "The Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth".

 

Now, that may be fine if you're a schoolteacher and one of your students tells you that he fell down a flight of stairs when you ask him about his sling; but I would think that the Department of Welfare shouldn't be the first responder when someone is witnessing the rape of a child. Several other states do not mention law enforcement as entities to whom to report.

 

Surely I'm missing something here. Other laws that address witnessing such crimes first-hand?

So you're conscience is totally clear if what you've been told is true, because you notified your superior or HR, but nothing was done at that level? You don't say to yourself, "boy I was told about that, and if I would have gone the extra yard, perhaps it could have been stopped"? No guilt thinking about those affected by your lassez faire demeanor concerning a very serious offense? Really??

 

Well, first, you are making all kinds of assumptions: That what I was told was true. That nothing was done at the HR level, that I would feel completely free of concern or guilt in any case. That I take this kind of situation with some sort of lack of concernt. But on the flip side, many of you are being pretty lassez faire about the rights of someone who is accused. I've already said that if I were the eye-witness I'd go to the police. But the fact is, in the situations we're discussing, and in JoePa's situation, the eye-witness did NOT go to the police, and only later informed someone (JoePa in this case). The fact is that I feel that Joe Pa believed himself to be doing the right thing in informing his superiors. I do not believe he was trying to cover anything up, or he wouldn't have reported it at all. I don't think he lacked concern.

 

I just happen to be about the most apologetic person you'll meet. I apologize for EVERYTHING and I feel bad about EVERYTHING no matter whether it's my fault or not. Ask TDanza or PepRock. :lol: Anyway...there is clear, written policy where I work about what is to be done.

 

And lastly, there's nothing more delicious to the media and the public than a good man/woman/institution FINALLY being brought down.

Sounds to me, that sitting on the information was against the law. Hopefully they go after Joe Pa to the fullest extent possible.

 

3rd degree misdemeanor according to the link.

 

However, hasn't JoePa already given grand jury testimony in this case?

What is fascinating here are the wildly differing entities to whom suspicion or knowledge is to be reported. IN Pennsylvania, it is "The Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth".

 

Now, that may be fine if you're a schoolteacher and one of your students tells you that he fell down a flight of stairs when you ask him about his sling; but I would think that the Department of Welfare shouldn't be the first responder when someone is witnessing the rape of a child. Several other states do not mention law enforcement as entities to whom to report.

 

Surely I'm missing something here. Other laws that address witnessing such crimes first-hand?

 

And I'm confused, even after reading your link, about what constitues knowledge to the level that you are to report to the authorities directly.

Well, first, you are making all kinds of assumptions: That what I was told was true. That nothing was done at the HR level, that I would feel completely free of concern or guilt in any case. That I take this kind of situation with some sort of lack of concernt. But on the flip side, many of you are being pretty lassez faire about the rights of someone who is accused. I've already said that if I were the eye-witness I'd go to the police. But the fact is, in the situations we're discussing, and in JoePa's situation, the eye-witness did NOT go to the police, and only later informed someone (JoePa in this case). The fact is that I feel that Joe Pa believed himself to be doing the right thing in informing his superiors. I do not believe he was trying to cover anything up, or he wouldn't have reported it at all. I don't think he lacked concern.

 

I just happen to be about the most apologetic person you'll meet. I apologize for EVERYTHING and I feel bad about EVERYTHING no matter whether it's my fault or not. Ask TDanza or PepRock. :lol: Anyway...there is clear, written policy where I work about what is to be done.

 

And lastly, there's nothing more delicious to the media and the public than a good man/woman/institution FINALLY being brought down.

 

Bolded: certainly came to fruition in this case. Why would you not believe the person telling you is not being truthful? How do you violate someone's rights, by calling the police? Yes the eye witness is at fault and I'm guessing could be facing criminal charges. And again, the accused is a very good friend of Paterno. Human's are weak and make poor decisions all of the time. I believe this reeks of cover up. As far as policy, there is a point where morality trumps policy in deciding what is the right thing to do.

I guess to me it comes down to what I'd be able to live with. Would I be able to live with myself knowing I had information (that ended up being true) that could have stopped children from being raped, but sat on it? Absolutely not, I couldn't live with myself if that happened. Could I live with the fact that I acted on that same information (that ended up being false) and possibly smeared an innocent adults reputation? Yes, I could live with that, knowing I was trying to protect innocent children.

Well, first, you are making all kinds of assumptions: That what I was told was true. That nothing was done at the HR level, that I would feel completely free of concern or guilt in any case. That I take this kind of situation with some sort of lack of concernt. But on the flip side, many of you are being pretty lassez faire about the rights of someone who is accused. I've already said that if I were the eye-witness I'd go to the police. But the fact is, in the situations we're discussing, and in JoePa's situation, the eye-witness did NOT go to the police, and only later informed someone (JoePa in this case). The fact is that I feel that Joe Pa believed himself to be doing the right thing in informing his superiors. I do not believe he was trying to cover anything up, or he wouldn't have reported it at all. I don't think he lacked concern.

 

I just happen to be about the most apologetic person you'll meet. I apologize for EVERYTHING and I feel bad about EVERYTHING no matter whether it's my fault or not. Ask TDanza or PepRock. :lol: Anyway...there is clear, written policy where I work about what is to be done.

 

And lastly, there's nothing more delicious to the media and the public than a good man/woman/institution FINALLY being brought down.

 

Ok, here's a hypothetical. Say you have a coworker who you know was investigated for touching young boys in 1998 and he stepped down (surprisingly) from a position soon there after. Then in 02 you're told by another coworker that this same guy was in your facility at the very least showering with and touching another 10 year old kid. You trust the coworker that told you this info to promote him on more than one occasion. Then your ex coworker is bringing little boys to your company events a lot. Then 3 years ago you're made to testify to a grand jury about the 02 incident so you know it's a pretty serious allegation. Would you still hang out with this coworker? Would he be allowed in your facility?

 

This timeline is disturbing. I'm telling you that when this all comes out and over 50 victims are confirmed and the knowledge that Paterno had anyone who supported him is going to feel bad. It's going to get worse:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16049259/key-dates-in-penn-state-sex-abuse-case

I guess to me it comes down to what I'd be able to live with. Would I be able to live with myself knowing I had information (that ended up being true) that could have stopped children from being raped, but sat on it? Absolutely not, I couldn't live with myself if that happened. Could I live with the fact that I acted on that same information (that ended up being false) and possibly smeared an innocent adults reputation? Yes, I could live with that, knowing I was trying to protect innocent children.

 

Exactly PSU told the guy we know what you did was sick, but keep an office here. Just don't bring any more little boys here to shower with them. Take it elsewhere. This is way beyond disturbing.

^Sadly, I'm of the belief that Paterno played a very big part in trying to cover this up.

I agree. I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg here. Hard to believe people are hitching their caboose to this train wreck

Article asking these very questions from April and Paterno and the PSU higher ups continued to allow this guy on their facilities. The fact that all of these people knew after the alleged 02 incident that he had easy access to kids should be a crime:

 

http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

So I know it's really not football or athletics related, but if ever there was a case of "Lack of Institutional Control", wouldn't this be it?

It's a true shame that Paterno isn't retiring on his own terms and will forever in my mind be remembered for this, no matter what he accomplished on the football field. And I say that with no sympathy for him, just saying its a shame.

It's a true shame that Paterno isn't retiring on his own terms and will forever in my mind be remembered for this, no matter what he accomplished on the football field. And I say that with no sympathy for him, just saying its a shame.

Sounds like he is going out on his own terms to me. He gets to have his victory lap against Nebraska where he will no doubt receive adulation from thousands of fans. :madman:

 

If it's not clear by my tone in this thread, I don't think Paterno deserves ANY of that!