Should Penn State get the Death Penalty?

[King James]

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by King James

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

That's a good point, and the NCAA is supposed to operate to ensure part #2, not #1.

[King James]

Originally Posted by shilala

That's a good point, and the NCAA is supposed to operate to ensure part #2, not #1.

I think the key factor is, as the current NCAA rules are written, there were not any violations of NCAA rules. A requirement for the death penalty under lack of institutional control is that the lack of control is in regard to NCAA rules.

Therefore, unless the NCAA invents a reason, regardless of what anyone arguably thinks should be the penalty, the death penalty does not appear to be an available option.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by King James

I think the key factor is, as the current NCAA rules are written, there were not any violations of NCAA rules. A requirement for the death penalty under lack of institutional control is that the lack of control is in regard to NCAA rules.

Therefore, unless the NCAA invents a reason, regardless of what anyone arguably thinks should be the penalty, the death penalty does not appear to be an available option.

That's the way I see it, at least from what I understand.
James, I found one story about PSU's insurance, but not the one I initially read.
I read a number of others that were much like this one, and two of their insurers are covering other liability claims, maybe because they weren't didn't include the necessary wording to allow them to avoid it? They're trying to settle the claims quickly.
You guys are apparently onto something.

[357]

Originally Posted by King James

I understand the blame for the football program because Sandusky's acts were covered up to protect the program and university. However, I think there is a distinction between (1) covering up criminal acts to protect the degradation of a program on the one hand, and (2) covering up NCAA violations to enhance the success of a program on the other.

If PSU had stopped the criminal acts from happening right away, then covered them up you'd be right. However, they didn't. They may have eventually fired Sandusky, but they continued to allow him access to their facilities, where he continued to commit dozens of crimes over the next 13 years, and then covered those up as well.

Here's an article about the same thing:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/emmert-...96--ncaaf.html

The primary matter for the NCAA is application of its own definition of a "lack of institutional control." If the NCAA can apply it to the alleged cover-up at Penn State, it could harshly penalize the football program and also hand down broad punishment across Penn State athletics.

Penn State's failure to act when presented opportunities to confront assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, from top administration to members of the footbal coaching staff including Joe Paterno, is critical to the NCAA review but bylaws don't contain specific language that would apply to this particular case.

FBI director Louis Freeh...said "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized,"

As part of the investigation, Freeh's team unearthed email correspondence that shows Paterno not only knew of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky which he Paterno previously denied, but also portrayed Paterno as the most powerful figure in the group, advising Curley to abort a plan to file a report detailing the 2001 crime witnesses by assistant coach Mike McQueary to authorities.

I can't see arguing that the NCAA language doesn't specifically define covering up serial child rape as a rule violation. Rule breaking is bad. Covering up for a child predator is much worse, and the penalty should directly and proportionately reflect that.

[King James]

Originally Posted by 357

Covering up for a child predator is much worse, and the penalty should directly and proportionately reflect that.

Covering up for a child predator is terrible. But if a necessary element of giving out the death penalty is violation of an NCAA rule, then the penalty cannot be given out unless that element is fulfilled. So unless the NCAA creates some sort of reasoning, I don't see how it is a possible penalty

[357]

Originally Posted by King James

Covering up for a child predator is terrible. But if a necessary element of giving out the death penalty is violation of an NCAA rule, then the penalty cannot be given out unless that element is fulfilled. So unless the NCAA creates some sort of reasoning, I don't see how it is a possible penalty

It all depends on how they choose to define "lack of institutional control". One could argue that covering up felonies at the request of the football coach would constitute a lack of institutional control. I guess we'd have to know the exact language of that policy.

[King James]

Originally Posted by 357

It all depends on how they choose to define "lack of institutional control". One could argue that covering up felonies at the request of the football coach would constitute a lack of institutional control. I guess we'd have to know the exact language of that policy.

the lack of control could be loosely defined, but you can't even get at that definition if there is no violation of an NCAA rule. The "lack of control" is in relation to NCAA rules, not just lack of control in general.