This is the kind of punishment Penn State should rightly be facing. It gives justice to the victims, while punishing the "institution" without crapping as much on people who had nothing to do with it. The NCAA will likely get involved, but I don't think the DP will be used unless Penn State fails to clean house (which they're doing/done) and punish themselves appropriately. What that punishment will be, I don't know. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...ky-victims-cost-joe-paterno-freeh-report.html
So basically, it wasn't the football program or the university acting to sanction child rape to help the football program or the university, it was just the people in charge of the football program and the university (oh and btw, the football program is in charge of the university in this instance, that in itself should be enough to earn it some time in the penalty box)....acting on behalf of the football program and the university and using their authority within the football program and the university to cover up and enable a child rape ring, so it's unfair for the football program and the university to punish it for others misdeeds of which it had no knowledge. Uh, actually we did go around dropping atomic bombs on cities, we did it twice despite the cities themselves not really being the culprits. But I digress. In this context, We prosecute entities all the time for the misdeeds of their officers, employees and agents, even though others suffer for it. The examples are of a piece and are so commonplace as to describe ANY instance in which a legal entity in which many people have a stake, rather than a natural person, is subject to sanction. Fire Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, but whatever you do, don't prosecute Arthur Anderson or Enron since most people didn't know what was going on and your'e just hurting the workers and shareholders! Don't bar Blackwater from getting government contracts even though their contractors murder people...it harms Blackwater investors! The list goes on and on and on and on. That argument didn't really work then, and won't work now.
The "culture" and "institution" in my eyes are the people in charge of them. They create and enable the atmosphere that allows these crimes. Change the people, change the culture. This is supported by the idea that Paterno is one of only a handful of college coaches in history that had the power/influence to cover something like this up. I know you don't agree, but that's where we stand apart on this issue, and neither of us are moving, so that's that. Do I really need to go into the differences of context here? If Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, and Gary Schultz were plotting to take over the world, and the entire town of State College, Pennsylvania had declared war on us, I'd imagine we might be a little more justified in taking sweeping action in the interest of self-preservation. Once again you're misrepresenting. My argument is against the death penalty, not punishment whatsoever. The punishment should fit the crime, and the brunt of it should be focused on those most responsible. That's all I'm saying, and all I've ever said.
Wow. What a terrific thread. Great points being made on *both* sides. I tend to side ever-so slightly with DM, who's waging a heroic defense all by his lonesome - but rhad, Sam, Major, et al, are obviously scoring some big points on the other side. For those pro-DP – what do you hope to accomplish? Supposing Penn State continues its football program, isn’t it safe to assume, through heavy scrutiny and/or restrictions, that they’re very likely to run a clean program from this moment forward, having properly dismissed any and every person associated with the scandal? So the DP would punish hundreds of innocent athletes, coaches and staff (not just PSU and not just those associated with the football program), negatively impact hundreds of local businesses and their employees, strip a prestigious university of one its largest fund-generators and… what? Do you think it’ll clean-up college football? You’re punishing literally thousands and thousands of completely innocent people because of the actions of a few. Buck asked if anyone had seen the 30/30 SMU documentary and I have. And one of my biggest takeaways was how pervasively damaging the DP was. Even the NCAA was unprepared for how eviscerating it was. I think it’s easier to demand it in a vague, non-specific way (punctuated by “kill it!” rhetoric). And maybe, ultimately, that is the right decision. But I think carefully weighing it’s *full* impact is warranted.
Wait - how does fining them $100 million and taking away public funding not crap on people that have nothing to do with the scandal? That hurts the actual education of the students, takes away resources, etc. Taking away the football program just takes away entertainment. In both cases, you're punishing the university. But at least in the DP case, you're punishing the portion of the university that was most directly involved in this.
Note that I said "as much". Any kind of sweeping, generalized punishment is going to hurt people who had nothing to do with it somewhat. I feel that this form of punishment is more justified, though, since it actually gives restitution to the victims. Plus I'm sure the lion's share of that money will be coming from athletic coffers, not academic (at least I hope).
Got it. So entities can't ever be held responsible, it's always just a few bad apples. Take them out and all is good. The party most responsible for covering up & enabling a serial child rapist to help Penn State football is Penn State football. When can we roll out the horrifically and disproportionately brutal remedy of suspending a college football prorgram then? Genocide? Your bar is very high.
Oh god, what a horrible punishment. Not being able to watch Penn State football? Terrible. SOmehow they'll survive or find a substitute to add meaning to their lives. This isn't shuttering GM plants. The economics arguments are a red herring. I watched it. I don't recall this at all. Eviscerating? It's a ****ing college football team. Try getting raped as a child in teh shower by a football coach and then see how eviscerating that is.
It's not just the football team, it's the other teams sports that the school is able to field teams in due to the money the football team makes. If we're going to say all Penn State football fans are complicit, why not go all the way and say all college football fans are? I mean, if the fans of college football didn't make college football so popular, then Joe Paterno never would've been so revered and this never would've happened, right?
This is a dumb, hyperbolic, purposeful misrepresentation of my position and argument. Don't waste everyone's time with this kind of stuff, Sam. You're smart enough to make a coherent argument without going there. We have the evidence on this one, no need to be so vague. I've already stated numerous times in this thread when I felt the DP would be appropriate. I know you want to make it seem like the DP is tiddly-winks compared to child rape, and it most definitely is, however, that doesn't mean it isn't excessive, unjustified, and most certainly not a remedy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This. I believe the number I heard this morning was $56 million in revenue that covers the Olympic sports. Losing that would destroy those programs. You can keep on going by saying "It's a f***ing lacrosse team" but at what point is destroying the opportunities for hundreds of student-athletes fair or right or just?
semi-grunch, I'll read in full later Isn't Penn State sitting on a $1.7 Billion endowment? $100 Million is nothing to them. When collateral damage occurs to innocent employees in the business world, like Enron, it's arguably unfair, but an unavoidable result of a company going under. In this case, there's a choice that can be made to avoid that. While the scope of the economic impact is debatable, it's valid to say that the impact on the community of instituting the DP would be huge. In addition to other sports, there are secondary and tertiary businesses whose livelihoods depend on the football program. Even if the DP is given, it's not like 5 or even 10 years later, the first game back won't be a sellout and football won't be king again. The power will always be skewed there, and it obviously corrupted JoePa and the others sitting on top. That doesn't mean other leaders can't be better.
Plants, plural? No. One GM plant, though? Pretty doggone similar. There are hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands of people impacted by this: otherwise innocent athletes losing scholarships, football administrators losing jobs, ground crew, concession workers, hotel workers, restaurant owners and employees all losing revenue. I could probably list a dozen other industries, groups or individuals who would be impacted by dismantling this (or any) football program. I would recommend a second viewing. And that’s a straw man, Sam. Arguing that the death penalty leads to potentially unnecessary collateral damage in no way excuses the severity of the crime. The guilty individuals should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law, no one is arguing otherwise (to my knowledge). As for the football program, it should absolutely be held responsible, too, up to and including potentially dismantling it. But it’s not irresponsible to ask if such a sanction is too excessive, given we’re talking about less than a dozen (?) explicit people taking down a program that legitimately impacts hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, and not in a “Go, State!” kind of way – but students, athletes, coaches, administrators, business owners, etc. I think even more so in a town like State College, which – like most small college towns - is dependent on the revenue generated by the school, athletic or otherwise. Donny has responded far more often than I have in this thread, and done so patiently and eloquently so I don’t want to step all over him and speak on his behalf – but I sense we’re both firmly OK if the death penalty ends up being the ultimate decision; just a little more concerned about the larger-scale fallout.
Donny: Ok. So you think that the punishment should be tailored such that only those who made the horrid decisions pay the price, ignoring the program's role in maintaining those people's positions and influencing their choices. While I consider that ridiculous, let's ignore that for a moment. You were, as I recall, against the bank bailouts in 2008. Bailouts which, arguably, prevented many an innocent from being harmed by the actions of a nefarious few. So, I'm tempted to conclude your opinion as such: that when it comes to college football, the programs are mere tools of the corrupt and not "part of the problem", and serve an important economic function and ergo should be protected. But when it comes to banks, the institutions should not be defended or protected as neutral relative to the evil-doers in the their ranks, and that they are therefore accountable implicitly, fallout be damned. Needless to say, I think this is odd. (For the record I think you, like me, eventually recanted the no-bailout position somewhat based on the argument of the "greater good") (I have since changed my mind again, but that's another argument) DD
Because your argument is dumb and obviously flawed, yet you are lashed to it by the unbreakable bonds of internet pride; this is why you won't address the analogous cases of pretty much every case of entity prosecution ever. No it's not really the same at all. There's a reasonable substitute for Penn State football (say, Steelers football, or Cleveland Browns, or Candlepin bowling, or whatever) that can be popped in. People who watched TV on Saturdays aren't going to just sit and stare at the wall in stunned silence. Penn state football will go away, and another program or sport or leisure activity will take its place. C'est la vie. Look at Harvard Football or Army Football or all the other football programs that used to be great but are now irrelevant. That's not remotely the same as the economics of a supply chain or particularly an industrial cluster that forms around it. Athletes can transfer. Football administrators losing jobs = employees of the legitimate Genco Olive Oil Importing companies who are negatively impacted when Michael Corleone has to shut the business down. Neither Genco nor Penn State football is too big to fail.
First of all, let me say, "W-T-F". This is so way off topic and inapplicable. You're talking about bailouts vs. punishment. Going out of your way to protect innocent people Vs. going out of your way to punish innocent people. Not even remotely similar circumstances. Secondly, in the case of the bank bailouts (which, as you correctly state, I've gone back and forth on), my end opinion is that the failure of the banks would've meant short-term pain but long-term gain (a quicker, more prosperous recovery) for the unfortunate people at the bottom of the rung. I was not in favor of letting the banks fail as a means to punish those who caused it to happen. That was for the courts. Once again, refusing to go out of your way to protect innocent people caught in a bad situation (for the benefit of everyone's greater good, mind you) is so beyond different from refusing to go out of your way to punish innocent people. My argument is not centered around protecting football programs (or banks), it's centered around doling out appropriate punishment to the guilty and giving retribution to the afflicted. The banks weren't in danger of being shut down by some arbitrary governing body like the football programs, btw, they were in danger of collapsing on themselves from internal scandal and incompetence. The Enron stuff is an applicable analogy, this isn't.
This slippery slope is not that complicated. Penn state football ran roughshod over the university for decades, and consciously decided to enable a child rape ring in order to protect itself. Penn state football is held responsible for this, as well as corrupting the university from its core mission. See? No slippery slope. Easy. Not hard at all. But if you're saying we should abolish the NCAA, why not? Sounds good to me.
Holy s**t, something we can agree on. P.S. ur a dummy poopypants and ur argument of naplaming the entire yooniversity is teh stoopids
