The concept of criminal failure to act is an interesting one in that in the one hand it tries to make persons to be orally and ethically responsible for the common good, on the other hand it attempts to restrict or stop criminal liability in situations in which the defendants have no control over (Sistare, 1989). The concept advocates for the understanding that the failure by someone to act in a particular situation results in the cat tagged as omission. In the case of the Sandusky rape case at the Penn State University; there have been debates on whether or not the Assist Coach McQuery was justified not take action by preventing his senior, Sandusky form molesting r raping the boy (Sistare, 1989). However, as the debate rages on, it is critical …show more content…
Well, there has been argument that it was absolutely moral and imperative to physically respond and intervene by stopping the sexual assault. Some critiques have gone as far as questioning why McQuery with his 6’5 size was unable to confront the assailant who was older (Sandusky, 2000). Others have gone as far as asserting the failure by McQuery to intervene was because of disinterest in child rape and as such, had it that Sandusky was beating the boy the he (McQuery) would have acted immediately (Sandusky, 2000). That is the born of …show more content…
That is because he was well aware of the sexual-abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky but did little to intervene probably with intent of protecting Jerry (Fiorillo, 2012). Given that Paterno was more powerful most well-regarded, most respected person on campus, he was the only person placed to take both legal and disciplinary actions against Sandusky. Sincerely, that was a failure on the part of Parteno both legally and morally for not intervening in the case (Fiorillo,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The American legal system hears many cases relating to liability, but surprisingly, most of these cases concern the prosecutors within their own legal system. In the Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson, a district attorney’s office denied liability for the extreme misconduct of its prosecutors. The Supreme Court decided that the D.A. office was not liable for the actions of their prosecutors because they did not have a pattern of Brady violations. Contrary to the decision in Connick v. Thompson, the D.A. office should have been held liable for the misconduct of its prosecutors. Brady violations appeared throughout the case, other cases of Brady violations in that D.A. office, and the office’s blatant neglect to properly train its prosecutors.
In February 2001 the football assistant Mike McQueary reported to Coach Paterno that he witnessed a sexual encounter between Sandusky and a 10 year old boy in the showers of the Lasch Building. Paterno met with Curley, Schultz and Spanier and they agreed to confront Sandusky. March 5 they met with Sandusky to inform him that they were uncomfortable with his behavior and he could not bring young boys to the facilities anymore. Curley reported the incident to the executive director of The Second Mile, which concluded it was a “non-incident” and took no action.
Penn State football was once the pride of Pennsylvania. The Sandusky scandal changed all of that forever. The University had to learn many lessons. According to Layden, T. (2014), one of the biggest issues that caused the scandal to strive was the fact that those in charge probably felt the football program was too big to fail. In other words, they felt the success of the program was so important to the University and its fans that the scandal needed to be kept on a low profile.
However sincere Penn State may have acted after Sandusky was sentenced does not excuse that Penn State all but denied the allegations through their extensive “No comment” stance when the abuse allegations were coming to light. It should also be noted that when the President finally did address the situation, he offered support to his colleagues, rather than focus on what is important: the victims (Spanier, 2011). Penn State acted quickly to fire the head coach, Joe Paterno, and then-President Graham Spanier, but the actions stopped there (Chappell, 2012). Penn State did what they could to further cover up their mistakes rather than offer support to the victims. Rather than take an active role in this situation, Penn State decided to take a passive role and react rather than apologize and proactively create solutions
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were also charged with one count of felony perjury and one count of failure to report abuse allegations. Curley and Schultz, both resigned from their positions with the university on November 7, 2011 after their arraignment. On November 11, 2011, McQueary, who was now the football team’s assistant receiver’s coach, was placed on indefinite administrative leave. Sandusky denied all the charges, stating that the only thing he did wrong was showered with the boys. On December 7, 2011 Sandusky was arrested on additional counts of child sex abuse, raising the number of victims from eight to ten.
Various reports suggest that he acted to persuade the men not to report what they knew to the criminal justice system but rather to have ‘empathy for Sandusky’ with no known mention of concern for the victims and their families (Alderfer, 2013). Their effectiveness in collectively denying allegations against Sandusky during this time lead the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Linda Kelly to comment retrospectively '' Those officials and administrators to whom it was reported did not report that incident to law enforcement or to any child protective agency. Their inaction, likely, allowed a child predator to continue to victimize children for many, many years” (Thamel, 2011).
Sandusky started off by just touching the young boy. Eventually forcing him to engage in anal and oral sex. Once the boy turned 16, he had enough (pennlive). It was later reported that he performed oral sex 20 times, and the boy did it once to him. The boy, at age 18 later testified against Sandusky during his trial on 2011
The Freeh report showed several officials of the university knew about the allegations of Sandusky’s behavior as early as 1998. The report indicated president Spanier, vice president Schultz, athletic director Curley and head football coach Paterno knew of Sandusky’s actions and failed to report them to the proper authorities. Even though Paterno reported the allegations to the president, Paterno failed to move past the president and report to the Pennsylvania police or the Board of Trustees. Freeh declared most senior leaders at Penn State showed a disregard for the welfare of Sandusky’s child victims for at least 14 years empowered Jerry Sandusky to continue his sexual child abuse (Gessler,
In the January 29, The Stanford Daily editorial Stanford, California, it debates the different essential of the principle of morality and identified Brock Turner had applied a use of force in raping an unconscious woman behind the dumpster. Furthermore, the young man attended Stanford University and participated in his college swim team dreamt of partaking in the Olympus. The victim heartfelt statement during the trial is disregarded because he comes from a class of privilege and is a man. Not to mention, Brock Turner’s father wrote a letter to expressing the universalizability to court saying, “my son’s life shouldn’t be ruined over 20 minutes of action (Dreher,Rod).” Therefore, Aaron Persky who is a California judge implemented an ethical decision that contemplated the clarity around both the specific choice and decision then declared a six months sentenced ruling.
Jerry Sandusky is a sexual predator that used his influence in the community of State College to protect himself as he sexually assaulted ten boys over fifteen years(O'Neill, 2012). Most of the new information revealed is about the case as it went through the different stages of the criminal trial. The trial took place at the Centre County Courthouse and is seen as a necessary part of healing and moving forward for the victims of the sexual predator(O'Neill, 2012). Sandusky was successful at manipulating his victims, friends, and the circumstances which allowed him to take advantage of troubled youth that were partaking in programs offered by the The Second Mile(O'Neill, 2012). Sandusky met most of his victims through The Second Mile nonprofit organization and was able to manipulate time with his victims while appearing to be a father figure to disadvantaged children(Hobson & Boren, 2016).Throughout all of my research it amazes me how bold Jerry Sandusky became with his victims and coworkers while plotting his attack on his victims.
The Jerry Sandusky trial began in 2012 and was held in Centre County, Pennsylvania. Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 counts and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail (Curry, 2015). The details of the case are horrific in nature, and worse is five men were made aware of the incidents and no action was taken to alert authorities. During the trial the victims were led through questions that all pointed toward the trust they had in Sandusky. The university is located in a small town setting where people work hard and have little; Sandusky reaching out to someone was considered a big deal.
Occasionally, there are circumstances involved that may cause innocent individuals to be punished for crimes they did not commit. This paper will explore jurisdiction, plea deals, and exonerations. Jurisdiction The Steubenville High School rape case occurred on August 11, 2012 in Steubenville, Ohio. The case
In conclusion, as a future teacher, it is important to understand my responsibility to report any suspected child neglect or abuse. Even if my future student does not give me permission to report the incident, if the child is in danger, it is my responsibility to report. By keeping his promise of confidentiality to J.D., Dr. Pesce put J.D. in great danger. The student was in danger at school because of the misconduct of the teacher, and he was in danger outside of school because of his shame and suicidal thoughts and tendencies.
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime.