Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

An eye for an eye is not anarchy.

 

You're right, it's not anarchy. It's merely a primitive conception of human interaction which values vengeance over stability, and indulges anger and revenge rather than promoting a healthy society. Just because it's state (I'm substituting the state for your mob, because it's essentially the same thing) sanctioned doesn't make violence any less brutal or terrible. The death penalty is state sanctioned, and most of the civilized world still chooses to not do it because they dislike its reflection on a society which would elect to kill someone as punishment for a crime.

 

While I agree with the main thrust of your point, I am against it for practical and moral reasons (rather than because it would reflect badly on my society).

 

They don't sentence anyone to death who hasn't been convicted of murder.

 

What other crimes? And don't say treason.

 

You know I have not. Have you read them? Do you hve access to them or a link?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...d_States#Crimes_subject_to_capital_punishment

There's quite a LONG list of things you can be executed for in this country that aren't murder. Not everywhere. And not everyone (those specific to the military, for example). But it's a lot more than just murder.

 

You can be put to death for trafficking in large quantities of drugs? Scary. How many death penalties have actually resulted in non-murder crimes? Not many, I hope.

 

Oh, I just read that no one has been executed for a non-murder crime since 1964. The supreme court has overruled death penalties for non-murder crimes as excessive.

 

Relax, it's just an expression... Like if I were to say "you know I don't know_________."

Let me go read them. I wouldn't worry about disturbing me, I spent nearly 21 years reading such transcripts. So unless there's something worse then having sex with a dead woman, child or deer my guess is I'll be able to keep my dinner down.

Before I do let me just say, again, I'm not defending the man. I have no idea. I have read a lot of the McMartin GJ transcripts, had one the alleged victims on my parole caseload for a number of years. He flat out told me none of it ever happened, he'd basically been told by attorneys and counselors what to say. He was messed up for life and became an alcoholic and junkie as an adult. I've also read several of the witness statements from the Duke lacrosse team acquisitions. Another case that turned out to be BS.

A reading I shall go...

 

Here's the link.

 

Edit- just went back and read you never thought this was a transcript... so some of what I posted is N/A and please disregard, my bad.

Ok, I don't think you're reading the GJ transcript but rather the "findings of facts" from the GJ. I'm of course no expert on the law, certainly not PA law but this appears to me to be what we would have referred to in Oregon as a GJ indictment. According to the law Pa234 code 228- "Proceedings before an investigating grand jury, other than the deliberations and voting of the grand jury, shall be stenographically recorded and a transcript made." This is clearly not a transcript.

A few things would worry me as either a DA or defending attorney in this case based on this report. As a DA I'd be concern about the findings of abuse of Victim #2. Stuff like how did the witness know anal sex was happening? Exactly how close was he and for how long? What was the lighting like? What does victim #2 say about it? Why were so many mandatory reporters (people required by Pa law 42.42 to report allegations of sexual abuse of minors) negligent in their duties?

As a defense attorney I'd be worried about the sheer number of complaints and the consistency of reports of "grooming behaviors." As well as the consistency wthin the first person accounts of several of the alleged victims. They all paint a very disturbing, not to mention consistent, picture of Mr. Sandusky's behavior.

Do I think this proves he's guilty, no that's why we have juries. After reading this do I think it's more than likely he did it, yeah probably. But I also know if a DA wants to he can usually get a GJ to indict just about anyone. But unless this turn out to be like the Duke case where the DA was disbarred for withholding evidence and lying I think Mr. Sandusky should plan on spending the rest of his days eating state provided meals.

 

So the wrapping yourself in the flag as the defender of the Constitution in other discussions was just another Eddie show sham.

 

I believe many of us have just decided to view Eddies posts as "performance art." It works for me. Then I can simply laugh, at times uncontrollably, at his inconsistency and logical fallacies rather then shake my head in disbelief and frustration.

 

As I stated earlier, I don't think street justice is appropriate in every instance. And of course I believe in due process.