Joe Paterno may have a way out on the PA child molestation reporting law as it is written but his troubles are far from over. In my opinion he still had a legal and moral obligation to do the right thing for the children’s sake in this case and he clearly didn’t do that. For that what every comes down on his head he fully deserves because if I were the parents of one of these children and I found out the most powerful man at Penn State had purposely minimized this incident to protect his friend, I would want just a big of piece of his hide as the perpetrator of these heinous crimes.
As a result of his neglect a serial sexual predator of children was allowed to be free another 9 years if this is when Paterno actually first found out about Jerry Sandusky. I’m not sure I buy it because molesters like Sandusky never stop and you can bet he abused other children before the 2002 case came to light.
The PA law on reporting child abuse is somewhat vague. At the very least Paterno could be charged with Obstruction of Justice and possibly perjury charges. He most certainly will face civil litigation from the victims’ families. So he may have dodged the reporting laws but he’s far from being absolved of any wrong doing.
Here’s part of the story about the coverup as reported by the Sports Illustrated Article:
“Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.
Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to immediately report to a person in charge.
On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.
Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by phone, any written communications would have required the known information.
In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.”
No comments:
Post a Comment