Joe Paterno should be fired!

[Momo]

Judge Leslie Dutchcot freed former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky on $100,000 bail against the wishes of the prosecutors. According to an online biography, the judge is listed as a volunteer for the Second Mile, Sandusky’s nonprofit. Do you think she should have recused herself from the case?

Wow!

[JaneDoe]

*Thud*

[GrayMatterWife]

It is not necessarily a given that the judge presiding over his bail determination should have recused herself. It depends on her relationship with him. The fact that she volunteered at his charity at some point does not necessarily demand that she recuse. And, if the Commonwealth thought that bias was a real issue, they could have motioned for her recusal. They didn't. Suggests to me that recusal was not necessary.

Moreover, she's only the bail hearing judge. She well may not even be in the trial judge pool. No idea.

Bail is not supposed to be punitive. The person charged is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. He should not be deprived of his freedom ahead of trial unless there are compelling reasons to deprive him. Bail serves two purposes: ensuring safety and ensuring appearance at trial. Limitations on pretrial release should always be narrow as possible. (It feels awful, of course, to think of a predatory pedophile being released, but he has not been convicted.)

People are clamoring for an astronomically high bail amount. But how would a higher bail better ensure his appearance or protection of the public? (1) He's not a flight risk. He's extremely recognizable. He couldn't go to Target, much less to the international flight counter at JFK, without being recognized. His assets are here. His life is here. I'm sure he's surrendered his passport (a common bail requirement). He's WAY more a suicide risk than a flight risk. (2) He most likely has agreed to significantly limitations on where he can be and go. I am sure he cannot be within 500 feet of a school or any place children frequent, etc. And he may have an ankle bracelet or other tracking measure.

And, if he even REMOTELY violates his bail terms, they'll revoke his ass and he will be held without bond.

The only way a higher bail would better ensure he doesn't flee or doesn't assault a child while out pretrial would be either be to deny bail entirely or to make bail so prohibitively high that he can't bond out. That would be reversed in about two seconds.

[HouseofWool]

My understanding is that he did not have to put any money down on his bail, that it only goes into effect if he does not show up to court. It seems odd to me... I also heard that he does have an ankle bracelet.

[GrayMatterWife]

My understanding is that he did not have to put any money down on his bail, that it only goes into effect if he does not show up to court. It seems odd to me... I also heard that he does have an ankle bracelet.

Pennsylvania has unsecured bonds. Essentially, he is out ROR provisionally. His security requirement kicks in only if he fails to appear in court. Of course, if he fails to appear, he also risks be revoked completely.

I also just heard that he's not wearing an ankle bracelet. Maybe not what I would have ordered, but nobody gave me a black robe...

[Thirteen]

Bob Costas is interviewing the pedophile on NBC. I was watching the Sing-Off and it ended abruptly to that man talking. I am mad, very very mad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SuzySunshine]

I know in these cases especially its easy to jump to throttling people and I'm not a PSU fan and not defending anyone but this is the latest on McQueary, he's the one that supposedly saw it happen in the shower.

Mike McQueary, the Penn State assistant coach who told a grand jury he witnessed former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the shower in 2002, told colleagues in an email, "I did the right thing."

McQueary has not spoken publicly since the Penn State scandal broke. But, last week, in an email obtained exclusively by NBC News, he told friends and former teammates:
"I did the right thing…you guys know me…the truth is not out there fully…I didn't just turn and run…I made sure it stopped…I had to make quick tough decisions."

[diggitydot]

He made sure it stopped?! Sandusky was still breathing and the cops weren't called. He didn't do ENOUGH. Period.

[MarissaNicole]

I don't understand why HE is still there? Shouldn't he have gotten the boot too?

[Pollyanna]

I don't understand why HE is still there? Shouldn't he have gotten the boot too?

Yes, it really makes no sense. Honestly they probably need to get rid of the entire coaching staff that was there. I have to believe everyone knew Sandusky was not someone you'd want your kids around. But I doubt that's a legal reason to fire anyone. I'm not sure why any of those coaches would want to stay on at this point.

[SuzySunshine]

As awful as it is in this situation I think the whistleblower law is probably protecting him to some level, I heard that somewhere this weekend. My guess is the university is being super cautious until they find a way to get rid of him so that he doesn't sue.

[diggitydot]

Except he didn't blow any whistles, did he? At the time, he only told Paterno, that's it. He didn't tell anyone else until the grand jury. Is that considered a whistleblower?

[SuzySunshine]

I don't know but this is what the "expert" says.

http://www.ydr.com/ci_19318180

Expert: Mike McQueary protected by state and federal law

By SEAN ADKINS
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 11/12/2011 08:48:49 PM EST


York, PA - The assistant Penn State coach who said he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assault a young boy would be protected by both the state's whistle-blower law and the U.S. Constitution from losing his job.
Under the whistle-blower law, the university cannot fire or discriminate against Mike McQueary for disclosing wrongdoing -- in this case abuse -- to his supervisor, said David Wachtel, a partner with Bernabei & Wachtel in Washington, D.C.
"Pennsylvania has a whistle-blower law for all its state employees and coach McQueary would certainly be covered," Wachtel said. "He made a good-faith effort to report the wrongdoing, so he would be a whistle-blower."
In 2007, Wachtel represented Kerry Beal, the security officer at Peach Atomic Power Station who videotaped his fellow officers sleeping on the job.
Wachtel said Penn State cannot fire McQueary simply for appearing before the grand jury.
"As a grand jury witness, he is protected," he said. "When you testify before a grand jury, you have legal protection."
Stephen M. Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington, D.C., agreed.
"His testimony is protected by the U.S. Constitution," he said.
McQueary could still lose his job
In 2002, McQueary was a graduate assistant working for the team. On March 1, he was in the Lasch Football Building when he saw Sandusky sexually abuse what appeared to be a 10-year-old boy, according to McQueary's grand jury testimony.
Distraught over what he had seen, McQueary first called his father and, the next day, reported the abuse to coach Joe Paterno.
"By initial actions of reporting to his supervisor, McQueary is a whistle-blower," Kohn said.
However, a further investigation must be conducted to show if McQueary's later actions compromised his whistle-blower status.
"You need to look at if he was offered anything of value to keep his mouth shut," Kohn said. "Then, he might be involved in the (alleged) cover-up. On the other hand, if he was told that the incident was turned over to the proper authorities or was being investigated, then he would still be protected."
And, while the school cannot fire McQueary for appearing before the grand jury, it could terminate him for using poor judgment in how he handled the 2002 incident, Wachtel said.
"They are allowed to do that," he said.
Earlier this week, the school's board of trustees fired Paterno and school president Graham Spanier.
On Friday, Penn State placed McQueary on administrative leave.
McQueary has given no public statement this week regarding his testimony.

[diggitydot]

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the peeps at Penn think that doIng the absolute bare minimum when it comes to "one of their own" raping elementary-aged children is somehow A-OK. Here's a wild idea, assholes -- when a kid is being forcibly sodomized IN FRONT OF YOU, try to go a little "above and beyond" instead.

Maybe he is covered under the whistleblower laws, I dunno. I just don't want to believe that he gets any "credit" for simply walking away when a child was being assaulted.

[MarissaNicole]

I think that expert mixes the issues if you ask me. No he cannot be fired for reporting the incident to a University official, but I would think he could be fired for not going to the police or not doing anything else.

Whistle blower acts are meant to protect people who blow the whistle on illegal activity. Therefore he can't be fired for trying to do the right thing... but I would argue he could be fired for NOT doing the right thing and not going any further with reporting the conduct to DCFS or the police (just like Coach P).

Ex: Employee knows government official is taking bribes; he reports it to the newspaper. He considers himself a whistle blower for going to the press; the office he works for does not because he took the info to the PRESS. There is no doubt said employee would be protected if he took it too an investigative agency, and could not be fired for that; but because he didn't exactly go to law enforcement the line is blurred.

The only thing I can think of is because he is not a teacher, I don't think he is a mandatory reporter. You would think that anyone who works with minors should be a mandatory reporter, but I think it just may be teachers and people in the medical field. However, if he was considered a mandatory reporter I would think they absolutely could fire him for not going to DCFS or the police.