Penn State football deserves death penalty for cover-up

Monkeypox · July 17, 2012

This argument that you shouldn't punish PSU for the cover-up because some 3rd party will be hurt by it is like saying you shouldn't send a serial killer to jail because he's got kids to feed.

Green P1 · July 17, 2012

You have an opinion that you will not change, and I disagree. No one can win the argument.

When has an argument ever been won on GMG?

Green P1 · July 17, 2012

This argument that you shouldn't punish PSU for the cover-up because some 3rd party will be hurt by it is like saying you shouldn't send a serial killer to jail because he's got kids to feed.

To me it's more like you shouldn't send the dead serial killer's son to prison because he has kids to feed....

UNTFan23 · July 17, 2012

You have an opinion that you will not change, and I disagree. No one can win the argument.

Some people just want to watch State College burn.

forevereagle · July 17, 2012

When has an argument ever been won on GMG?

If one has, I haven't seen it.

LongJim · July 17, 2012

To me it's more like you shouldn't send the dead serial killer's son to prison because he has kids to feed....

To me, it's more like you should execute the mother of the dead serial killer because she allowed him to chop up his victims in the bathroom shower over a period of 14 years.

But then told the next door neighbor who "heard things" and the brother in law who saw a dismembered finger in the serial killer's mouth not to worry because "Jerry's fine. He's my son. It's a family thing. I'll take care of it."

Mean Green 93-98 · July 17, 2012

This argument that you shouldn't punish PSU for the cover-up because some 3rd party will be hurt by it is like saying you shouldn't send a serial killer to jail because he's got kids to feed.

Weak parallel. The perpetrator has already been sent to jail for life, and then some.

The parallel is more like saying you shouldn't kill the remaining members of the community where the killer operated.

Monkeypox · July 17, 2012

To me it's more like you shouldn't send the dead serial killer's son to prison because he has kids to feed....

Except that's not the same at all, unless the dead serial killer's son participated in the coverup. The punishment (jail/death penalty) in this scenario is to PSU football. Just because some people believe that automatically transfers that punishment out to everyone who could possibly be adversely affected by those consequences doesn't make it so.

That's where the analogy fails. PSU football is being punished. The shop owners/restaurant people etc. will be negatively affected, and unfairly, just like the family of a murderer, even though they did nothing wrong. But the responsibility lies on the criminals and those that support them, not upon the rules and laws that punish them.

And make no mistake, the NCAA has the rules in place that they can punish Penn State football. Death Penalty isn't even the worse they can do, actually, but I doubt we'll even see that.

Monkeypox · July 17, 2012

Weak parallel. The perpetrator has already been sent to jail for life, and then some.

The parallel is more like saying you shouldn't kill the remaining members of the community where the killer operated.

Once again, a Death Penalty punishment is executed against the university, not members of the community. Logic fail.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 17, 2012

Once again, a Death Penalty punishment is executed against the university, not members of the community. Logic fail.

Again, the punishment you speak of is directed specifically and only against those who neither perpetrated the crime nor were involved in any cover up. It is against Penn State, a community over 40 times larger than the one in which I live. The punishment is indirectly against State College and the entire central Pennsylvania region. It will not punish Jerry Sandusky in any way. It will not punish Graham Spanier in any way. So yes, your suggested punishment is directed against a community and communities.

You might want to work on the English language (and your logic) before you try accusing others of "logic fail."

Edited July 17, 2012 by Mean Green 93-98

UNT90 · July 17, 2012

Well, Emmert, the one that matters, seems to feel that Penn St. Deserves severe penalties.

I happen to know that he reads this board often to formulate his ideas.

I win!! Suck it!!!

Monkeypox · July 17, 2012

Again, the punishment you speak of is directly specifically and only against those who neither perpetrated the crime nor were involved in any cover up. It is against Penn State, a community over 40 times larger than the one in which I live. The punishment is indirectly against State College and the entire central Pennsylvania region. It will not punish Jerry Sandusky in any way. It will not punish Graham Spanier in any way. So yes, your suggested punishment is directed against a community and communities.

You might want to work on the English language (and your logic) before you try accusing others of "logic fail."

Indirectly isn't relevant. If I think my wife is going to work and instead she's committing genocide, I'll be INDIRECTLY punished when she goes to jail, despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it.

Make no mistake, Penn State broke the rules of the NCAA, and faces punishment due to their lack of institutional control and participation in the cover-up, per NCAA guidelines.

This isn't about how many people can be indirectly affected, because that's no excuse to refrain from punishing the guilty. And Penn State, the institution, is guilty for lack of institutional controls.

forevereagle · July 17, 2012

Anyone else questioning their interpretation of "justice for all?"

Mean Green 93-98 · July 17, 2012

Indirectly isn't relevant.

I was merely pointing out that the only ones who would be punished by the death penality you suggest, whether directly or indirectly, would be the innocent. A death penalty will not even indirectly affect Jerry Sandusky or Graham Spanier.

Make no mistake, Penn State broke the rules of the NCAA, and faces punishment due to their lack of institutional control and participation in the cover-up, per NCAA guidelines.

Which rules? And who in the present Penn State athletic department participated in the cover-up? And even were someone in the present Penn State administration to be involved (which they weren't), the NCAA has no jurisdiction over college administrations.

This isn't about how many people can be indirectly affected, because that's no excuse to refrain from punishing the guilty.

The guilty have been, and will continue to be, punished. Neither the death penalty nor any kind of sanctions against PSU athletics accomplishes this. If people get to thinking it does, it will only lessen the punishment against the actual guilty.

And Penn State, the institution, is guilty for lack of institutional controls.

An institution is comprised of people. And the people who comprise that institution are the very ones who forced out those who in any way may have enabled an ex-employee to commit crimes on their campus.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Mean Green 93-98

Monkeypox · July 17, 2012

An institution is comprised of people. And the people who comprise that institution are the very ones who forced out those who in any way may have enabled an ex-employee to commit crimes on their campus.

Penn State, the institution, is responsible for the acts that took place, whether or not those people are currently still in-house. Just as they can take away scholarships from a school after the players have left and boosters are forced out, they can punish the football program for the rules that they've broken in the past.

Penn State themselves has already, as a start, taken away $2.6 million from their own athletic department as a result, even though it "punished the innocent." Still, that's a drop in the bucket for them.

Fact of the matter is that Penn State and the individuals in that community BENEFITTED from the cover-up of those crimes. That handful of men are facing the criminal charges. That doesn't have to do the monster that Penn State football was allowed to become WITHIN Penn State University. And that is why the program, and university, need to be punished, and accept their punishment.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 18, 2012

. . . they can punish the football program for the rules that they've broken in the past.

You keep throwing that out as if it were fact, but continue to refuse to answer the question--What rules? Be specific.

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

You keep throwing that out as if it were fact, but continue to refuse to answer the question--What rules? Be specific.

I don't refuse, I just assume you've either read the report, the NCAA bylaws, the previous posts in this thread, any article that references the NCAA letter to Penn State, or the letter to Penn State itself.

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pennstatencaaletter2.pdf

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

Also, I don't remember hearing any of this outcry about the sanctions at Ohio State or USC punishing the innocent.

UNT90 · July 18, 2012

You keep throwing that out as if it were fact, but continue to refuse to answer the question--What rules? Be specific.

I posted it somewhere in this mess of a thread, along with others. It is the dreaded lack of institutional control, and the rule specifically says it not only applies to student athletes, but coaching staff conduct in general.

The hammer should be a comin. We shall see.

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

I posted it somewhere in this mess of a thread, along with others. It is the dreaded lack of institutional control, and the rule specifically says it not only applies to student athletes, but coaching staff conduct in general.

The hammer should be a comin. We shall see.

LOIC. That's the big bad one, and Emmert specifically references it in the letter, asking Penn State to please show them how it WASN'T lack of institutional control. I think they'll have a hard time convincing the NCAA that it doesn't apply in this situation. It'll just come down to what sanctions they apply. I don't think it will be the death penalty, just because I don't believe the NCAA ever wants to go there.

Cr1028 · July 18, 2012

Well, Emmert, the one that matters, seems to feel that Penn St. Deserves severe penalties.

I happen to know that he reads this board often to formulate his ideas.

I win!! Suck it!!!

Emmert is fighting a reputation that the NCAA looks the other way for large schools. This is a way for him to look like the NCAA would actually punish a BCS traditional top 25 program.

Cr1028 · July 18, 2012

11.1 CONDUCT OF ATHLETICS PERSONNEL

11.1.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship. Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution

to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so

that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity

of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. (See Bylaw
10 for more specific ethical-conduct standards.)

This is the only rule I can find that they may have broken that would lead to the need to review if there was a LOIC. A NCAA rule has to violated before LOIC can be up for consideration. It looks more about fair play and good sportsmanship but could probably be construed with the right attorney as covering up accusations of molestation. I guess time will tell. Emmert is a joke and so is NCAA enforcement when it comes to dealing with the "BCS" schools.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 18, 2012

Also, I don't remember hearing any of this outcry about the sanctions at Ohio State or USC punishing the innocent.

1. Those were regarding clear NCAA violations that everyone knows leads to sanctions.

2. The violations directly involved the football program.

3. It was not the death penalty.

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

1. Those were regarding clear NCAA violations that everyone knows leads to sanctions.
2. The violations directly involved the football program.
3. It was not the death penalty.

1) So do these

2) So did these

3) OSU didn't get it for LOIC, and neither one covered up for child molesters (regardless, no punishment has been dealt yet)

4) Still doesn't cover the fact that they "punished the innocent" after the guilty were no longer at the University

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

This is the only rule I can find that they may have broken that would lead to the need to review if there was a LOIC. A NCAA rule has to violated before LOIC can be up for consideration. It looks more about fair play and good sportsmanship but could probably be construed with the right attorney as covering up accusations of molestation. I guess time will tell. Emmert is a joke and so is NCAA enforcement when it comes to dealing with the "BCS" schools.

The letter clearly outlines the statements in the by-laws, and addresses where Penn State failed them. I think it's hard to say NCAA enforcement is a joke in the same breath that many say they don't want enforcement against Penn State.