@DrunkJohnny:
If Paterno knew that Sandusky admitted to the 1998 incident, then Paterno should have done everything in his power to keep Sandusky from ever stepping foot back on campus. If Paterno knew that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and that the charges were dropped, then I do not think he has an obligation to keep Sandusky off the premises even after the 2002 incident, if he reported it to the AD with the expectation (which I see as reasonable) that the AD would investigate.
Some on here think that Paterno has a moral duty to follow up on the investigation; I do not. I think one can reasonable assume that when a person in an authority position says that they will do something, that they will do it. I think it is reasonable to assume that Paterno thought that Curley and Schultz were telling him the truth, and that an investigation was taking place. Paterno, as someone who was not a witness to the event, would not, as I see it, have to be involved in the investigation. Therefore, he could reasonably not know whether or not an investigation was happening, unless he then asked Sandusky if Sandusky had been questioned (I am not even sure if that would be legal), the same can be said with regard to McQueary.
Some individuals are naturally curious and would follow up just to see how the investigation is going; some individuals are not curious, yet have trust that the system works and that their superiors are honest individuals.
Without the details of exactly what Paterno knew and when he knew it, I do not see grounds to crucify him. I hope there is a civil case against Paterno so that these questions will have answers.
If Paterno knew that Sandusky admitted to the 1998 incident, then Paterno should have done everything in his power to keep Sandusky from ever stepping foot back on campus. If Paterno knew that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and that the charges were dropped, then I do not think he has an obligation to keep Sandusky off the premises even after the 2002 incident, if he reported it to the AD with the expectation (which I see as reasonable) that the AD would investigate.
Some on here think that Paterno has a moral duty to follow up on the investigation; I do not. I think one can reasonable assume that when a person in an authority position says that they will do something, that they will do it. I think it is reasonable to assume that Paterno thought that Curley and Schultz were telling him the truth, and that an investigation was taking place. Paterno, as someone who was not a witness to the event, would not, as I see it, have to be involved in the investigation. Therefore, he could reasonably not know whether or not an investigation was happening, unless he then asked Sandusky if Sandusky had been questioned (I am not even sure if that would be legal), the same can be said with regard to McQueary.
Some individuals are naturally curious and would follow up just to see how the investigation is going; some individuals are not curious, yet have trust that the system works and that their superiors are honest individuals.
Without the details of exactly what Paterno knew and when he knew it, I do not see grounds to crucify him. I hope there is a civil case against Paterno so that these questions will have answers.
