Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

Only if she knew there were kids in the basement.

 

That's true, as I understand it, under Wolfe V. US from 1930 something she can not be forced to provide testimony against her husband. In some jurisdictions she could choose to provide such testimony while others flat out disallow such testimony. You'd have to look up the specific PA law and code to find out if she could in this case. Either way doesn't sound like she's interested in providing ot so it's kind of a moot point.

Anyone know if she works? If so where? It would be interesting to find out if she falls under the mandatory reporter laws in PA. That could open up an entirely new can of worms.

 

I honestly can't speak as to other states but with Oregon they would... or at least did as recently as 3 years ago. I have no reason to believe they've changed. As for PA you'd have to go look it up I think it's around 42.42 in their criminal code.

 

I've not heard of any formal charges against Dottie Sandusky, either. The only 'charge' thus far is an accusation from an alleged victim who claimed she was present and within earshot as he was being attacked by Sandusky and that the victim called for help and she ignored him. That would make her complicit the the crime but could it be proven and to what end when the focus of the investigation is finding out to what degree did Jerry Sandusky commit sex crimes against children?
Dottie felt compelled to finally make an official statement after the charge by the alleged victim was leveled this week past.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2011 8:15 PM ---

Mandated reporting is in effect here in Illinois at all times. I say that as a former therapist and grade and middle school teacher.

 

I'm not sure she would face any at all but if something came about, say one of their adopted or foster children came forward and admitted that his mother was well aware of the situation and helped to cover it up, charges might be considered.

The CBS article stated

So she could be called to testify against him. Whether the prosecution would actually call for her testimony and what she would say under oath is another matter.

 

We know very little so far. It is possible, depending on the circumstances, that she could be accused of being an accomplice.

To be clear, I am not accusing her of that. The facts will have to be discovered. That's the benefit of due process.

If she was called to testify, and if she maintains her current stance, I'd assume she would be treated as a hostile witness.

 

You could very well be correct that even if evidence surfaced that she knew what was going on and ignored it, she could not be charged for it. I find it criminal in and of itself but it may not be legally out of bounds. The two major differences between Dottie Sandusky and Mike McQueary are:

1) He was a mandated reporter and did report it to his superior as he was legally required to do. Hence, he can't be charged with any sort of negligent behavior.
2) Dottie Sandusky is not a mandated reporter and had no legal obligation to report it, if she knew.

But in Dottie's case, does this freedom from responsibility extend to incidences of child sexual abuse in PA? Might it be a special circumstance that rises above the mere notion of "good samaritan"? If she can be called to testify against her husband in a case of this sort, might she not also be help culpable for not reporting? I'm just throwing questions out here.

 

It's a federal law and has been ruled on by the SCOTUS so I'd be interested how PA law could be applied in contrast. But if I remember correctly there is an exception clause regarding the presence of a third party. Perhaps the victim is the third party. But I'm in the same boat as Borla, not a lawyer so???

 

To each their own. Your view on my morals reflects back on your morals, which I wholly disagree with.

Your assumptions are way off, though. Obviously it isn't possible to have an opinion such as mine on the issue and be a moderate person with a logic-based train of though. It has to be either religion- or experience-induced.

Good one. Thanks for the arrogance.

Next, I'll shout "Allah Akbar!" with a turban on my head and a Qur'an in both hands.

--- merged: Dec 12, 2011 6:03 PM ---

Isn't there a crime of the likes of "being accessory to ..." that can be applied, with Sandusky the one who committed the crimes and his wife the one who passively enabled the crimes?

EDIT: Just saw the other posts regarding being complicit in those crimes. Let's see what will be proven.

 

I must admit that I was also surprised that you were entirely serious. I'm not even convinced that the law should concern itself with adultery per se. However, those are your views and you are entitled to hold them. If you wanted to discuss the issue (in a different thread), I'd happily join in, but I'm also happy to leave it as an area that we disagree on.

 

Myself, personally, I'd like to see the government get entirely out of the marriage business. But I agree with Alistair, it's a completely different topic and if we're going to discuss it another thread should be created.

 

Cheers for the offer, but I already stated the reasoning for my view prior to my last comment. As criminal law largely concerns itself with actions that harm society, I see no reason why adultery should not be covered by it

Don't have much to add, but if you want to expand this notion into a full discussion, count me in.

 

I had no idea he lived in such close proximity to an elementary school when I first heard about this earlier in the week. The story I'd heard was that a neighbor had complained to local authorities that Sandusky would sit on his porch for long periods of time watching the children when they were out on the playground.

Personally, I think he should have been held in court custody without bail, especially considering this new (to me) information.

A suspected pedophile who lives a stone's throw from an elementary school. Did the court know this when they released him?

As far as him seeing his grandchildren? There'll be time for that once the trial is over. Either back at home or in prison.

 

Gee golly, what a coincidence. I'll bet he had no idea a school was in his backyard when he bought the property.

Playground with Sandusky's house in background.