The Penn State Rape Scandal and the Myth of the ‘Otherwise Decent Person’
As I’ve said over the years, the world owes Christopher Hitchens a great debt for coining a term for this sort of outrageous moral relativism and childish antinomianism: sinister piffle.
The idea that people who cover up the rapes of children — facilitating further rapes in the future by either inaction or becoming accessories — can be considered “good” people is to turn the very idea of virtue on its head. One cannot deny justice to rape victims through their actions and still be called a “good man” as Douthat calls Paterno. The myth of the Otherwise Decent Person is just that — a myth. It is a fantasy perpetuated by small people of poor character to excuse their own perfidy and moral cowardice.
Writing about crime, I come across this corrupt and wearisome idea with what is unfortunately no longer alarming regularity. Any time some criminal matter gains sufficient traction on the Internet, the family and friends of the criminal show up in the comments of crime blogs and news sites with the same tired apologia. “Sure, so and so murdered someone in a robbery but he was a good father” or “Of course pimping out your kids is wrong, but at least they were well fed” are phrases I assure you have been left on sites I run or frequent.
The arguments are always the same — some person does something horrible and people that know the person detail the nice things they’ve done which usually consist of nothing more than the bare minimum of what you expect functioning adults to do. I just blogged about a man named Robert Walker who was caught with child pornography on his computer. During the investigation, both he and his wife tried to blame Walker’s two teens for the illegal material even though forensic investigators determined that Walker was the person downloading the child porn.
By Douthat’s logic, Walker’s wife is still a decent person who was just “led into temptation” by her good intentions of keeping her family together. Again, this is sinister piffle designed to relieve degenerates of the weight of their moral failings.
Though no piffle written about the Penn State scandal is quite as sinister as Megan McArdle’s argument in defense of the craven and despicable Mike McQueary. McQueary apparently told the grand jury that he witnessed Sandusky anally raping a child in the shower and ran home to his father to figure out what to do next. That story earned him well-deserved scorn so he’s changed his story, saying now he did stop the rape – just not physically. I guess he gave Sandusky a talking to. For actual decent people, that’s not quite the reaction we want to see from a person who purports to be a man.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Oh, you’ve already thrown them all?
Nevermind. I guess you’re better than everyone.
There’s sin, and then there’s pedophilia. This isn’t overlooking a booster giving players cash. McQueary I can kinda almost sort of give a bit of a pass to, being young and in a tenuous job. U. administrators and JoePa, no. Hearing about “something of a sexual nature” and “a ten year old” requires full throated vigorous action and follow up.
McQueary was 28 years old. That’s not young.
Moreover, he actually witnessed a rape himself.
Those who were not eye-witnesses but only heard about the crimes might have convinced themselves that it just couldn’t be true. I do NOT excuse them, but I think McQueary is the most despicable of all.
Incredulous,
By the tone of your comment, it appears that you think you’ve made a point.
Please clarify: it almost seems that you are attempting to condone the actions of those involved by saying that since all are sinners, none should be held accountable.
I’m sure that’s not what you meant…
I certainly hope that’s not what he meant!
No sane person condones pedophilia, so one assumes that you do not.
so….you don’t criticize or challenge inaction in the face of evil because…you are a sinner? What’s “incredulous” is that you think this passes for logic. The woman in the biblical story you reference was about to be killed for the moral failure of adultery. No one suggests that is fair or appropriate treatment for Paterno or McQueary, but heaping scorn on those who twist themselves into moral and relativistic knots, justifying their inaction in the face of evil, is both fair and appropriate.
I don’t know if Jesus would have have said the same thing if the woman in the bible had been accused of molesting a child. I do know that he was not afraid to confront evil, nor excuse it. Neither should we.
Sandusky did not participate in charitable activities, especially Second Mile, because he was a good person doing good deeds. He, like many of his predatory bretheren, was always on the lookout for an opportunity to indulge in his real passion, the homosexual rape of little boys. They network, they share victims, and I guess they now create glossy front charities to hide their activities and attract their preferred sexual prey.
I’m guessing that if there is one Sandusky in Second Mile, there are twenty. That’s how they roll. Its for the Children, remember?
It is bizarre how the hysteria in this matter leads to rapid trial and conviction by the press and pundits.
Objectively-in fact- nobody knows who is guilty of anything at this point.
Penn State has a lot of money—and a lot of people and lawyers see a golden opportunity for cash and fame by extorting the situation–and they are.
In fact-a grand jury can indite a ham sandwich.
BTW-
The Catholic Church had a pederast problem–not a pedophile problem -
95% of the RC cases involved adolescent boys who were molested by closeted gay priests.
A court of law is not the only place justice can be served – only one of them. Used to be, public scorn was a more effective tool of community policing than the rarely-seen circuit court judge. That’s why we had stocks – you got clapped in them for a Sunday over relatively minor transgressions, people threw rotten cabbage at you and made fun of you between church services, then you got out and went back to work on Monday, hopefully to sin no more. (I wonder what would happen if Lindsay Lohan were clapped in the stocks this way?)
Had it not been for the press, O.J. Simpson would have had no punishment at all – same for many high-profile cases where justice was clearly not served.
The press is not held to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, as criminal courts are. Sometimes that’s bad, as in the public lynching of Judge Clarence Thomas. Most of the time, however, it’s good, particularly on a local level where the gossip grapevine generally knows the truth and will hold the press to it. Were it not for public excoriation, I wonder if we’d have the freedom and the level of civil rights we currently have?
“Used to be, public scorn was a more effective tool of community policing than the rarely-seen circuit court judge.”
It still is, it always is. Public scorn and common expected standards of behavior are still and always the foundation and frame of a house, of a community, of a society. The courts and official policing are e’er but minor players.
In fact, pederasty is a subset of pedophilia. Where a pedophile is an adult attracted to children, pederasty is sex between a man and a boy… so yeah, there was a pedophile problem in the catholic church.
Cheers.
Pederast as opposed to pedophile is hair splitting used to provide cover for degeneracy and wickedness.
Somehow, both of those seem degenerate and wicked, but hey, however you choose to parse it for your own convenience. When clarifying definitions – no, never mind.
Have a nice day sport.
Don’t think the man’s point was the name of the crime – pederasty v. pedophila – but rather the kind of man that commits the crime. Note the reference to “closeted gay priests.” The prevalence of pederasty and the youth focus of the gay community may suggest a correlation. This is why Boy Scouts forbid gay leaders. Argue it either way, I just think he’s referring to the criminal not the crime and relating it to a community.
Dude, yeah I get part of that – and my point was fairly straight-forward also – in response to his assertion that “The Catholic Church had a pederast problem–not a pedophile problem” the statement isn’t accurate. Simple.
And the response that “Pederast as opposed to pedophile is hair splitting used to provide cover for degeneracy and wickedness,” is a pretty clear implication that the distinction I’m drawing is for the purpose of providing cover for a vile crime.
So, Dude, is the catholic church guilty of harboring pederasts? Absolutely. Are they guilty of harboring pedophiles? Of course they are, and to suggest otherwise is simple error. In fact, I would agree that pederasty is the more correct term; however, if that were the point, it would have been relatively simple to make. And if, as you suggest, his point was simply to refer to the criminal and not the crime, that too, would have been a simple point to make.
Instead, as he’s done on other comments he either didn’t like or disagreed with, he devolved to ad hominem tactics; such as his comment in “Let me guess, RSO (registered sex offender)?” You see Dude, it’s at points like these where you get a feel for your conversant and respond accordingly.
Cheers.
To clarify – I get what you’re saying if it’s about Victor. My reply that you commented on was directed at Rob – not Victor.
Cheers.
Actually Skald I was agreeing with you. Pointing out that people making those arguments are trying to cover up their defense of child molestation.
My apologies Rob. I fear I may be responding poorly in more than just this case – because I am not quite seeing the nesting of responses properly.
Cheers
On my crime blog, I block two types of comments.
One type is rapists and child molesters complaining that they have been misunderstood. I used to be surprised by the volume of such letters, but I do appreciate them for this–it really teaches you the degree of denial that reinforces such behavior (denial that manifests in entire communities — it really does take a village to rape a child).
The other letters I block are the ones celebrating the murder of “pigs” or police officers. The seething hatred in these, including wishing suffering for surviving spouses and children, is shocking.
Now I regularly hear from people whose gangster friends have been killed, celebrating this or that Homies’ life. Anyone who thinks there isn’t a growing class of utterly feral predators out there is fooling themselves. Sure, they mostly kill each other. But they’re still children and we’re still civilized, right?
But, hey, Right on Crime thinks we’re too tough on all these predators.
I’ve read and enjoyed your site by the way.
Defining deviancy down. Decades of socialist indoctrination have left us impotent–our instant reaction is inaction.
Can you say, ‘Sodom and Gomorrah?’
We’re already there. As I remember the bible, that didn’t end well.
Does anyone remember how STAR TREK dealt with the: “He’s basically a good person.” kind of argument. This was where the disappearing man-like creature sucked the minerals out of humans. The creature had to be killed; and, that was done.
Remember “Charlie X”? A human teenager who was raised by aliens who imbued him with superhuman powers sought asylum with his fellow humans. Kirk had no choice but to return him to his alien “family” to solve the obvious dilemma posed by the fact that he would never conquer the impulse to utilize those powers & would ultimately destroy all humanity he came in contact with.
A lot of stupidity above. The quote is those without LIKE sin cast the first stone. The first comment is sinister piffle: good example.
Let’s look at something that relates to that old time religion: the only dignity a person has is conferred by group membership. The American view is just the opposite.
Believe what you like, but hold people accountable and prevent harm when you may: everyone that comes over you transom is a neighbor.
Well put. I do wish people who quoted religious texts would at least quote them accurately.
Funny, I can’t believe you care what the truth is.
One of the horrors of the depravity of this entire mess is that none of the apologists for Paterno and McQuery seem bothered that adults are supposed to protect children. We all hope and believe that if we’re in a dangerous, terrible situation and call for help that someone may/will hear us and come running to rescue us. Imagine how that little boy who was being raped by Sandusky must have felt when McQuery saw what was happening and instead of instantly stopping that horrible rape just turned and walked away. There is simply no excuse.
Exactly. No one cares about this most obvious betrayal of decency and morality.
Wow you could not be more stupendously wrong. A great many people care a great deal. The wiser ones aren’t into moral preening, as you are, they are understanding that by the lights of the benighted society we have let the left shape–and the right in some cases–McQueary acted reasonably.
They understand that and would like to change it.
I cannot say exactly what McQueary saw, and you can’t either. What I do know is that a DA with no known reasons to shade the facts in Sandusky’s favor could not get a grand jury to indict the man. This may well mean there are complicating factors we don’t know of yet.
If I saw an adult raping a child, then I think I would intervene quickly and violently to stop it, but I don’t know exactly what McQueary saw, I wasn’t there.
Yes, yes it’s moral preening to say someone witnessing child molestation should at least call 911 right when they see it, and hopefully pull the child to safety with or without violence.
Say Tom, your name sounds familiar. Are you from Texas?
No. It’s moral preening to claim that in any case of child rape anyone might ever encounter, that it is always immediately obvious that that is what is happening.
It is not nearly so odious as child rape, but the bullying tendentious way you are putting words in other people’s mouths here makes me think I’m glad not to know you.
So, are you saying that if you walked into a men’s shower and saw a middle-aged man sodomizing a 10 year old child, it wouldn’t be obvious to you that the child was being raped? Can you please explain?
I know personally at least one person who had an adult’s weight and height at age 12. Until I know what McQueary saw, I won’t say it should have been obvious to him that he should have intervened immediately.
It’s a distinction you aren’t familiar with, knowing the facts before shooting your mouth off.
OK, so you know one 12 year old who might possibly appear to be an adult from behind… are you suggesting that, because of this, McQueary should not have assumed that the person in the shower, that he stated “appeared to be a 10 year old boy being sodomized by Sandusky”, was in all probability a child, and that he should not have immediately called the police? Are you suggesting that it has to be completely obvious that it’s a child, that any potential witness should put the adult in that situation above the child? Or are you suggesting that perhaps it was “consensual”?
These are all serious questions… pretty straightforward, really only needing a “yes” or “no”. But as I said below, if you’re worried you’ll be misunderstood, please feel free to explain.
No, I know of a person who at 12 WOULD HAVE been taken for a adult. Boy was 5-9, weighted 200 pounds, had a beard and a deep voice, was hairy, and could bench like 465. Didn’t have a neck. I remember that very well, he was two ahead of me that day in gym (would have been ’83, ’84).
He may have been roided out, I don’t know. But there’s no might have been in question.
I love how you amateurish Kreskins are willing to substitute your own suppositions for others direct experience. But then, you aren’t honest, you’re pushing an agenda. Like Nancy Grace.
And, not surprisingly, you’ve managed to avoid answering the question, or explain how your answer has anything at all to do with the original question.
I’m not substituting my own anything for anything… I’m simply asking questions that you seem to be taking great pains to avoid answering.
You’re right, I am pushing an agenda. At this very moment, I’m trying to spread awareness of abuse and the extent to which predators will go to get what they want, as well as the extent to which pro-pedophile and RSOL activists will go in the hopes that they can change how pedophiles and RSOs are viewed by society. What’s you’re agenda, Tom? You obviously have one, or you would’ve left the discussion a while ago.
Denver Bob –
I think you are going to have to let us know which version of the Bible you read. The King James is “He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her.” The New International Version “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” ect, ect. There is none out of 19 versions or translations that state “like”. (http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm) They are all instead are similar to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (as incredulous states) But maybe to you the Bible is as easiy flexible to the situation as Constitutional Rights (like due process, that has been thrown out once too many times). Or maybe you wish to have a more “sharia” compliant system? I heard the El-Shabbab “courts” are the most efficient. They get to accuse, convict, and execute in minutes time. And if anyone disagrees with them? Shoot them too!
I agree with your last two paragraphs (and especially like the last), but your first, about people’s stupidity is a little puzzling. I would guess that most people quote the bible they are most familiar with… NIV, King James, NKJV, American Standard, etc. In each of these, the word like isn’t used. In fact, here are a list of versions used in comparative bible study: “John 8:7″ that would suggest that the word like is probably little known to most bible readers.
Cheers.
I think the use of the word “like” in that passage was not known to the first writers. I’d like to see a citation otherwise.
Yes and other than that little Jewish problem … er … Godwin got the trains running on time and loved children and dogs.
Suspect contact sports.
Look at the PSU wrestling team, please.
McArdle’s almost right and her well-stated understandings explain why MOST people don’t act the way keyboard punching loons would demand they do.
I’ll tell who does act the way you the loony keyboard punching essayist would want, and can say so because I have so acted in more than enough past occasions, leaping into the danger. That kind of person (being me and some others) is one in many. One in hundred, one in a thousand, one in more thousands, depending on the danger and social hazard level of the mise-en-scène.
And speaking as one of the very few, I can tell you I do it because I’m not normal, and I do not have those expectations of normal people. I used to, but as I matured I’ve learned to respect their inaction in the face of such problem situations.
You, bold keyboard punching essayist, make light of the immediate danger to an intervenor. It is likely BOTH Sandusky and the 10 year boy would have begun whacking on McQueary. But that’s just the immediate danger that would have been possible in that moment then. The long term dangers and stun-effects based on them are as McArdle describes.
McQueary DID do something. That counts too. Most folks would have walked away and after a few days, pushed the memory out of mind, with NO ACTION AT ALL.
McQueary is the one in a hundred of people who do actually really DO SOMETHING in encountering such a scene. He is not the one in thousand or the one in ten thousand or more, the kind of idiots like me who jump in (almost) regardless of danger.
WHY DID THIS SITUATION FESTER AT PENN STATE FOR DOZENS OF YEARS? Only, dear keyboard punching essayist, because the great majority of people do NOT chose to fully observe, fully understand and then fully react to such crimes. Heroes are few. And “heroes” are crazy and dangerous of themselves in many cases, for the social outcastness and the extremes of alerting behavior that allow us to react immediately in such situations makes us also problematic for the normal regular order of day-in-day-out society.
LET ME GIVE YOU THE NAMES OF TWO SUCH HEROES AND IT MIGHT ENLIGHTEN YOU:
Colonel-Surgeon Terry Lakin and Dentist Orly Taitz.
I actually have intervened in crimes myself – not because I’m unique but because good people do so. My wife has as well and several other people I know.
Other than that, spread the crackpottery elsewhere. We’re talking about child rape not attention whores.
“Other than that, spread the crackpottery elsewhere. We’re talking about child rape not attention whores.”
He’s not spreading crackpottery, and he is talking about child rape. Why do you think he’s talking about something else? Many people will not intervene. That doesn’t make it right, but I believe that is how it is.
Orly Taitz is a crackpot birther – referencing her here is inappropriate. I’ve seen you name somewhere before Tom – it’s on the tip of my tongue. Tom Perkins. Sounds so familiar to me.
My name is Thomas David Perkins, I live in Virginia. You don’t know me, I’m glad not to know you. I don’t know what you think you have on me, but I know it’s nothing.
Why don’t you come right out and claim what you’re hinting at, so I can laugh at you.
The evidence is in. Rob Taylor would have indeed jumped in. For sloppy seconds. Why? Because the “crime” was in it’s time and place socially acceptable. AND it was being committed by a high status persona.
Just as Rob Taylor jumps in to bash Dentist-Attorney Taitz and to throw his feces at those outside the monkey cage (by way of using a euphemism of calling them vicious names.)
I’ll amp up the parallel! Would you call me nig-ger lover too, Rob Taylor? The evidence is also clear — if this was 1965, a Rob Taylor would have jumped in to civil rights march to yell “you nig-gah lover!” at the whites marching with the blacks. Today, the vicious word is “crackpot”. It carries the same sense of harsh forceful exclusion from polite society.
Back to 1998 and Happy Valley: Would Rob Taylor have jumped in to intervene if it was a young adult (ie: over 18) college center and a quarterback engaged in the same action? Or to a Rob Taylor is THAT mise-en-scène perfectly within today’s and his own moral codes?
A true man attempts to live to a moral code outside of that of the mob, beyond the moral fads, far away from temporary social castings of codes of right and wrong.
Thanks, Tom Perkins. I appreciate your defense.
I’m sure you know that Rob is bi-racial. I’m also sure that your attempt to get a rise out of him with that one got an eyeroll, at best, which is probably why he didn’t bother responding. Surely, even you must realize how ridiculous your comment was.
And, really, are you proposing that being born black or bi-racial is anything remotely similar to choosing to molest/rape children?
You remind me so much of the other Tom. Same moral relativism and justification of depravity.
Since I haven’t said one thing that that supports either depravity or moral relativism, you must yet again be thinking of some other guy. You’re getting it wrong again.
I will say you and DodiaFae have the same stench as Nancy Grace.
“and they please themselves in the children of strangers.”
Isaiah 2:6
Pedophiles were prophesied over 2,500 years ago.
But don’t forget those same children live in our prisons and they please themselves in the Pedophiles brought into their cages..
I hope Sanduskys first cell mate is a big, hairy,
muscle bound brute named Brutus,
and he just loves night party’s with assistant football coaches and college professors.
“Pedophiles were prophesied over 2,500 years ago”
Pedophiles existed 2,500 year ago. And frankly, once they were menstruating (or the like), by their lights then, it’s wasn’t pedophilia. By the time puberty got going, childhood was done.
Do you believe that’s still the case?
No, and you have no honest reason even for asking the question.
My first response to this post of yours was eaten by the forum.
So in your moral outrage over rape you advocate for . . . rape.
And extra-judicial rape at that.
If you find it so offensive, why aren’t you pressing to have the law changed and volunteering to be the “executioner” of the lawfully prescribed rape yourself?
Further, your initiate your outrage by citing the Bible.
I am curious, where exactly in the Bible does it advocate for rape as the proper penalty for rape?
One might think that having the invoked the Bible you would perhaps prefer a reasonably Biblical penalty, but instead you seem eager to instead promote further sodomy. That seems rather contradictory.
Let me tell you from a victim’s point of view (my own) that I would’ve welcomed intervention. I would NOT have pounced on the intervening person, as I felt extreme shame and total disenfranchisement from the rest of society. I knew what was going on was not right, but felt helpless. I was a child, too. To those who think this young boy may have wanted this sexual act, you must have never been a victim of any such thing, yourself.
I’m going to guess that what McQuery was afraid of wasn’t physical danger, it was losing a job and a career. That’s why he wanted to talk to his Dad. And at his age he was probably naive enough to think that reporting the incident to his boss would be enough to get the authorities involved and Sabdusky charged. He knows better now.
I don’t know: maybe suddenly presented with the awful scene of someone I respected and admired committing a heinous crime, I would have been shocked, too surprised to move, and just stood there blithering. I don’t know if that would have happened, it might, and I don’t know how long it would have taken me to recover.
But I do know how long it wouldn’t have taken me to recover! It wouldn’t have taken me nine years! At some point, after 30 seconds or 30 minutes or something, I would have realized, “Hey, Jerry’s a rapist! I have to stop him!” And at that point, admittedly somewhat belatedly, the 911-calling or the Jerry-stomping or both would commence.
The author misses the point. People are tired of one standard for parents and another for institutions. Parents are too often absolved of their parental responsibilities. Also, all of these kids had safe homes to go to. Sure, child molestation is ugly but so is a root canal, flu and dirty diapers. These kids will get over it. If you really want to talk about child abuse, talk about incest but seldom does the media talk about incest. Victims of incest have no safe home to go to and the media response is nothing but crickets chirping.
Are you kidding? Child molestation is like root canals? How evil do you have to be to make such a comparison. I suppose we should being anally raped a right of passage.
Let me guess, RSO?
So you’re comparing a child being sodomized with a root canal… or diaper rash???
As disgusted as I am by this comparison, I’m not at all surprised. It’s extremely common for pro-pedophile activists to make such asinine comparisons… I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen or heard someone claiming that pedophiles and RSOs are in the same boat as the Jews in WWII. Disgusting. I’ve even seen one claim that a breastfeeding mother is molesting her child. Disgusting. But keep up the good work… no matter how much I try to explain to regular folk how distorted the thinking of people like you, no one can make them understand just how distorted your thinking is better than you can.
Sorry… the comparison was with a *dirty* diaper… not even diaper rash… because, you know, poopy diaper and sodomy… same thing. :::eyeroll:::
“So you’re comparing a child being sodomized with a root canal… or diaper rash??? ”
No, that’s not what that person said. They were making a confused point about there being different standards for institution and parents, and they were trying to call attention to incest as being a bigger or as big a problem as out-of-family pedophilia.
No, what he was trying to say is that the sexual abuse that happened at Penn State wasn’t as bad as incest, etc. It’s all in the choice of wording… he said “these kids will get over it” is typical of pro-pedophile argument, and it’s complete nonsense.
In this case how is incest a bigger problem – and that commenter literally compared getting raped to a dental procedure then said “kids get over it” which according to any study of victims simply isn’t true.
I work in a prison system – I wasn’t surprised by the weird on vile explanations that various sex-offenders used to justify themselves and pretend to a modicum of “innocence,” but their defenders still surprise and appall me no matter how many times I hear them spout this nonsense. I still wonder if defenders truly believe the imbecilities they use in a sex offender’s defense. Astonishing – and you’re right – disgusting.
Cheers.
Their defenders are usually sex offenders (though many of them likely haven’t been caught yet). Whenever there’s a piece like this posted anywhere on the internet, they post links on their pedophile boards and RSOL boards to get their friends to flock to these discussions in the vain hopes that they can convince normal people that pedophiles aren’t so bad. It’s disgusting.
“These kids will get over it.”? You can’t possibly be that stupid.
You’re behind the times. In fact, if you run a “crime blog,” you should be well aware of how brutal our government can be on men who actually stand up to criminals. Many a man has been savagely attacked by the state for the use of force in defense of his property and even his family, even though the violence may have been perfectly moderate.
This is a society that frequently kicks men’s asses up the street and back for acting like men and now it wants them to respond heroically? No, men like Patterno and McQueary are perfect examples of what happens when you make it clear that men cannot behave like real men without legal jeopardy.
And don’t think for a minute that conservatives haven’t been part and parcel of this transformation of society. While liberals have tended to support restrictions on the use of force generally, it is conservatives who have lead the way in abolishing all authority that private citizens once had to stand up to crooks in government positions. It was conservatives who made it a crime to forcefully resist a police officer who is unlawfully carrying out an arrest (which for most America’s history was called a kidnapping, a felony, not an error in the officer’s judgment). So why would you expect a population raised by left and right to not participate in the enforcement of laws, to never raise a hand against authority figures and to never know when it can really use force safely (under the law) to fight like you expect?
Excellent point. While I like to believe that had I come across a crime in progress like McQuery did I would have heroically intervened and beaten Sandusky into submission, none of us really know how we will respond when actually facing this situation.
Would you intervene if you saw a man roughing up a woman? I have a friend who did that, a classic “white knight.” He was stabbed multiple times – by the woman. Fortunately he lived but he bears a nasty scar on his face to this day.
McQuery froze and ran. But at least he went to an authority figure the next day to report it. His failure “to do more” pales in comparison to the wanton, deliberate cover-up perpetrated by the Penn St. power network.
McQuery’s failure to stop Sandusky at that moment is a red-herring in this demonic affair. The importance of McQuery is to highlight Paterno’s role in the cover-up.
What many men don’t understand is that if they white knight for a woman who is being roughed up by her lover, she is as likely to find the fight sexually arousing as a terrifying crime in progress. They don’t like hearing this, and you’ll always find a number of women who’ll come out of the woodwork to make you sound like an idiot for suggesting that not every woman is attracted to Prince Charming, but it’s a well-documented phenomenon. In that sense it’s much like how many seemingly normal, put upon men will put up with a lot of crap from a beautiful girlfriend or wife that seems bizarre to outsiders.
As a rule of thumb, if they don’t appear to be perfect strangers, don’t get involved. If you are going to get involved, you better be able to finish it quickly and be prepared to take on two, not one.
So if you saw a kid getting raped up the ass you’d not pull him to safety?
He didn’t say that, did he Rob? From what I’ve read of you here, you’re awful big on putting words in people’s mouths.
Actually he did. He used a probably made up story to imply that people should never intercede on a victims behalf and worse compared a child being raped to a bad relationship.
Are you Tommy Joe Perkins?
Wrong Mike. Many a story of men defending themselves leads to nothing more than an honorable mention. Your odd anti-conservative ax to grind sounds more like an excuse for other people’s lack of character.
And that’s a leading reason why we need to re-implement fully informed juries who are affirmatively given the job of judging the facts, the application of the law, and the validity of the law itself. The state cannot under those circumstances persecute without popularity. And that is better than it persecuting without popularity.
Why don’t we teach the classics any more? (Or, if we do, why do we seem to limit the scope of our study to morality plays and fairy tales, each of which has their merits, but neither of which tends to deal with any nuance with the conflicting aspects of each human being?) Were Shakespeare and Sophocles fools to write of great men with fatal flaws? When purely evil men commit evil acts, there is very little for us decent folk to learn because we are, of course, so much better–in kind and degree–than the villain. When our betters (yes, Joe Paterno was my better in many ways, much as that concept has fallen out of vogue) commit evil acts, we are forced to reexamine all of our assumptions about good and evil and what it means to be a good person or to live in a good society. We must confront the weaknesses that might give breathing room for evil in the heart of the “otherwise decent” person. It is too easy to assert that the sinner was merely masquerading as a good person, simply a fraud. That absolves us of the hard work of learning what it is to be human.
You seem to be saying ISMW that in order to be “human,” we’re expected to commit evil acts, or am I mistaken here? The fact that Paterno did not do more is a real tragedy. I think it was appropriate for Penn State to let him go; it was the least they could do. Perhaps this whole saga will serve to discourage such cowardly approaches to such horridly evil displays as sodomizing a child. It’s the decent, civilized thing to do. It’s the right thing to do.
….serve to discourage such cowardly approaches in the future to such….
Not in the least. I am speaking to our responsibility to recognize in these evil acts and omissions–acts and omissions that, once proven, should be punished to the fullest under the law and the rules of Penn St.–a strain of human weakness or illness or, to use a term that has fallen out of favor, evil that is by no means unique to this particular set of malefactors or alien to our own hearts. It won’t do merely to assert that we are morally superior and that this is the work of monsters. Paterno was a great man. Now he is a failure. If such a turn of events does not cause us to reflect upon our own values and whether we possess the courage (courage being the quintessential virtue) to live them when it counts, then we will find ourselves unprepared when put to the test
A) Consider no man your better, a man must have some pride.
B) Beyond Shakespeare, the real Classics tech us virtue. Read The Iliad and compare the virtue of those characters to modern man.
So you think those same Greeks weren’t big on buggering the shield boys?
Well said – ignoring the constant struggle with what Paul referred to as the “old man” puts at risk the very reason to struggle for a virtuous life. It also obscures or out right denies the fact that generally, people are capable of positive change for the good – to pursue virtue.
Having worked in one of the more successful prison systems when it comes to recidivism, I know that not acknowledging the differences between those who have no desire to change and those choosing to change puts at risk at least one of the premises for having prisons. I prefer to call it recovery (think AA), the popular term is to rehabilitate. Rehabilitate tends to suggest that we make whole, make new, etc. Recovering from a crime, a screw up, a bad choice is a return, or as some call it, a restoration to right conduct/behavior or turning away from wrong behavior… something Christians refer to as repentance.
I agree with Matt, we Ignore these distinctions at our peril – else we write off people who are recoverable, and worse, we continue forward with the delusion we’ve never struggled and yielded to a temptation. Before I hear the ad hominem attacks, I also agree with Matt that criminals should be pursued, tried, and punished to the extent required by law. The University should enforce it’s policies and regulations with appropriate sanctions. Still, human beings are hardly the two dimensional constructs some would have us believe – we are a little more complex than that.
Cheers.
There is no real evidence of Greeks being more or less interested in “buggering” boys – only the accusations of their enemies which were considered slurs. Pedophiles began claiming that because Greek warriors were presented as being more affectionate to each other that they were pedophiles in the 60s – but it ain’t true. Show me portion of a Greek classic we used to teach n school where the men weren’t involved with women and where the men preferred boys. Scholars make these arguments for their own purposes.
Achilles had a favorite slave girl if I’m not mistaking, and his quarrel with Agamemnon was over her. Disturbing though that you assume all the men in a society were having sex with boys.
Actually there is considerable evidence that the Greeks were more or less interested in pederastic relationships with boys.
The problem is in noting the differences between those relationships and the more common view of such relationships, particularly in regards to cases of overt rape like this, and of course noting that recognizing and understanding those differences does not constitute approval or advocacy of them.
Within that context it should be noted that while pederasty was almost universally accepted among the Greeks, exclusive homosexuality was not, and indeed the kind of child rape this case involves was just as condemned by them as it is by us.
As for a classic, you have already provided it, and indeed named a relevant character.
Patrocles was very likely the lesser of a pederastic relationship with Achilles.
As you note that in no way precluded Achilles getting into a snit with Agamemnon over a slave girl.
Of course that raises the disturbing issues that it was a over a slave, and not a free woman, and that their “relationships” with her were undoubtedly rape. (And of course if she had been free she would have “merely” been a prostitute instead.) Naturally you don’t mean THOSE virtues from the Iliad; or the rampant treachery; the human sacrifice of a child; the defilement of the body of an enemy; or . . . actually, perhaps it is best not to cite Iliad as a source of virtues to be taught today.
“Why don’t we teach the classics any more?”
“Teaching the classics” is a weak tea of a cure. The Pilgrims SEPARATED from the general culture for a reason. They found it necessary to LIVE “the classics”.
What I’m saying is it’s more important to LIVE AGGRESSIVELY a virtuous life, than it is to teach the supposedly classic takes on a virtuous life.
For example, as a cure to the harms of single motherhood raised feral youths it would be found that an orphanage and youth “camp” run by strictly moral mature adults batters any improvements to schooling with dollops of classics.
Of all people,Dr.Laura did it best. Some dingbat called in to the effect that he’d had 6 childred by 5 women etc “but I’m a good person” NO YOU ARE NOT’ replyied Dr. Laura.
Of course scoundrels and criminals of all levels think in their hearts and souls that they are “good”. Maybe it all started here:
One’s life is a “delight to one’s eyes” even for the most evil. Up to that point did men and women have the ability to make a good prayer? To pray from the point of a broken heart?
After that they did, but it still took a long time ….
Many observers have protested the firing of Paterno by claiming that Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty. That is not relevent. Paterno is condemned by his own words. Paterno admits he was told something about the shower incident, and he says that he should have done more.
When Paterno says he should have done more, the next question is obvious: Why didn’t he? That question is not rhetorical. When an average person says “I wish I had done more”, that regret is often tempered by a lack of obvious opportunities and a justifiable fear of reprisal. When wealthy, powerful men like Joe Paterno say “I wish I done more”, the moral failure is apparent because the excuses available to ordinary men simply don’t apply.
Hindsight always has a clearer perspective than foresight.
The question is, What did Joe really hear from McQueary?
“Coach, I saw Sandusky and some teenager in the shower last night and I thought you ought to know about it.I’m not sure what they might have been doing.”
Or, “Coach, I saw Sandusky sodomizing a young boy in the shower last night.What did I do? I ran home and told my daddy. Am I sure of what I saw? Well, sort of. I mean, it looked like maybe there was something sexual going on? What signs did I see of sexual arousal? Well, it all happened so fast… maybe for 30 seconds or so, I saw them, just for a glance, then they saw me and then I left. What can I testify to in court? Well, Coach, you know, I suppose, who knows…”.
You’re making things up. Go read the grand jury report.
I’m Catholic, and the comparisons are valid. A hierarchy which has so lost sight of it’s purpose that it covers up and hides from punishment such obvious acts of evil is far more damaging than dealing with the issue. The Catholic Church could give every single penny it has to the victims and still carry out its’ mission of spreading the gospel, spreading compassion and the message of love to our fellow man. Even holding onto everything worldy it can’t do that mission with the reputation and trust of it’s leadership destroyed.
So college football programs are the same to you as the Catholic Church?
If what Corey Feldman says is true, there’s not only a plethora of pedophiles in Hollywood but also thousands of people who are standing by and pretending they don’t see anything. Talk about an industry where no one wants to jeopardize their employment!
I think there’s a hell of a lot more pedophilia in this world than we want to talk about. The world is sicker than we know.
If it is certain that Paterno covered up Sandusky’s crimes and if it is certain that McQuery did nothing other than call his father, then sure, they both deserve humiliation and whatever other good they have done is seriously mitigated. They may deserve even more humiliation.
But I can’t quite shake the notion that there is almost always another side to every story, and that we will probably never know all the perspectives about this one.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Not judging others is why so many people get their children raped.
Almost no children are raped, Rob, in fact very few. And he isn’t saying there should be no judgement, he’s saying he doesn’t have the facts he needs to make one.
Once again, you’re real big on putting words in people’s mouths.
I have the impression your’s is big enough you can keep them all in your own.
Were the children in this case raped or not? Almost no children are raped? Bullshit. I get dozens of cases of child rape sent my way a week. Are you kidding?
You’re saying almost no children are raped. Are you saying there’s not many cases of children being molested in this country or are you splitting hairs about what rape is?
And what do you do for a living, Rob? How many people use and even seek out particular professions so they can be near children? Things that would bring such cases to them? Maybe for networking purposes?
Is that what this is about for you?
I can make unsubstantiated innuendo as good as you can.
Yes, yes I cover crime and advocate for victims thus I’m the pedophile while you claim it is possible to see a child being sodomized and not know it’s rape, that 12-year-olds who have their periods are no long children and that Greeks all had sex with boys and you’re just an otherwise decent person. That distorted and misanthropic thinking is pretty much what my essay is about.
Rob, have you noticed that he seems to make a point of not actually answering questions?
“Yes, yes I cover crime and advocate for victims”
–And at best that’s given you are really warped view of real life.
“thus I’m the pedophile”
–Hey, you’re claiming the shoe fits me and on thinner evidence. I’m just putting it on the other foot. Don’t like it, don’t write bulls–t.
“while you claim it is possible to see a child being sodomized and not know it’s rape”
–I think it is unlikely but possible.
“that 12-year-olds who have their periods are no long children”
–I reported truly the prior view humanity all but universally held. I didn’t endorse it even by implication.
“that Greeks all had sex with boys”
–among the ancient greeks it was quite common. You seem to have a problem with reality, and you want to substitute your own whenever it’s convenient.
“and you’re just an otherwise decent person”
–I am a decent person. You, on the other hand, are in league with the likes of Nancy Grace, and I think you are not.
“That distorted and misanthropic thinking is pretty much what my essay is about.”
Since I have distorted nothing, and don’t have a problem with humanity, you’re keeping up your near perfect score of wrong. Congratulations.
DodiaFae, have you noticed your questions are conclusory and dishonest, and not worth much?
Wow, Tom… such a wordy, point-by-point response, and yet you still hasn’t answered the questions Rob asked (I actually wasn’t talking about my questions… I’ll admit they . Why is that?
Here, I’ll help you out a bit, then you can give point-by-point responses to these:
You said “Pedophiles existed 2,500 year ago. And frankly, once they were menstruating (or the like), by their lights then, it’s wasn’t pedophilia. By the time puberty got going, childhood was done.” Rob then asked “Do you believe that’s still the case?”
So, do you?
In response to another of your comments, Rob asked, “Were the children in this case raped or not? Almost no children are raped? Bullshit. I get dozens of cases of child rape sent my way a week. Are you kidding?
You’re saying almost no children are raped. Are you saying there’s not many cases of children being molested in this country or are you splitting hairs about what rape is?”
You’re response was to ask him what he does for a living, thereby avoiding answering any of the questions… why is that?
Then I asked, “..are you suggesting that this case came about because some kids are lying?” (I’ll be the first to admit that the following question I asked in that same comment was nothing more than snark, not really meant to be answered.) There was only one other question I directed at you, which you did respond to (without actually answering… but I’ll get to that one in the appropriate thread.)
I mean, they’re all pretty straight-forward questions… For example, either yes, you believe that an adult having intercourse with a child is rape, or not you don’t believe it’s rape, etc. I mean, feel free to expand on your answers if you feel a simple yes or no would be misunderstood.
Actually DodiaFae (what is your real name?), I have replied fully to I think everyone of your questions. I have had at least post eaten by the forum (I think one) and one which shows as being in moderation, that one includes a number of links as to how very, very wrong you are to assert that children and others don’t lie about rape (and other abuse). I have a screenshot of that post if you would like to see it.
But to repeat myself.
I have not endorsed and do not believe the once very commonly held belief that a human was an adult once puberty got going. This was once an all but universally held view. Assuming I did believe it now because I mentioned it in this thread is evidence of an unbalanced mind on your part.
No, rape of children is not common. Rape of adult women is not common. The statistic that claims 1/3 rd of all women be raped in their life is false, and the rape of a child is drastically less common than that. I believe I already said this. Maybe the forum ate that post, maybe you aren’t paying attention.
As for splitting hairs, we are talking about child rape here, you’ve been talking about child rape here. Why would you even think of bringing up any such hair splitting unless you want to change or obfuscate the subject? I think I know why, it because you aren’t an honest actor here, you are here to advance an agenda. There is no agenda so worthy it should be advanced by dishonest means, that’s part of the reason I’m so vehemently disgusted by you and Rob Taylor here.
Oh, I did respond to his question, in fact, you aren’t paying attention.
“Then I asked, “..are you suggesting that this case came about because some kids are lying?”
Since I haven’t said one thing which an honest person could think meant that, I’m not going to answer that question directly, you don’t really deserve an answer, you make s–t up as you go. I brought up the McMartin preschool in response to a different poster’s preposterous comment that only the victims deserved any voice–you make things that one sided, and suddenly everyone’s a victim.
There are enough people involved as potential victims here, and Penn State’s pockets are deep enough, and the motivation to pay people off to make it all go away is high enough, that it will as a matter of odds be a certainty–that someone will make a false claim looking for payday. I hope that person doesn’t get a dime.
“You’re response was to ask him what he does for a living, thereby avoiding answering any of the questions… why is that?”
Because he had just insinuated, as you have, that I molested children. I was returning that ill regard in really a quite mild way. You two are a scummy piece of work. Very Nancy Grace. You can apologize for your baseless accusations at anytime.
“I mean, feel free to expand on your answers if you feel a simple yes or no would be misunderstood.”
I feel certain that because you are pushing an agenda and are not an honest person, that you will take advantage of any amplification over a yes or no answer to claim I’m obscuring my answers. You go ahead and claim what you want, time wounds all heals.
BTW the timestamp on the post still in moderation is November 19, 2011 – 5:25 pm.
Which leads me to my next question: What is your definition of rape? What does/does not constitute rape, in your opinion?
For example, if a 10 year old child is groomed by an adult, who then engages in intercourse with that child, is that considered rape even though the child does not put up a struggle (because they’re made to believe that this is expected, or normal, or that they’ll get hurt if they don’t go along with it, or whatever reason)? Or is it only “rape” if the victim struggles, says “no”, or has bruises to show they were taken by force?
I’m not attempting to change the subject at all. This is a perfectly legitimate question for this topic. What I am trying to do is to figure out why it is that you believe that rape is such a rare occurrence when most people know that it isn’t. That’s not splitting hairs, but saying that a child groomed to cooperate with an adult’s sexual deviance isn’t being raped, that only the child being forcefully violated is, that is splitting hairs. All current statistics clearly show that I’m the one with the correct information, so please share with the other readers why your’s is the correct information, where you got your information (links would be helpful) and how, exactly, it proves the information provided by organizations like National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are incorrect?
As for you bringing up the McMartin case, the person you were responding to was commenting on this case in particular, not *all* cases. There was an eye-witness to Sandusky raping a child… and eye-witness who claimed he talked to only two people about what he saw, neither of whom were law enforcement. Because there will be no legal charges pressed against those who failed to protect that child and others, and the hoopla now is only about whether or not it should, in future cases, be made a legal responsibility to report any suspected abuse rather than just a moral one, your mention of the McMartin case is irrelevant. The only one being charged in this case (so far) is Sandusky, who will have his say in court. For the purposes of making mandatory reporting mandatory for anyone who suspects abuse, the only voices that are important are those of the victims.
So, my question still stands: Are you saying that this has come about because some kids are lying, as your mention of the McMartin case would suggest?
I didn’t insinuate any such thing. I did, however, say that the only people who’ve ever argued so vehemently (with me) against required reporting laws (which is what this case is really about) are either pro-pedophile or RSOL activists. But then I forgot all about the Men’s Rights Movement sissies.
well then.
We’ll just throw away the legal system, and Rob Taylor will wreck his wrath as he sees fit. He seems to be comfortable as judge and jury from fifty thousand feet.
Judge not… Does that not refer to the state of another’s soul, and not to his specific acts?
If we are not to judge acts, where does correcting one’s brother come from? How are we to seek justice?
“fact that the minute you go to the police, you will have utterly ruined this man’s life: he will be jobless, friendless, and branded as the worst sort of pervert by everyone in the country — oh, and also, in protective custody so that the other inmates in jail don’t, like, kill him.”
Of course, what she seems not to understand is that these aren’t some kind of unfortunate side-effect of stopping a rape in progress, they’re the entire point of it.
I’m glad to hear there is one man whose moral compass is infallible, who is never confused or mistaken, whose courage is perfect, who will always do what is right without hesitation regardless of personal associations. In a world of weak, fallible people, a hero like Mr. Taylor is urgently needed.
More seriously – two days, I was reading a collection of mystery short stories published in 1920. The protagonist is wise old lawyer Sam who solves various problems. In one story, a young man is very troubled. He eventually admits that while playing golf with a highly respected man, whom he has known for years, whose sterling character and strict honesty he would have vouched for without question, he clearly saw the man cheat to win a bet from him. Wise old Sam explains how his observations deceived him – there was no cheating. Sam further tells him this is a lesson:
When there is a conflict between external evidence and one’s personal knowledge of character, trust the heart and not the eyes.
(Paraphrased… it was a library book which I have since returned.)
Which is what McQueary did. He had a conflict.
On the one hand, seeing anal sex with a child – something not only horrifying but astonishing.
On the other hand, his experience as player and coach for Joe Pa and Penn State football, which were reputed personally and institutionally of the highest character. That quality was tacitly extended to Sandusky, by his long career as a PSU coach and continued association with the program – and reinforced by the very substantial good works performed by his charity.
This is extreme cognitive dissonance, and very few people can resolve it instantly. I hope you never have such a problem.
McQueary didn’t know what to believe. Wise old Sam would have told him to trust his judgment of Paterno and the program, rather than his eyes.
As to McArdle: she’s right. It is not easy to revolt against strong personal ties, even under great moral urgency. The sort of person who can cast off such ties easily and quickly is someone to whom such ties don’t really matter – a sociopath.
That’s why Paterno is especially culpable. He provided Sandusky with the cover that protected him from McQueary.
That’s not to say that only a sociopath would have done “the right thing”. But for any normal person, in McQueary’s situation and with his background, the immediate violent reaction some keyboard pounders demand would have been extremely difficult.
I don’t know what I would have done, because I’ve never been in such a situation. If I had that background and experience, I’d be a very different person. The existing me would have acted differently – but the existing me didn’t play QB at Penn State or coach under Paterno. I’m not even a Penn State fan.
Neither is Taylor.
McArdle isn’t right – a person caring abut children more than someone who they “respect” isn’t a sociopath. The people who stand by while their friends or family do horrible things because it’s easier are the sociopaths.
If someone murdered you in a robbery and their family hid them from police but one of their friends came forward would you want your family to think the friend was a sociopath and the murderers family doing the right thing?
“But for any normal person, in McQueary’s situation and with his background, the immediate violent reaction some keyboard pounders demand would have been extremely difficult”
I hate to admit, but I agree…and I have a young son myself…
Had their been obvious physical violence…screaming resistance on the part of the victim and forceful restraint being applied by the Rapist, yes, an immediate, forceful on the spot physical “rescue” or at a minimum, a call to the police would have been obvious, and the lack thereof completely unforgiveable
But for or a (presumably, I dont know the details)childless young man to stumble upon such a scene, where its OBVIOUS this child is in some sick pre-existing “relationship” with that monster, where it appears, by his lack of resistance and his submission to this monster, this has happened before, I would expect the immediate reaction of the witness to be confusion, revusion and retreat…not immediate violence and capture…”My god, what did I just SEE?”….
I’m not surprised at all he went first to his own father, sickened, haunted and in need of strength to face the awful truth he witnessed, and to do the right thing…I can in that instance, excuse perhaps his first few HOURS of innaction, but no more.
I’m utterly disgusted they did not ultimately include the police in their first action…
And its THAT action, not the first, by which I utterly condemn this dispicable coward
What are you saying that the 10-year-old wasn’t struggling so a rational person might not break up the sodomy? Really? If a person in a coma was being violated you’d not say “stop”?
I don’t get that.
“What are you saying that the 10-year-old wasn’t struggling so a rational person might not break up the sodomy?”
You are assuming the 10 year was visibly a 10 year old, and we don’t know that yet, do we?
“Really? If a person in a coma was being violated you’d not say “stop”?”
The two situations have nothing to do with each other, but then you’re a prize winning champ at putting words in other people’s mouths, aren’t you.
Right, and you’re what Tommy Joe Perkins? You’re on what kind of list?
Robert,
To be clear, I’m saying I can UNDERSTAND how a younger, single, childless person would be shocked into momentary inaction over how to respond in that first few seconds of horror…the difference between seeing and out and out “attacking rapist” vs something that appears to be “sex” with inappropriately young boy.
I’m NOT saying it wasnt “rape”, because it was….I’m saying the first witness COULD be forgiven for puking first, and running to tell his father, before finally calling the cops.
I have a young son, so I WOULD have killed the bastard on the spot…I dont expect EVERYONE in the world to respond exactly, and as immediately as I WOULD HAVE…
But at a MINIMUM, I’d expect them to call the police…once their hands stopped shaking and they collected themselves.
He didnt, so he’s toast.
Two words for Paterno and the rest who knew.
Star. Chamber.
He did go to the police, and as promptly as you are saying he was required to.
And “Star Chamber”? Really? Paterno was a witness to nothing, and at worst counted on the people in law enforcement and the courts around him to do their job. You know, those sainted police Tina Trent and Taylor seem to be too fond of, and not skeptical enough.
I think it is absolutely disgusting what Sandusky allegedly did. I think, if true, that he should face capital punishment…HOWEVER all the facts are not out, no one really actually KNOWS what happened. The “star” witness is changing his story every third day. There is too much rush to judgement in this case. Let us wait for the facts.
Only the child victims’ points or view matter now. Sandusky by his acts, and Paterno and others by their non-acts, have no further voices in the matter.
What, you’re going to tell us children never lie? McMartin Preschool.
Sheehan has sole moral authority, yada, yada, yada.
“Fabricated sexual abuse reports constitute only 1% to 4% of all reported cases. Of these reports, 75% are falsely reported by adults and 25% are reported by children. Children only fabricate ½% of the time. (11)”
(References listed at the bottom of that page.)
Also, are you suggesting that this case came about because some kids are lying? Desperate much?
No I never said such a thing. You’re making things up again.
The desperate one here I think is you, since you have to know you’ve publicly put your faith in a lie.
Grown women lie about rape very often:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/the-anti-false-rape-accusation-campaign/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/21/more-than-30-percent-of-the-cases-investigated-by-detectives-each-year-are-deemed-unfounded-five-times-the-national-average/
http://www.billoblog.com/?p=134
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
The McMartin Preschools cases themselves prove that given half a chance, children will lie like rugs about the direst things.
I wonder why you can’t deal with reality, and instead say silly lies like only 1/2% of child sexual abuse claims are false?
We don’t know what McQueary saw, and no it is not as simple as saying the boy was 10 years old, so he–McQueary–should have immediately and violently intervened. We don’t even know what we don’t know. We don’t know what he saw or thought he saw. We do know that a Grand Jury found no cause for an indictment even though prosecutors have a famed ability to steer them around by the nose, so I’m inclined to think there were some complicating factors that even the sainted Rob Taylor and you don’t know.
From Grand Jury Report, page six, last paragraph:
That has nothing to do with lying children (who, btw, were coerced to do so at the behest of adults in the McMartin case… which is covered in the stats I posted previously.) What would he have to gain by making that up? It’s not like he was after Sandusky’s job, and he was obviously distraught over what he knew he saw. He was distraught enough to still remember it years after it happened (but apparently not enough to go to LE with it). If he was lying, that would be perjury.
Also, how are blog posts and lawyers’ websites more authoritative resources about child rape statistics than NCMEC?
Let’s leave aside that it was almost to absolutely certain that adults with agendas induced the children in the McMartin case to lie.
And?
Because some children somewhere might have lied that automatically impugns the testimony of these children/adults?
Rapists lie.
Does that mean we can immediately discount any denials from Sandusky?
Enablers also lie.
Can we therefore extend the instant dismissal to any testimony from Paterno and McQueary?
By that standard of transferrable guilt, nobody’s testimony can ever be accepted, and we may as well just give up on any attempt to have laws right here and now.
The Penn State situation has been illuminating for me in one way: Prior to this I would never have believed that so many people would admit to moral confusion about what to do when they encounter a grown man raping a 10 year old. I guess as an exercise in argumentation I could probably come up with something as morally retarded as McCardle’s post but to actually believe it?
Precisely. I have been simply dumbfounded by the insane response of so many people who consider themselves to be moral and good. It is beyond my understanding than this depravity could possibly have any “side” but that it was evil and those engaged in the act and cover-up deserve the hottest place in hell.
I agree with you about this–one of the previous posters seems to think it’s some mitigating aspect, explaining why McQueary might have been confused, if the 10-year-old wasn’t screaming and struggling.
I assume the 10-year-old still looked like a 10-year-old as he was being penetrated by the adult.
Poor 10-year-old, if he thought an adult who saw this would intervene on his behalf…
I wonder what it says about Penn State, that Sandusky obviously felt at his ease as he engaged in this act there?
A lot of “sterling” reputations will melt down on the Paterno/Sandusky pyre.
Too bad, but many should have known better, yet still couldn’t help themselves.
Personally I think McQueary is defending more than his “inaction”. You watch
So when there’s nothing more to it, you’ll man up and admit to yourself you are FOS, right?
Are you going to man up and tell everyone something they need to know about why you’re making these arguments?
Why don’t you man up and say outright what you are hinting at?
I can tell why I think you won’t; from your behavior here, you won’t because you are a bully and a coward.
You are covering for it by beating your chest in this forum.
What about the child? Have you ever witnessed the suffering of a child as he/she is undergoing a sexual assault? I have. All I thought about was the child. I took the actions necessary to make the assailant flee. I escorted the child to her home. I believe that the child’s suffering was lessened enormously by my actions. I cannot believe that anyone with the history of a college football player and coach would be afraid to intervene. In my own case, I give credit to the Grace of God.
Sometimes people do a pretty good job of convincing others that they are “good” people but when put to the test the truth comes out. They were put to the test and they failed. All the fluffy poetic ramblings in the world can’t change that very basic fact which is: Those aren’t “good men”, they are selfish and despicable men who just happened to provide something people wanted. They provided football. That’s all. Providing football doesn’t make one “good”. Allowing a child rapist to go free to rape again is by definition “not good”. And they did it all for football. Think about that. They sacrificed children for football. And a journalist would try to pass them off as “good”? It’s people like that who attempt to defend the indefensible who would have also done the same thing they did….sacrifice children. And all for football.
Exactly. People can claim they would have done the same thing – but they then can’t claim that they are good people.
That is what makes this entire situation that much more infuriating.
Roman Polanski drugged, sodomized and raped a 12 year old girl–Hollywood loves him
–he got an oscar- he has not spent a day in jail and he continued his promiscuous sexual perversions in France with no problems.
Pederasty is supported by a large section of the homosexual community–it involves seducing adolescent boys,
Pedophilia is a different matter involving pre pubescent children and is committed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals–Roman Polanski is a heterosexual pedophile whom Hollywood admires and excuses
The two are treated differently by law enforcement and by psychiatry.
Pederasty and pedophilia are distinct psychiatric and criminal states–both are horrendous filth
I have known quite a few gays and lesbians and never met one that supported child molesting. But I don’t hang around scumbags. The gay political establishment does present the majority of gays in a radical and almost criminal light however so I understand what you’re saying. GLSEN is one of the most evil organizations on this planet.
Never heard of ‘em – now I’ll have to look ‘em up and find out what they’re about – still, why do you think they are evil?
I had just assumed that the pool of potential victims might be in the hundreds, bu buried in a news story yesterday about Sandusky’s “charity” Second Mile folding, was a line saying that literally thousands of boys had passed through the Second Mile during its 33 years of existence.
More fake outrage with a hair trigger.
If you want to be outraged at someone or group, how about the grand jury that did nothing after their hearings?
Where are they being held responsible for their inaction? Who were they? Who did they report to? And why did the individuals they reported to take no action? If “inaction” is a crime, they are already proven guilty. Right?
The media loves this salacious stuff. It sells big.
They, as well as this article, foment more indignant compassion and indignant outrage than most situations warrant. But in this case, they are vilifying the individuals, at the expense of the groups and organizations that are culpable.
The media is only doing a cursory job, as usual. Just enough to keep the salacious details alive with tantalizing “facts” and innuendo.
By the time the truth to these statements and actions does make it to the public, after being duly filtered by the “media”, there will be so many convoluted theories to what actually happened, even the culprits and the victims will be confused.
JoePa does not consider himself superior in any fashion. He is a simple, religious man, and respects authority.
THAT AUTHORITY, AND THE MEDIA, in this case, has been negligent and should be held responsible the consequences.
Does the media ever apologize for it’s inaccurate reporting of events that have such far reaching devastating effect? No. They consider it their right to vilify anyone they choose. They report false information, or omit crucial information, on a daily basis.
I submit the media sensation of Barrack Obama as exhibit one. We already have more details about the Penn State scandal than Obama’s education.
The Grand Jury did take action. What are you talking about? Aren’t grand juries supposed to listen to evidence and then recommend whether a case goes forward? Isn’t that what they did?
The Grand Jury report I found posted online is not dated. I was under the impression it was in 2009 when the attorney general started the investigation, and that the investigation was delayed by the false testimony given by two witnesses.
This is the time line I was basing my statement on:
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-11/penn-state-scandal/story/penn-state-timeline-jerry-sandusky-joe-paterno-mike-mcqueary
I could not find the date the Grand Jury was initially appointed.
There was also a DA who in 2005 decided not to charge Sandusky with anything, and that DA later disappeared and is presumed to have drowned himself in the Susquehanna.
This bit of your timeline was incorrect:
“Curley advised school president Graham Spanier of the information he’d received and the steps taken as a result. Spanier testified of his approval of the approach taken by Curley. The incident was not reported to the University Police or any other police agency.”
That guy was in charge of the University police. It wasn’t merely reported to the police, it went straight to the top tier within days. Now the top tier wasn’t honest any more than–two other people who come strongly to mind right now–are, but McQueary didn’t have any reason to know that at the time. I know of no reason to think Paterno had any reason to think they would cover it up.
Thanks for the clarification, Tom.
My only agenda is the truth, even though after all is exposed, there will most likely be several versions. Few people shall have the privilege of all the facts and details.
I think JoePa was a victim of circumstance, since to him, this probably seemed like vicious politics, which JoePa wished to keep his distance from.
To my surprise, in reading up on this scandal I discovered that, if the story linked to below is accurate, the most damaging part of Sandusky’s interview was not the part that I have seen reported in the MSM (see http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/costas-sandusky-full-transcript/) .
According to the grand jury report an incident with Sandusky and a boy happen in 1997-1998 I believe, a mother confronted Sandusky about taking a shower with her son. She even reported it to police. How come no comments on this situation. If it would have been truly investigated at the time, this whole disgusting situation might have been avoided.
1. Pederasty is well documented in both Greece and Rome, in myth, philosophy, moral discourses, visual art, etc. Whether we like it or no is quite irrelevant, Mr. Taylor’s scandalized sensitivities notwithstanding. I suggest the following articles in Wikipedia, with their massive body of documentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome .
2. Modern western distinctions (e.g, is the relationship between “consenting adults” or not) simply don’t exist. To oversimplify (exceptions are plentiful) the ancient view was the inverse of the modern west. Homosexual relationships between adult males were problematic, adult-boy relations were widely accepted, especially if the boy was a slave.
4. The root question in the Greek and Roman worlds was *not* about “love” or “affection”; it was about *who was the penetrator and who was being penetrated*. That is why penetration of a young male was permitted, whereas penetration of a free adult was generally scandalous.
3. All sexual relationships are at their root predatory. In the foundational Greek Myth, Zeus castrates his father Cronos. When the “balls” fall upon the sea, the blood becomes the Furies–the gods of revenge–and the foam becomes Aphrodite. Aphrodite (later Venus) is not the goddess of *love*, but of *passion*, irrational, consuming, destructive desire.
*Sex is about getting what one wants.*
4. It has taken 1800 years of Christian ethics, based on Jewish moral consciousness, to moralize sexuality. Only the commitments of moral and spiritual passion can sustain that morality. Mr. Taylor’s screed builds a castle of moral outrage on the sands of modern relativism.
I would have protected the child no matter what
I ran across this interesting post at a website discussing corruption within the Legal system in Pennsylvania–their judges and lawyers–with special reference to the PSU Sandusky case (http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2011/11/16/penn-state-lawyers-and-federal-courts-the-good-old-boys-network-have-role-in-sandusky-scandal/)
P.S.–Although it is mentioned–here and there–in passing, no one seems to be really zeroing in on the fact that, although he denies it, according to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, the same University Park attorney was apparently both the attorney for Penn State University and a contributor to and the attorney for Sandusky’s “Second Mile” during the time period from the late 1990s through the last few weeks, when what has been reported–so far–of Sandusky’s alleged molestations took place (see http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11315/1189180-100.stm) .
So you going to take my post out of “moderation” Rob, or are you still checking to see if I’m on a list?
Also have to wonder what Taylor, et al, think of this:
“He wrote, “I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police …. no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.” ”
Sourced here:
“http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8433662″
From an email from McQueary to a friend, which may well be a plant, and might just as well be genuine.
Is it Taylor’s assertion that McQueary should have immediately gone to two police departments? To three? Should McQueary have immediately killed Sandusky even if he stopped?
I think he’s lying… again, Grand Jury Report, page 7, 1st paragraph (which is really the end of the last paragraph on page 6, the part I didn’t include in the quote in my previous response):
That says nothing about him making “sure it was stopped” before he left… it says he left immediately. So he’s lying somewhere, more likely in the quote you posted in order to cover his ass with the rest of the world. It also states, page 7, last paragraph:
I’m can’t speak for Rob, but my assertion is that he should have immediately gone to state police to report this incident, and if he didn’t feel that it was getting the necessary attention, he should have reported it to the FBI.
I recall during the McMartin pre-school idiocy, that my mom who was a school teacher was afraid from all the briefings about what was and wasn’t to be done, and what may be considered to be suspicious, that she and the other teachers in their school called another teacher in or the principal to be a witness to them helping little kids with their zippers.
That’s where giving into the likes of Rob Taylor goes, and I suspect he’s fine with that.
Bur he probably just thinks that’s a made up story.
You’ve done the yeoman’s (look up the term) stalwart work on this thread good Tom Perkins. And Rob Taylor did a fine job of writing the originating essay and responding to drive the important and timely discussion.
I note here on this reply that the McMartin case was but one of many in that era. There is a good reason why children are precluded from being witnesses in a trial: their immaturity and susceptibility to adult cues masks their natural honesty too much.
The Wenatchee, Washington cases of 1994-1995. That may have been the worst of all of them, but they were all horrid.
I’ll excerpt and digest the Wikipedia entry on the Wentachee case:
The McMartin case was 1983. It was preceded by at least a 1982 Kern County, CA case in which interviewing techniques *now viewed* as coercive were used on a family’s children in response to false charges filed in a dispute between step-families. Another family came to the defense of the accused couple. In 1984, both the falsely accused parents and the family that stood up to defend them were sentenced to over 240 years in prison. The family, including the grandmother, who rose to defend the falsely accused were themselves accused of child abuse! The measure of the vicious MOB MENTALITY that can be had in the modern US of A is that harsh sentence for false accusations laid so quickly on innocents who dared speak up.
Their convictions were not overturned until 1996. Twelve years! Who do they see to get those years back!
Rob Taylor and that one female-like poster inflame the same kind of hanging mob mentality that resulted in far worse crimes of false prosecutions in that terrible era a few years ago.
As a former attorney who had to deal with several cases involving children, I’d like to add a couple comments.
First, these are really hard cases to prove. Contrary to what one commentator above said, children can testify as witnesses. If they are not totally confused by shocked parents, or by cynical cops, they can be very good witnesses, however, if the alleged perpetrator, that is, the predator, is a family member or somehow important to the family, their entire support structure will often turn against them. Adults will refuse to believe that Daddy, Uncle Joe, whoever, would do that, or that hey failed to protect the kid.
Unless seriously manipulated, they tell the truth, and if they do lie, it isn’t that hard to detect it.
Child molesters, not dirty old men (and women), but real pedophiles, are virtually incapable of rehab. A study at the U of Wash, which I became familiar with when trying one of these cases, selected out the child sexual offenders who were deemed the most likely to respond to treatment in a test program. The program was a one year deal, and about 95% failed to finish it without re-offending. The only effective deterrent was when they were actually facing charges and looking likely to spend some time. Basically, a sexual offender guilty (in reality, not necessarily legally) of rape, including statutory rape- to include homosexuals with pubescent boys, as in the Catolic Church scandals [most of which go back to the '70's thru 90's]- will probably re-offend, true pedophiles will re-offend, down to a vanishingly small small percentage. The only way to stop it is to keep them away from kids.
The worst thing about this case to me is that this ..person..was running a charity for kids. Paterno, McReady and the rest of them knew that and did nothing. That should, but won’t, mean jail time for tham all. Even McReady(sp?) walking away from the rape isn’t criminal; no “duty to protect” under the criminal law. Good luck on the civil suits though, or, rather, bad luck.
So much for the legalities. There is still the question of moral duty, and on this they are guilty with there friendly thug on every case that happened after they were aware of what this thug was doing. Honor is pretty much a lost concept these days, but their failures were dishonorable. Yeah, I know about all the trouble they might have had if they’d done the right thing, the moral confusion, family loyalty and all the hundred and one other excuses we use to justify not doing what we should. Honor is doing the right thing when it’s hard. They didn’t and if they face disgrace, job loss, and civil actions now, well, that’s what happens when we take the easy way out.
Did I mention I was also a soldier. In that line of work honor still means something.
Thank You for pointing out all these things from the perspective of a lawyer (maybe the only honorable one left on the planet?)
Lets hope that this case will bring about some changes in required reporting laws.
Retired Lawyer Dave, I was the poster who posted that “There is a good reason why children are precluded from being witnesses in a trial: their immaturity and susceptibility to adult cues masks their natural honesty too much.” It was on the post then immediately prior to the one you replied at.
I was incorrect about current practice, children have been allowed to testify since the 1980′s, but before that era it was rare. And as children have been allowed to testify in court, or before a deposition or court interviewer, the rules of questioning have changed. Some courts now allow *leading* questions of children, in the thinking that children have to be queued up on the particular persons, places and things of the case in order to have their *naturally honest* recollection of events spill out like some magic water flowing from the fountains of truth.
That is not a good. Wentachee, McMartin and all the other witchhunts show why. But we live in an era characterized by magic moral thinking, see for example DodiaFae’s posts on this thread.
People keep bringing up the McMartin case, and no anti-pedophile activist that I know (as far as I’m aware) dispute the innocence of those convicted in that case. What you conveniently leave out is that forensics and forensic psychology has come a long way since then, along with the fact that juries tend to “play it safe”, apparently now confusing “reasonable doubt” with “no doubt at all”. Cases like those you cited simply don’t happen anymore.
Thsi story as so many stoies on this subject fail to point out that Sandusky – by his behavior is a gay pedophile.
Unfortuantely the Author, and many like him in the press, go after everyone else, for whatever reason, and yet fails to point out this simple fact – Sandusky is Gay and a pedophile.
I gures sin this politically correct world – the words gay and pedophile cannot be used in the same sentence – no matter how true it is.
After all Gays are now a protected class (group rights) so anyone who pritns gay and pedophile in the same sentence risks the full weight of the legal industry coming after them.
The reason that people don’t use “gay” and “pedophile” in the same sentence is because the terms are mutually exclusive.
That someone is gay doesn’t make them a pedophile, in spite of what people who continuously link the terms would have everyone believe. And that a pedophile goes for boys doesn’t make them gay. Pedophiles can have relationships with women (it’s known that they often look for relationships with single mothers to gain access to their children.) If a pedophile’s preference for boys meant they were homosexual, there wouldn’t be cases like that of Harold Spurling (his age of attraction, or AoA, is of little boys between the ages of 4 and 9 years old)and Jeffrey Brisson (his AoA is 2 – 6 for boys and 3 – 8 for girls) is one of the examples of this… if they were homosexual, they wouldn’t have been filming themselves raping a 3 month old baby girl, which was out of both their AoA.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, and should not be associated as such.
Magical moral thinking DodiaFae!
Indulged it produces tragic results.
Sex is a full spectrum human condition. It is too big to be so easily clamped within tiny boxes such as you would have it be. This box is “homosexuality”, that box is “pedophilia”. When morality breaks down, the moral perversions of sexuality are grander and more aggressively boundary breaking than you seemingly would force it to be.
Homosexuality is a perverted form of sexuality. Once it is indulged, the moral breakdown allows other forms to be unleashed more easily within an individual, and by contagion of spirit, to those within one’s circle.
See the more recent Bernie Fine case, where not only Bernie pursued young men, but also his wife.
Yah, so you say. However, I’ve personally known a rather large number of homosexuals in my life, and not one of them ever condoned any form of adult/child sexual “relationship”.
So, what is this a case of… if you can’t ride the coattails of homosexuality to normalize pedophilia, you’ll drag it down with you?
As homosexuality increases, pedophilia does as well. Neither is a normal behavior, no matter how large a number of homosexuals or pedophiles one knows.
Except you’re intentionally leaving out the most important difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, which is that homosexuals generally choose partners of legal age, while pedophiles are always on the lookout for their next child victim. Now, you can argue that a male pedophile who abuses boys is homosexual, but you’d be wrong. Adult males who abuse boys are generally married to women. As prolific as the abuses of boys by Catholic priests were (for example), there are still far, far more men who are in heterosexual relationships who abuse boys than Catholic priests who abuse boys. Also (statistically) there are more girls abused by men than boys… so (statistically), you’re wrong about there being any connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.
Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky, Parallel Pedophiles
I don’t know or care who Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers are but they should either dump him as a client or he should ask them what he should be saying to the press, if anything.
From the point of view of a non-attorney, I would be aghast at a client accused of serial homosexual child-molestation over decades giving interviews to the media. Granted, the interviewers didn’t dare suggest Sandusky was a homosexual pedophile but, still, allowing him to admit to “liking” young children was tantamount to permitting him to concede he was a Michael Jacksonite with similar preferences.
As with Michael Jackson, Jerry Sandusky liked young boys, although the MSM played down that predilection in both instances, preferring in Jackson’s case to present him as a lover of everyone, in Sandusky’s case as paternally affectionate toward boys and girls. Despite Jackson’s universal love and Sandusky’s fatherliness, neither was ever accused of paying inappropriate attention to females.
In both instances, the mainstreamers were engaged in a cover-up of the truth, that the King of Pop and the PSU assistant coach were gay pedophiles. The chief differences between the two seems to be that Jackson was never indicted and had smarter lawyers–but dumb doctors.
The main similarities are that both were delusional.
To the end, Michael Jackson maintained his innocence of molesting young boys while admitting he slept with them and, in at least one instance, made one young boy rich by paying for his silence.
Even after his arrest on 40 counts of sexual abuse of 8 children over 15 years, Jerry Sandusky insisted his bizarre behavior was totally innocent and that his work on their behalf with his Second Mile Foundation was not grooming them as victims but benefitting them.
There are a number of remarkable parallels between Jackson’s and Sandusky’s delusions.
In Martin Bashir’s disturbing 2003 documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson,” the pop star proudly admitted to activities at his 3000 acre Neverland ranch that would shame normal people. “It’s what the whole world should do,” he told Bashir, among other things.
Jackson also said, ”I tuck them in and put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book and we go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know. We have cookies. It’s very charming. It’s very sweet.” He asked Bashir, “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
Sweet, if you’re the child’s parent. Loving, if the bed-sharer is a consenting adult.
One 12 year old boy said he asked Jackson if he could stay in his bedroom and Jackson replied, “Look, if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.” Jackson believed children like to be touched and he would kill himself if he could not be close to young boys: “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately.”
In his defense, Jacksonphiles always bought into Michael’s persona as a man-child who saw nothing but innocence in his personal idiosyncrasies, a view that would absolve many pedophiles of any guilt whatsoever, even Jerry Sandusky. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8910.)