I would feel better

[Cusefan95]

Punishment has nothing to do with it. You investigate to protect kids now and get this guy away from kids now. You investigate not to punish the past but to protect the present and the future in case he's doing something now. If we know anything about molesters its that if they did something 15 years ago, they are probably doing it now. Remember, that's why Joe Paterno lost his job, because he didn't take it to the police and more kids got abused because of it. I guess you think Joe Pa is a good guy. Maybe you would be thrilled to live in State College PA.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT KIDS NOW!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The only way to do it is for the state to take action against a citizen that was not convicted in a court of law. What I want to know is specifically what you would expect the state to do with any information that incriminated an individual. Specifics. Not vague "you gotta protect the kids" bullshit. Exactly. What. You. Would. Do.

This has nothing to do with thinking what Paterno did was OK; it's about you're inability to grasp that living in a country in which citizen's can be convicted by the state without a trial is a bad thing. It's short-sighted good intentions like you have that allow horrible injustices to be perpetrated by the state.

 

[Knicks411]

The only way to do it is for the state to take action against a citizen that was not convicted in a court of law. What I want to know is specifically what you would expect the state to do with any information that incriminated an individual. Specifics. Not vague "you gotta protect the kids" bullshit. Exactly. What. You. Would. Do.

Well maybe for starters they can move the SOL for child molestation to longer than 5 years after the accuser turns 18?

This has nothing to do with thinking what Paterno did was OK; it's about you're inability to grasp that living in a country in which citizen's can be convicted by the state without a trial is a bad thing.

And if this happened in PA instead wouldn't Bernie be allowed to be prosecuted?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but it seems like you're saying the police should just brush off the allegations because the SOL has expired. Could you please elaborate on this?

What would you propose the police do if a person comes forward with allegations that they were sexually abused by someone, but that SOL for that particular person has expired? Child molestors normally don;t do it once and stop. So even if the SOL has expired for the first person who comes forward, don't you want to investigate and see if there are some people who were molested for whom the person could be prosecuted for?

 

[sabach]

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT KIDS NOW!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The only way to do it is for the state to take action against a citizen that was not convicted in a court of law. What I want to know is specifically what you would expect the state to do with any information that incriminated an individual. Specifics. Not vague "you gotta protect the kids" bullshit. Exactly. What. You. Would. Do.

This has nothing to do with thinking what Paterno did was OK; it's about you're inability to grasp that living in a country in which citizen's can be convicted by the state without a trial is a bad thing. It's short-sighted good intentions like you have that allow horrible injustices to be perpetrated by the state.

The child abuse registry in New York State does not require a conviction or even a trial in a court of law. Yet, a indicated finding on a child abuse registry complaint could prohibit someone from adopting, becoming a guardian, teaching in a school or being a Sunday school teacher and could prevent that person from abusing others in the future. I believe that a complaint of past molestation requires, at a minimum, that the police investigate to make sure that current molestation is not happening and send a report to the child abuse registry.

Do you really think that if an 24 year old comes to the police and says my dad molested me when I was a kid, and I'm afraid he may be doing it to my brothers and sisters still in the home, the police are going to say "too bad - go away" you should have come here last year.

If you think it is okay for a police department to not look into an allegation of molestation to make sure nothing is happening now, just because the SOL has expired on the accusation, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and FWIW DA Fitzpatrick disagrees with you also. Maybe Fitz should move to the USSR with me.

But at least answer me this question. Joe Paterno was fired by the State of Pennsylvania, and has been neither charged, tried or convicted of anything. Do you believe this was a "horrible injustice commited by the state." against Paterno. If no, what point are you trying to make here? If yes, then maybe you really do need to move to State College.

 

[Cusefan95]

Well maybe for starters they can move the SOL for child molestation to longer than 5 years after the accuser turns 18?

Um, how exactly does that apply to this case? My question is what would you (or anyone else that chooses to respond) expect the police to do with evidence that incriminated a person when the SOL has expired.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but it seems like you're saying the police should just brush off the allegations because the SOL has expired. Could you please elaborate on this?

I'm not sure how to elaborate on my position any further, but I'll try to give an example. Someone goes to the police to accuse another citizen of sexually assaulting them as a child, but the SOL expired. The police investigate anyway, uncover some possibly incriminating material. But, they can't have him tried, so rather than go through the court system since that avenue isn't available, they broadcast the results of their findings so that everyone else knows they should keep their kids away from the suspect. Or they don't even do that, but one officer that's upset they can't do anything starts yapping at a bar about this evidence they have that proves they "know" the guy is a pedophile, and others start to run with it. In either case the guy's reputation is ruined, and he has absolutely no recourse since there never will be and never can be a trial.

People who think investigating in a situation where the SOL has expired are in reality sanctioning witch hunts. They want to do a good thing; they want to protect kids - but they are conveniently ignoring the collateral damage they are going to inflict as a result.

 

[sabach]

Um, how exactly does that apply to this case? My question is what would you (or anyone else that chooses to respond) expect the police to do with evidence that incriminated a person when the SOL has expired.

I'm not sure how to elaborate on my position any further, but I'll try to give an example. Someone goes to the police to accuse another citizen of sexually assaulting them as a child, but the SOL expired. The police investigate anyway, uncover some possibly incriminating material. But, they can't have him tried, so rather than go through the court system since that avenue isn't available, they broadcast the results of their findings so that everyone else knows they should keep their kids away from the suspect. Or they don't even do that, but one officer that's upset they can't do anything starts yapping at a bar about this evidence they have that proves they "know" the guy is a pedophile, and others start to run with it. In either case the guy's reputation is ruined, and he has absolutely no recourse since there never will be and never can be a trial.

People who think investigating in a situation where the SOL has expired are in reality sanctioning witch hunts. They want to do a good thing; they want to protect kids - but they are conveniently ignoring the collateral damage they are going to inflict as a result.

In the scenario you present, you investigate, and as long as there is no evidence of molestation happening now but only evidence that it happened before, there is no criminal charge allowed (SOL), but a complaint to the child abuse registry is made for the past conduct. This helps to prevent future abuse if the child abuse registry makes an indicated finding.

Under your anaylsis, a person makes an accusation but the statute of limitations has expired. The police do nothing. Years later other victims come out and it is known that had the police investigated before, they could have found these other victims or prevented them from ever being molested in the first place. What do the police say then - how are they not Joe Paterno.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

the SOL has been repealed, but the repeal had not taken effect yet at the time of the alleged misconduct.

 

[Cusefan95]

But at least answer me this question. Joe Paterno was fired by the State of Pennsylvania, and has been neither charged, tried or convicted of anything. Do you believe this was a "horrible injustice commited by the state." against Paterno. If no, what point are you trying to make here? If yes, then maybe you really do need to move to State College.

Private companies can end your employment without cause, and I don't see any reason why state employees would be excluded from that. I know the word that was used was "fired", but I'm curious what that actually means - are they paying him through the duration of his contract that expires at the end of this year, or did he immediately start drawing his pension. If he's still getting paid off his contract, he's effectively on administrative leave - which is basically where we're at with Bernie Fine.

 

[Knicks411]

Um, how exactly does that apply to this case? My question is what would you (or anyone else that chooses to respond) expect the police to do with evidence that incriminated a person when the SOL has expired.

I'm not sure how to elaborate on my position any further, but I'll try to give an example. Someone goes to the police to accuse another citizen of sexually assaulting them as a child, but the SOL expired. The police investigate anyway, uncover some possibly incriminating material. But, they can't have him tried, so rather than go through the court system since that avenue isn't available, they broadcast the results of their findings so that everyone else knows they should keep their kids away from the suspect. Or they don't even do that, but one officer that's upset they can't do anything starts yapping at a bar about this evidence they have that proves they "know" the guy is a pedophile, and others start to run with it. In either case the guy's reputation is ruined, and he has absolutely no recourse since there never will be and never can be a trial.

People who think investigating in a situation where the SOL has expired are in reality sanctioning witch hunts. They want to do a good thing; they want to protect kids - but they are conveniently ignoring the collateral damage they are going to inflict as a result.

But you seem to be ignoring the possibility that there could be others molested by the same person where the SOL hasn't expired. (Or I'm missing how you address it).

I understand what you are saying, don't get me wrong. So I think my biggest issue would be that the SOL can expire at the guys 23rd birthday. That seems ridiculous to me. Maybe it should never expire. It definitely should be longer.

The idea of the police turning away a case about molestation because the SOL has expired rubs me the wrong way.