It has been a good week for sexually abused children.

[Rex E.]

It's been months since I read all the details but I believe it was shown that Paterno and his superiors knew about what was going on and chose to turn a blind eye in the name of the program and the schools rep.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

It's been months since I read all the details but I believe it was shown that Paterno and his superiors knew about what was going on and chose to turn a blind eye in the name of the program and the schools rep.

It was certainly alleged by the assistant coach who caught Sandusky and a kid in the showers. Paterno never confirmed the conversation (and,of course, never will) and no investigation was ever opened. The assistant coach (McCarthy?) should have gone straight to the police but "institutional loyalty" obviously got in the way of doing the right thing.

John

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by barbara

Regarding the Sandusky situation........are they going to hold accountable the university officials who knew what Sandusky was doing but did nothing about it?

I believe I read were prosecutors are going after the other people that facilitated and covered up Sandusky's child rapes.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Is a young football coach who isn't certain of what he's seen enough to do anything beyond opening a file? (In the work I have done, that implies an investigation.)

That not enough information was collected to trigger action isn't directly anyone's fault.

YES! even if he was not sure of what he saw, but simply "had a feeling" that something wasn't right, that is the criteria for mandated reporters. If he reported his "feeling that something wasn't right" that should have triggered an investigation. And, that there wasn't enough information collected was the fault of those who choose not to investigate throughly.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by wgrr

I believe I read were prosecutors are going after the other people that facilitated and covered up Sandusky's child rapes.

I am glad to hear that.

[merrylander]

What Archbishop Lori is doing is imposing his religious beliefs on non-catholics, which just about covers everyone else in the country. If these catholic hospitals offer conteaceptive coverage in their healthcare plan then true believers will not avail themselves of it. Does the good Archbishop toss and turn at night knowing that somewhere, someone is using birth control? It is not a question of religious freedom it is a question of imposing one's beliefs on others who do not believe as you do.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by barbara

YES! even if he was not sure of what he saw, but simply "had a feeling" that something wasn't right, that is the criteria for mandated reporters. If he reported his "feeling that something wasn't right" that should have triggered an investigation. And, that there wasn't enough information collected was the fault of those who choose not to investigate throughly.

"Had a feeling" seems like a low standard. Wouldn't opening such an investigation potentially harm someone's reputation if the "feeling" proves wrong, thus, opening the mandated reporter to a potential defamation lawsuit? Isn't the McMartin case a classic example of people being falsely accused by the overly zealous? Of course, here we have the nicety of hindsight; but things perhaps weren't so crystalline at the time the actions occurred.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by bhunter

"Had a feeling" seems like a low standard. Wouldn't opening such an investigation potentially harm someone's reputation if the "feeling" proves wrong, thus, opening the mandated reporter to a potential defamation lawsuit? Isn't the McMartin case a classic example of people being falsely accused by the overly zealous? Of course, here we have the nicety of hindsight; but things perhaps weren't so crystalline at the time the actions occurred.

Precisely.

[BlueStreak]

Yep, Sandusky is going to jail.

So, how is it his wife and all of those other scumbags who knew about it for 40 years, and did nothing, get to walk?

I can't help but think about how many of those men would have been spared the indignity and horror of his abuse had any one of them had the decency, or the balls to squeal decades ago.

I guess the stupid game was more important..............

Dave

[barbara]

Originally Posted by bhunter

"Had a feeling" seems like a low standard. Wouldn't opening such an investigation potentially harm someone's reputation if the "feeling" proves wrong, thus, opening the mandated reporter to a potential defamation lawsuit? Isn't the McMartin case a classic example of people being falsely accused by the overly zealous? Of course, here we have the nicety of hindsight; but things perhaps weren't so crystalline at the time the actions occurred.

'had a feeling' is the criteria for the mandated report. I can assure you, the criteria investigators must abide by is far more stringent and, in too many cases, binds potential helping hands.
Mandated reporters are exempt from any legal recourse for a mandated report. They can, however, be prosecuted if they fail to report suspected abuse of a dependent individual.