A Dose of Stupid v.61

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Sandusky asks court to allow visits with grandchildren

Let us try to follow this logic: Jerry Sandusky is charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse and rape against 10 boys. He has also been accused of allegedly abusing one of his relatives. So, in his infinite wisdom, he decides to petition the court to allow him to see his grandchildren because according to his attorney:

The Defendant’s minor grandchildren have expressed their sadness to their parents about not being able to visit or talk with the Defendant since November 5, 2011.

No.

Sandusky is charged with abusing 10 boys, and the prosecutors have no reason to believe he has not abused any of his family members. It would be monumentally stupid to allow him to have any contact with potential victims. Even these suggestions:

If his grandchildren were allowed to visit him at his State College home, they would be accompanied by at least one parent, according to the motion.

Amendola is also asking the court to allow Sandusky to communicate with his grandchildren by mail, email, telephone, or by Skyping, a type of video-chatting over the Internet.

do not help because there is no way to make sure that Sandusky is not influencing them.

It is understandable that his grandchildren would want to see and talk to him. However, given the situation, it is ludicrous to allow this and here is why. During the Michael Jackson case, the prosecutors tried to convince people that Jackson was a serial child rapist. They argued that he tended to target young white boys, and began grooming them at around 8-years-old. Coincidentally, Jackson’s oldest son was around that age at the time. Yet despite the prosecutors painting Jackson as an impulse predator who would abuse any boy in his preference range, they left Prince Michael and his siblings in Jackson’s care.

If you want people to believe someone is a super predator, you do not allow them to have contact with potential victims.

So far no decision has been made. I suspect that if anything is granted, the meetings would be monitored by someone from the state, not just a parent.

Sandusky is also asking for friends to be allowed over and to leave his home to aid his attorneys for his defense. The latter should not be an issue, since he would be with his attorneys. The former seems like a fair request as long as no children are involved.

Another issue came up. According to a report:

A judge has given prosecutors until Friday to provide Jerry Sandusky with the identities of the people the retired Penn State football defensive coordinator is accused of molesting. […] Amendola asked Senior Judge John M. Cleland to order prosecutors from the state attorney general’s office to produce the information, after they failed to respond to his request by Jan. 26. Late Friday, Cleland issued an order giving prosecutors until Feb. 3 to provide the information or say why they have not. Cleland tentatively scheduled a hearing on Feb. 10 to explore any dispute over the information.

That is a problem because it comes close to obstructing Sandusky’s ability to defend himself by withholding evidence. With such a high-profile case, the last thing the prosecutors want to do is anything that could result in the charges being dropped. Look at what happened with the Dominique Strass-Kahn case. If they have the names, they need to give them to Amendola now instead of playing games. Sandusky as a right to know who is accusers are, and he has a right to know that with enough time to prepare a defense.

One guy acting stupid is enough. We do not need the state to pick up the slack.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v.61

  1. I don’t know what you mean by “look at what happened with the DSK” case, so I’m a bit confused there.

    I think telephone calls or emails with children (supervised of course) should be allowed Sandusky at the minimum. It’s cruel and inhumane to punish him (and the grandchildren assuming they want to talk to him) before he’s been convicted of the charges against him by totally witholding all contact. It smacks too much of family courts slapping guys in prison cells for violating “no contact ” orders by sending their kid a birthday card even though they were never even charged with hurting the child. I can never support that. Of course we don’t want Sandusky trying to mess up the case via any intimidation of the kids , so that’s why I’m for the male or telephone calls being monitored and recorded.

  2. Clarence, in the DSK case the prosecutors played politics and ended up having to drop the case. Had they not basically tried and convicted Strauss-Kahn in public and taken the time to check his accuser’s background, they likely could have taken the case to trial. By playing games they cost themselves the case.

    I agree that it is unfair to punish Sandusky. However, there was an accusation made by a relative, and there is no way to know that he has not abused any of the kids he wants to speak to. So on a practical level it is unwise to allow him to talk to his grandchildren. If the court grants it, I would hope that they would appoint a third-party to monitor the conversations rather than relying on a family member.

  3. If Sandusky is under investigation for abusing his grandchildren no contact should be permitted. To allow it would be foolish. There is either reason to suspect he’s abused them or there isn’t. If he’s not being investigated then there should be no reason to suspect he has. Given the allegations against him, he would still be considered a threat so unsupervised contact should not be allowed. However, some communication or supervised visitation should be permitted if there is no current investigation being conducted. It is doubtful that any state representative would supervise visits. Most likely supervision would be done by the child’s parent or by a private service paid by Sandusky, but agreed to by the state.

    As for DSK, the prosecution acted foolishly in arresting him prior to investigating the allegations, but it may be more likely that instead of being able to take the case to trial that he would never have been arrested at all.

    TDOM

  4. I agree with TDOM on the allegations against DSK. I don’t believe that case would have made it to trial no matter what, unless the Prosecutor was willing to pull a “Nifong” and tamper with or hide exculpatory evidence. The lady involved lied too much including about where and what she was doing on the day of the alleged incident, there’s no way that you could get a conviction, and, regardless, the Prosecutor /DA has or should have a duty to not play Russian roulette with a suspects life. If she or he doesn’t think a crime was committed or doesn’t think they have the evidence to prosecute than they shoudn’t do so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s