• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Dorothy Sandusky Be Charged With a Crime?

Should Dorothy Sandusky Be Charged With a Crime?

  • Total voters
    13
NO
People must realize that things change,ever so slowly, that many live in the past.
200 years ago, did anyone hear a slave cry out in pain ?
True, for most of us, a fellow humans call for help would be answered....but for many(far too many,IMO, ) the help is not necessary, that screaming is normal.....Hard to imagine, is it not..??
I think this poor woman lived in fear...why is it that no-one came to her rescue ?
This scandal is an indictment on all of us.
We must do what results in good and positive things.. NOT what satisfies our need for revenge.
 
earthworm said:
NO
People must realize that things change,ever so slowly, that many live in the past.
200 years ago, did anyone hear a slave cry out in pain ?
True, for most of us, a fellow humans call for help would be answered....but for many(far too many,IMO, ) the help is not necessary, that screaming is normal.....Hard to imagine, is it not..??
I think this poor woman lived in fear...why is it that no-one came to her rescue ?
This scandal is an indictment on all of us.
We must do what results in good and positive things.. NOT what satisfies our need for revenge.
Click to expand...

The child cried for help. If she needed help, she could have dialed 911 and said my husband is raping a young boy downstairs. Am pretty certain she would have help in matter of minutes.

And no the scandal is not an indictment on all of us.
 
nonpareil said:
How do we know she's not a victim as well? He could be abusive to her, in a way that inhibits her from helping the other victims. But if there's a law that makes what she did or didn't do a crime, sure she should be charged provided there's enough evidence.
Click to expand...
Laws are fine and dandy.
What we need is more love and understanding.
Particularly Sandusky - he could be a latent homosexual...and to him, this is a horrible crime......
 
Crosscheck said:
The child cried for help. If she needed help, she could have dialed 911 and said my husband is raping a young boy downstairs. Am pretty certain she would have help in matter of minutes.

And no the scandal is not an indictment on all of us.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm glad you straightened this out...
And would you have this woman fry in hell ?? for her inaction ...
CrossCheck, you are much younger than I...
I remember when these abuses whhere commonplace ,yet not reported...due to ignorance and fear.
Most of us have improved over the years, other are slow to catch on.
This includes Paterno and Sandusky's wife....and all of us !
 
Henrin said:
She didn't help facilitate anything here. She wasn't involved in the crime. She didn't hold them down, she didn't join in, or really anything else that could qualify. She just didn't report the crime. I do not really believe in laws about abetting unless they are actively taking part in rights of another being violated. A driver doesn't really do that.
Click to expand...

If its found out that she knew about what was going on, if that is proven, if she was there and knew and did nothing.... then YES she DID FACILITATE. She didnt say a word and therefore allowed it to happen. And then afterward didnt report it, allowing the possibility for it to happen again to that child or to other children.

I believe that if you KNOW something is going on and do nothing, it makes you just as guilty.
 
earthworm said:
NO
People must realize that things change,ever so slowly, that many live in the past.
200 years ago, did anyone hear a slave cry out in pain ?
True, for most of us, a fellow humans call for help would be answered....but for many(far too many,IMO, ) the help is not necessary, that screaming is normal.....Hard to imagine, is it not..??
I think this poor woman lived in fear...why is it that no-one came to her rescue ?
This scandal is an indictment on all of us.
We must do what results in good and positive things.. NOT what satisfies our need for revenge.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense and were not talking about her getting abused its about her allowing abuse to continue...I stress it hasnt been proven...and if it is proven she needs to be indicted...and this isnt unusual...wives have been indicted many times for knowingly allowing abuse to continue.
 
BamaBrat said:
If its found out that she knew about what was going on, if that is proven, if she was there and knew and did nothing.... then YES she DID FACILITATE. She didnt say a word and therefore allowed it to happen. And then afterward didnt report it, allowing the possibility for it to happen again to that child or to other children.
Click to expand...

She made it easier to get away with sure, but by her not acting she did not make the act itself easier.

I believe that if you KNOW something is going on and do nothing, it makes you just as guilty.
Click to expand...

So whenever someone doesn't report a crime they should be charged? Not liking that sorry.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
I do not agree with that statement with some crimes...especially with someone who is in a house where peophillia on a child is being perpetrated a mere phone call would stop it....if she was in fact in the house and let it go on...she certainly should be charged
Click to expand...

Why is this different than other crimes? Because it is a child?
 
Kali said:
Do you feel that Jerry Sandusky's wife should be charged with a crime? More and more is coming out and in this latest arrest the victim says she was home and his screams for help went unanswered. It is pretty clear she overlooked a lot of things.
:(

U.S. News - Sandusky rearrested in Pennsylvania
Click to expand...
If she is guilty of one yes, she should be charged. If not, no.
 
In most states, certain people in certain professions are mandated reporters of abuse. The collegiate staff was legally bound to make the reports under PA law. But Ms. Sandusky is not, which would almost certainly clear her of any criminal wrongdoing, unless of course it can be shown (with evidence, not with speculation) that she participated in or materially supported Sandusky as he (allegedly) committed felony crimes. There is not provision in the laws of my state to criminally prosecute a person for passive knowledge of the commission of a crime without having reported it. There are, however, civil penalties which could be brought by the victims. Civil law is different because the burden of proof by a "preponderence of the evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even then, the plaintiff would have to prove that she heard the screaming, which I doubt they can do. The argument that "it seems unlikely that she didn't hear him" would not hold up in any court. It would have to be demonstrated that either she DID hear him, by witness testimony or her own admission, or that it would be impossible for her NOT to have heard him, which could be demonstrated by physical evidence.
 
Henrin said:
She didn't help facilitate anything here. She wasn't involved in the crime. She didn't hold them down, she didn't join in, or really anything else that could qualify. She just didn't report the crime. I do not really believe in laws about abetting unless they are actively taking part in rights of another being violated. A driver doesn't really do that.
Click to expand...

People have a responsibility to stop atrocious acts of brutality (i. e. against children) if they can, regardless of whether they're legally obligated to do so. Doing so is only human.
 
lpast said:
This makes no sense and were not talking about her getting abused its about her allowing abuse to continue...I stress it hasnt been proven...and if it is proven she needs to be indicted...and this isnt unusual...wives have been indicted many times for knowingly allowing abuse to continue.
Click to expand...

Only if it is her own children.
 
1) He hasn't even been sent to trial for anything, so it's way early and presumptuous to try and charge her with a damn thing.

2) She won't be charged with a crime because she has spousal right not to testify at any trial Jerry Sandusky will be given.

3) She's only said that her husband has acted "weird" at times. None of these alleged abuses occurred at his home or with his wife around. They were conducted at State College, PA (home of Penn State's main campus), some satellite PSU campuses, and specific events hosted by his old charity, Second Mile.

Translation - no. She shouldn't, and never will be, charged with any sort of significant crime.
 
Henrin said:
I find it ill headed to start charging people with crimes merely because they did nothing to stop a crime.
Click to expand...

Wow. So if you're being stabbed to death and someone walks right by, you're okay with that?
 
Gipper said:
1) He hasn't even been sent to trial for anything, so it's way early and presumptuous to try and charge her with a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Why? Her charges don't have to wait for his conviction.

2) She won't be charged with a crime because she has spousal right not to testify at any trial Jerry Sandusky will be given.
Click to expand...

That doesn't protect her. It only protects him.

3) She's only said that her husband has acted "weird" at times. None of these alleged abuses occurred at his home or with his wife around. They were conducted at State College, PA (home of Penn State's main campus), some satellite PSU campuses, and specific events hosted by his old charity, Second Mile.
Click to expand...

The OP says more than that.
 
There's a difference between "legally required to" and "being okay with".

Let's not blur law and ethics here.
 
misterman said:
Why? Her charges don't have to wait for his conviction.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that someone could be found innocent of murder, but his accomplice could be found guilty of accessory to murder? Um, no.

That doesn't protect her. It only protects him.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell protects her from perjury.

The OP says more than that.
Click to expand...

Much of which is speculatory.
 
Henrin said:
Just because you know of a crime and are there as it happens shouldn't mean that you are treated like a criminal. I understand that is how the government treats it these days but that is a shear violation of your rights. You did nothing wrong, you didn't violate the rights of another person just because you didn't report a crime.
Click to expand...

In many cases, it's a crime not to report a crime. It's another law on the books. As it should be.
 
I know someone right now committing insurance fraud. I'll wait for the anticipatory sirens outside my place.
 
joko104 said:
Charged with what?

People watch crimes happen and often do nothing. That's not illegal. There is no legal requirement to report a crime being done by someone else nor to attempt to stop or prevent it. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

Did you not notice the two guys at Penn State who were charged with exactly that crime, of not reporting it? Yes, it clearly is a legal requirement in PA.
 
Henrin said:
She didn't help facilitate anything here. She wasn't involved in the crime. She didn't hold them down, she didn't join in, or really anything else that could qualify. She just didn't report the crime. I do not really believe in laws about abetting unless they are actively taking part in rights of another being violated. A driver doesn't really do that.
Click to expand...

It's a crime just to not report it if you know about it. Even if you didn't see it happen, let alone participate in it.

And that's a good thing. Not reporting this crime means someone likely gets away with it, and may do it again.
 
Gipper said:
So you're saying that someone could be found innocent of murder, but his accomplice could be found guilty of accessory to murder? Um, no.
Click to expand...

She wouldn't be charged as an accessory. She'd be charged with failing to report. Completely different things. Even if the crime never happened, if she believed a crime was happening, she had a duty to report it.

It sure as hell protects her from perjury.
Click to expand...

Perjury by whom?

Much of which is speculatory.
Click to expand...

Of course. This isn't a courtroom (thank God!)
 
Gipper said:
There's a difference between "legally required to" and "being okay with".

Let's not blur law and ethics here.
Click to expand...

From his post, he sounded like he was saying he was okay with it. So I asked. He can answer.
 
misterman said:
In many cases, it's a crime not to report a crime. It's another law on the books. As it should be.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you are OK with punishing inaction. The government can want me to do something all they want but I'm not inclined to do anything. It is a clear violation of my rights and liberty and I will not obey it.
 
So an elderly woman found guilty of failure to report? It'd cost them thousands to find her guilty of a crime that would end up with probation and maybe a few hours of community service. If I'm a Pennsylvania official of any sort, I want this concluded as quickly and unremarkably as possible, then lock it away to never be discussed again.

Of course. This isn't a courtroom (thank God!)
Click to expand...

I'm saying moreso than others. I believe 100% that McCrearly saw some pretty bad stuff in the locker room. I am unconvinced that any alleged victim in this case making the sorts of claims they were in that situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom