Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[tifosi77]

Hmmm....liken the behavior of the people cleaning up the mess, to those who caused it.
Because, well, that hopefully casts a suspicion on the mess cleaners and potentially lessens the unacceptable behavior of the previous administration.

Not exactly sure how questioning the NCAA's authority and the legitimacy of the sanctions levied is supposed to - in any, way, shape or form - diminish the 'unacceptable behavior' of Paterno, Spanier, et al.

They are not mutually exclusive concepts, you know. The NCAA can have overstepped their authorituh and the bad guys at Penn State can still be bad guys.

[shafnutz05]

Yeah, I have not understood that logic. Is it impermissible to have a conversation about the NCAA's role?

[columbia]

Because it's a convenient propaganda technique for those who wanted the NCAA to stand by and do nothing.

[tifosi77]

But you're implying - or rather outright stating - that the motive for questioning the NCAA is to somehow mitigate the badness of the offenses. Why? Why does it have to be more than "The NCAA has no authority to intervene here"?

[columbia]

Why would someone want the athletic department to go unpunished?
That's the real question.

[tifosi77]

Again..... you are making an assumption that the goal is a desire to ensure the athletic department goes unpunished.

[columbia]

If someone doesn't want the NCAA to rule on it, then that assumption is obvious.
The DOE (and perhaps the DOJ) aren't going to touch the football program....They'll go after the university.

[tifosi77]

It may be obvious, but that doesn't make it correct.

[columbia]

It may be obvious, but that doesn't make it correct.

Then who do you think should have addressed the football program?
Would you have been kosher with them being kicked out of the Big 10?

The mantra has been that it wasn't a football issue.
If that's the case, I guess you would be perfectly fine with no direct penalties to the football program, right?

It's as if people have wanted to set a shield up and that no governing body is allowed to address the athletic side of it.
Talk about throwing people under the bus; in that case, sacrificing the university (and more important the children) for the sake of the football program.

And that's how we got here in the first place.

[Rocco]

I realize now that if I want to remain the most hyperbolic poster at LGP I need to step up my game significantly.

[columbia]

I realize now that if I want to remain the most hyperbolic poster at LGP I need to step up my game significantly.

I don't think that you need to worry about that; it's yours, my man.

[Rocco]

I realize now that if I want to remain the most hyperbolic poster at LGP I need to step up my game significantly.

I don't think that you need to worry about that; it's yours, my man.

You are so far beyond anything I think I can capably pull off without my brain smoking and melting. I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.

[columbia]

The odd thing is that I could give two ***** about the NCAA and Penn State football.
I will be pulling for the hockey team, however.

[Godric]

The odd thing is that I could give two ***** about the NCAA and Penn State football.
I will be pulling for the hockey team, however.

[DudeMan2766]

But you're implying - or rather outright stating - that the motive for questioning the NCAA is to somehow mitigate the badness of the offenses. Why? Why does it have to be more than "The NCAA has no authority to intervene here"?

You can't see how questioning or complaining about the NCAA looks like people saying they dont agree with the punishments? Which in turn makes it sound like those people dont think what happend needs punished. We have people here who acknowledge that everything happend and that they agree with the punishment,then in the next breath say they had no right to hand down those punishments. If you think the NCAA had no right to step in, then obviously you don't agree with the program being punished. You can't have it both ways. Thats why it looks like people deep down just flat out dont want the football program in trouble.

"Oh yeah, I agree that there needed to be action. But the NCAA had no right to take those actions" What??

How people can look at what the leaders of this University did, and then be angry at the METHODS used to punish them, is beyond me. The men responsible are going to get whats comming to them, and the program got what was comming to it. It doesnt take a lot of common decency to be content with that instead of making every arguement under the sun to somehow make the NCAA look like the bad guys. Then you have people on here blaming the media and public pressure. Get real.

[columbia]

But you're implying - or rather outright stating - that the motive for questioning the NCAA is to somehow mitigate the badness of the offenses. Why? Why does it have to be more than "The NCAA has no authority to intervene here"?

You can't see how questioning or complaining about the NCAA looks like people saying they dont agree with the punishments? Which in turn makes it sound like those people dont think what happend needs punished. We have people here who acknowledge that everything happend and that they agree with the punishment,then in the next breath say they had no right to hand down those punishments. If you think the NCAA had no right to step in, then obviously you don't agree with the program being punished. You can't have it both ways. Thats why it looks like people deep down just flat out dont want the football program in trouble.

"Oh yeah, I agree that there needed to be action. But the NCAA had no right to take those actions" What??

How people can look at what the leaders of this University did, and then be angry at the METHODS used to punish them, is beyond me. The men responsible are going to get whats comming to them, and the program got what was comming to it. It doesnt take a lot of common decency to be content with that instead of making every arguement under the sun to somehow make the NCAA look like the bad guys. Then you have people on here blaming the media and public pressure. Get real.

To quote Pierre, "This guy gets it."

[DudeMan2766]

But you're implying - or rather outright stating - that the motive for questioning the NCAA is to somehow mitigate the badness of the offenses. Why? Why does it have to be more than "The NCAA has no authority to intervene here"?

You can't see how questioning or complaining about the NCAA looks like people saying they dont agree with the punishments? Which in turn makes it sound like those people dont think what happend needs punished. We have people here who acknowledge that everything happend and that they agree with the punishment,then in the next breath say they had no right to hand down those punishments. If you think the NCAA had no right to step in, then obviously you don't agree with the program being punished. You can't have it both ways. Thats why it looks like people deep down just flat out dont want the football program in trouble.

"Oh yeah, I agree that there needed to be action. But the NCAA had no right to take those actions" What??

How people can look at what the leaders of this University did, and then be angry at the METHODS used to punish them, is beyond me. The men responsible are going to get whats comming to them, and the program got what was comming to it. It doesnt take a lot of common decency to be content with that instead of making every arguement under the sun to somehow make the NCAA look like the bad guys. Then you have people on here blaming the media and public pressure. Get real.

To quote Pierre, "This guy gets it."

I have fun out there...

[DontToewsMeBro]

No he doesn't. Even if I thought Case Anthony deserved the death penalty it wouldn't have made it right for someone to walk up to her and shoot her in the head during the trial.

[MWB]

No he doesn't. Even if I thought Case Anthony deserved the death penalty it wouldn't have made it right for someone to walk up to her and shoot her in the head during the trial.

Would it be right for her to get off on a technicality? And by right, I mean morally right, since the PSU situation is not a court situation.

[MWB]

Let me adjust that analogy a little. Suppose the prosecuting attorney in Anthony's case did something inappropriate. Something that could possibly effect the outcome of the trial. However, even with that, Anthony decided to plea bargain with the prosecution and faced life in prison. Would you be arguing for her or would you say that the punishment was appropriate. Would the ends justify the means?

[malkinshair]

Let me adjust that analogy a little. Suppose the prosecuting attorney in Anthony's case did something inappropriate. Something that could possibly effect the outcome of the trial. However, even with that, Anthony decided to plea bargain with the prosecution and faced life in prison. Would you be arguing for her or would you say that the punishment was appropriate. Would the ends justify the means?

That's not 'ends justifying the means', though. Anthony would've made her own mind up, given the circumstances surrounding the case...including, if she had decent counsel, the inappropriate behavior of the prosecution. It's not an 'ends justify the means' unless Anthony wasn't aware of the prosecution's lapse. In that case, given the 'rules' of our legal system, I would argue for her release...even if I hated it.

The most ironic thing of your post is that given your scenario, the prosecuting attorney, if it came to light acted inappropriately (like, say, threatening the Death Penalty when they had no legal course to seek it), they would be disbarred and most likely face charges.

[MRandall25]

I think it's safe to say Casey Anthony isn't a good comparison, for either side of this argument.

[DontToewsMeBro]

Right, I was using it as a simplification, proof by analogy is impossible and Anthony (1 person) \neq Penn State athletics.

Emmert on ESPN now.

[DontToewsMeBro]

Note: count how many times he says media.

[MWB]

Let me adjust that analogy a little. Suppose the prosecuting attorney in Anthony's case did something inappropriate. Something that could possibly effect the outcome of the trial. However, even with that, Anthony decided to plea bargain with the prosecution and faced life in prison. Would you be arguing for her or would you say that the punishment was appropriate. Would the ends justify the means?

That's not 'ends justifying the means', though. Anthony would've made her own mind up, given the circumstances surrounding the case...including, if she had decent counsel, the inappropriate behavior of the prosecution. It's not an 'ends justify the means' unless Anthony wasn't aware of the prosecution's lapse. In that case, given the 'rules' of our legal system, I would argue for her release...even if I hated it.

The most ironic thing of your post is that given your scenario, the prosecuting attorney, if it came to light acted inappropriately (like, say, threatening the Death Penalty when they had no legal course to seek it), they would be disbarred and most likely face charges.

You kind of missed the general point of the analogy, but no matter. I'm just trying to figure out where people stand on this. It seems that some are arguing the principle of the matter (Rocco has basically said that), while others are harping on the NCAA as a way of justifying thoughts that PSU got punished too severely.