Should Penn State get the Death Penalty?

[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.

[shilala]

I'm also sorry if I came across as contrary, it's certainly not my desire.
I just fail to see what the NCAA do that won't hurt people that don't deserve to get hurt. They're powerless unless they can somehow think of something that will help the victims, their families, and stop this from happening in the future.
If PSU and all their memory could be rubbed out without harming so many other kids and families along the way, I'd be right on board and leading the charge.
There's nothing anyone can do to even take the edge off this tragedy, or to assuage the agony of the kids and families Sandusky touched.

As with everything, there's always those things that go mostly unreported.
Sandusky's father hosted a sports boy's camp.
Sandusky hosted a boy's sports camp.
Sandusky molested his own adopted son, Matt.
It's not too tough to fill in the blank there, and I've listened to a lot of detail about this stuff via sports radio (which is nearly my every waking hour). I'm not trying to dredge up any sympathy for Sandusky, I'm suggesting that someone doesn't get that seriously sick and depraved by just being on the planet, and he was very likely taught his propensities, or tortured into them.
Maybe if people can focus their disgust and hatred, then nobody else needlessly gets hurt in the aftermath? I know it's a far stretch to not judge and to forgive in instances like this, and I'm failing miserably. Maybe the best I can do is focus on who's to blame and hope they don't get another chance to do harm.

[King James]

I'd guess a big reason of why they want to settle out of court quickly is to avoid the bad press from a trial. Not sure of the insurance reasons to do so.

Problem is, with the damning content of the Freeh report, Penn State likely has very little leverage. They can throw out numbers to the victims all they want, but it sure seems like the victims have all the power in the world because there isn't a jury out there that won't give them a huge some of money, and deservingly so.

[The Poet]

Wow. This thread started off at a limp yesterday, but exploded after that. This alone has convinced me Penn State SHOULD get the death penalty for a few years, for if emotions are running this high, even with people who claim to care nothing about PSU, JoePa, college football, or even NCAA sports altogether, then a cooling-off period in State College is definitely a good idea.

[mash]

Those of you that are saying PSU didn't break any NCAA rules, are you sure?

I find it hard to believe there is nothing like a "morality clause" that athletes have in their contract, to govern their behaviour and give the owners an out.

I remember a lot of people castigating the PSU Board when this first came out because they fired Joe Paterno. I think it's pretty clear now why they did, they must have known how deep the cover up was, and how liable they were going to be.

I can't imagine how many tens of millions of dollars they are going to get hammered for in civil suits. The death penalty may not be their biggest worry.

[King James]

Originally Posted by mash

Those of you that are saying PSU didn't break any NCAA rules, are you sure?

As far as almost all the news stories I've read, that is the general consensus. I'm going to read through the rules this weekend to see if I see anything that looks like it may work, although I am in no way any kind of authority on NCAA rules.

However, it's still not above the NCAA to make something up. Many would view that as a good thing in this case, but in general I get bothered by their inconsistent enforcement of rules.

[smitty81]

I think this pretty well covers it.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 THE PRINCIPLE OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND ETHICAL CONDUCT

"For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

I've bolded the language at the end of this rule, because it is broad enough to allow NCAA action if the organization desired to act under the scope of this rule.

Was is ethical for Penn State coaches, athletic administrators and the president of the institution to cover up child sex abuse? Certainly these unethical acts would fall within "the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

The NCAA could enforce penalties under this prong if it so desired.

10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship.

"Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports."

Again, broad language that I believe the NCAA could cite in choosing to discipline Penn State. They key is that the language includes not just Paterno and other employees, but Sandusky as well. But here comes the provision that is an absolute slam dunk violation.

10:1 Unethical Conduct

Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning an individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant
to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation;

This prong of the NCAA rulebook is a slam dunk which nails down a clear NCAA violation because while Sandusky may not have been a current coach at the time of his acts, he was certainly a representative of the athletic department's interest. That is, Sandusky was bound to comply with the Unethical Conduct provisions of the NCAA rulebook because he was a "former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/nc...th-penalty.php

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by smitty81

I think this pretty well covers it.

If that were the case, Nebraska, FSU, and Miami would've gotten the death penalty 15 years ago and Florida not too long ago...

I looked over the article you posted, and I thought this individual summized my thoughts on this subject nicely:

The punishment should be focused on the individuals responsible for the cover-up, not the players, students, and fans that had no culpability whatsoever. The legal system can sort this out on its own without the NCAA digging through its rule book to find ambiguities that allow it to administer the death penalty.

[smitty81]

Originally Posted by Stephen

If that were the case, Nebraska, FSU, and Miami would've gotten the death penalty 15 years ago and Florida not too long ago...

I looked over the article you posted, and I thought this individual summized my thoughts on this subject nicely:

for what?

See, your getting all defensive about this all.

I am just pointing out that they did in fact break NCAA rules. Rather they deserve the "death penalty", that is up to the NCAA I guess.

The rules I posted, none of them alone really warrant the death penalty. It's all the rules together they have broken that is going to get them the death penalty.

Nebraska has never done anything this serious to deserve a "death penalty".

Your over analyzing all this and it seems your taking it personally.

They broke the rules and the NCAA CAN punish them for it. It is what it is rather you agree with it or not.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by smitty81

for what?

Dude, seriously?
Christan Peter
Lawrence Phillips

Ring a bell?

Originally Posted by smitty81

See, your getting all defensive about this all.

I am just pointing out that they did in fact break NCAA rules. Rather they deserve the "death penalty", that is up to the NCAA I guess.

The rules I posted, none of them alone really warrant the death penalty. It's all the rules together they have broken that is going to get them the death penalty.

Nebraska has never done anything this serious to deserve a "death penalty".

Your over analyzing all this and it seems your taking it personally.

They broke the rules and the NCAA CAN punish them for it. It is what it is rather you agree with it or not.

I don't know where you deduct that I'm taking it personally.

Herein lies my uneasiness with NCAA, and have yet to see a credible argument (here or elsewhere) to convince me otherwise: It's arbitrary and capricious. If the NCAA does decide to levy sanctions, they're saying that murder, the raping of women, robbery, drug usage, drug distribution, assault, etc. aren't a violation, but THIS is.

[King James]

Originally Posted by Stephen

they're saying that murder, the raping of women, robbery, drug usage, drug distribution, assault, etc. aren't a violation, but THIS is.

That is kind of where I am at too. Its not at all that I think Penn State deserves a break, I hope that they have to pay out their ass in civil court and if any other criminal charges can be brought, those should as well.

My point is that if the NCAA steps in, they are open up a can of worms that aught not be opened by the NCAA. Leave criminal matters to the legal system and the NCAA take care of the issues it was created to take care of.

But as already pointed out numerous times, opinions will be different. Especially on such a hotbed issue.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Dude, seriously?
Christan Peter
Lawrence Phillips

Ring a bell?


I don't know where you deduct that I'm taking it personally.

Herein lies my uneasiness with NCAA, and have yet to see a credible argument (here or elsewhere) to convince me otherwise: It's arbitrary and capricious. If the NCAA does decide to levy sanctions, they're saying that murder, the raping of women, robbery, drug usage, drug distribution, assault, etc. aren't a violation, but THIS is.

Can you show me where the NCAA has dealt with any of the above for just half the amount of time that we are talking about with PSU and the cover-up related to that?

You can't say, oh the NCAA didn't do anything when Oregon had a player get a felony bla..bla..bla..., then they had a kid get a DUI, then a theft....and have it compare to what happened at PSU. We are talking about the raping of kids for years and years and years and the school covering that up to save their good name.... That isn't a bunch of single incidents over a period of time, which generally are addressed by the school with suspensions anyway... How the difference doesn't compute with you is beyond me.....

[smitty81]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Dude, seriously?
Christan Peter
Lawrence Phillips

So your saying that the NCAA should of handed out the death penalty to NU because of one player that got caught with drugs or a DUI?

Your comparing apples to oranges here.

The one student was punished good enough in the eyes of the NCAA so they didn't feel a need to step in.

PSU....................YEARS and YEARS of cover ups and child rape.

Not exactly comparing the same kind of crimes. Hard to justify the same kind of punishment.

[357]

Originally Posted by Stephen

If that were the case, Nebraska, FSU, and Miami would've gotten the death penalty 15 years ago and Florida not too long ago...

I looked over the article you posted, and I thought this individual summized my thoughts on this subject nicely:

See that's where I disagree. In cases like this you have to follow the money. The ones responsible should be punished but so should those who benefited from it. PSU benefited greatly in terms of football revenue. They too should be punished by removing that revenue stream for a period of time. The court could levy a fine agains PSU but if they pay it with continued football revenue, what does PSU care? If PSU looses that revenue for a number of years, that will also significantly decrease their ability to generate that revenue in the future. See, SMU. That's the real penalty they deserve.

[smitty81]

Originally Posted by 357

See that's where I disagree. In cases like this you have to follow the money. The ones responsible should be punished but so should those who benefited from it. PSU benefited greatly in terms of football revenue. They too should be punished by removing that revenue stream for a period of time. The court could levy a fine agains PSU but if they pay it with continued football revenue, what does PSU care? If PSU looses that revenue for a number of years, that will also significantly decrease their ability to generate that revenue in the future. See, SMU. That's the real penalty they deserve.

I agree.

[King James]

I don't know about "slam dunk". Here is the full text of rule 10:1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution;
(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student- athlete;
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
(d) Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning the individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation;
(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner
(f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes, or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law;
(g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA or institution's admissions office regarding an individual's academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of coursework, grades and test scores); (Adopted: 4/27/06)
(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations; or
(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rule is not limiting to the list given, but the problem is that this Penn State situation does not fit under any of the prongs, and it is doubtful there is any support for going beyond them.

But you are right that, if the NCAA wants to, they are more than capable of concocting a reason.