Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years

Just a few minutes ago, a judge sentenced Jerry Sandusky to 30 to 60 years in prison:

Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison Tuesday for abusing 10 boys he met over 15 years through his charity for troubled children, NBC News reported.

Sandusky, who was defensive coordinator and for many years the presumed heir-apparent to legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, could have faced as long as 400 years for his convictions on 45 counts of child sexual abuse, but at age 68, he is unlikely ever to leave prison, assuming he loses any appeals.

According to some of the live news reports, the judge said that there was no point in sentencing Sandusky to hundreds of years because of his age. However, the judge did find that Sandusky should be classified as a violent sexual predator, which likely played a role in the decision.

I think this was the best sentence. Sandusky probably will not live long in prison, either due to his age or to some other incident. However, on the off chance that he does, the 30-year sentence will keep him in prison for a long time. 

Sandusky wore the same confused, mildly angry expression on his face as police led him out the courtroom that he wore when he was found guilty in June. On Monday, Sandusky released a statement professing his innocence. In that statement, he several accusations:

Why have so many people suffered as a result of false allegations? What’s the purpose? Maybe it will help others. some vulnerable children who could be abused might not be because of all the publicity. That would be nice, but I’m not sure about it. I would cherish the opportunity to become a candle for others, as they have been a light for me.

Later in the statement he said:

A young man who was dramatic, a veteran accuser and always sought attention, started everything. He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won.

He went on to claim that there was a conspiracy between the accusers, Penn State, and the media against him. While I think that he was trying, in his mind, to explain everything, I think he revealed just what type of person he truly is. This man wants people to think he loves children and cares about the kids from the Second Mile. He wants people to think he has a big heart. Ask yourself if anyone who cares more about the kids would say this:

Evaluate the accusers and their families. Realize they didn’t come out of isolation. The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me. Look at their confidants and their honesty. Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention and potential perks. I never labeled or put down them or their families. I tried and I cared, then asked for the same.

Please realize all came to the Second Mile because of issues. Some of those may remain.

That is who Jerry Sandusky really is. He does not care about the boys, and he does not care about what he did to them. When backed into a corner, he blames the boys. He pulls the age-old “Can you really trust them?” card, and that shows more than anything what kind of man this is.

He sounds like a classic, uncaring sociopath.

While the sentence is a good one, there is room for appeal. The judge refused to allow any continuances in the case. That was very unusual, especially in a case this complex. Keep in mind, it has only been a year since the case broke national news. Sandusky was at trial in nine months. In comparison, the Cassie Anthony trial took almost three years before the trial started. There juvenile cases that take longer than Sandusky’s case did.

Sandusky’s lawyers will have a valid argument about lacking the time to review all the evidence, about the prosecutors giving them evidence at the last minute, and about lacking the time to interview everyone involved in the case. However, I doubt that they would win the appeal.

Even if there is ground for an appeal, it is unclear whether any of those factors would change a thing. The statements made by eight different young men would not change, and it is those statements that made the difference.

Whether Sandusky likes it or not, he is going to die in prison. He is not getting an appeal unless there is a bombshell against the state. And he deserves to pay for the crimes. If he is as upstanding a guy as he thinks he is, he should have the integrity to own up to what he did instead of playing the victim.

I have just one more thing to say about Sandusky’s claim about false accusers. It is possible–though unlikely–that one or more of the victims lied. It is extremely unlikely, however, that anyone would make claims like this just to get Sandusky. It is even more unlikely that a dozen men, some of whom could not testify because of the statute of limitations, concocted lies about a man raping them as children with full knowledge that everyone in their small community would know who they were.

While I know there are scores of false accusers, and occasionally a few who might work together, it is ridiculous to think that a dozen men would lie about a popular local figure for no good reason.

28 thoughts on “Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years

  1. [One of the victims said], “I have tried to think of the words to describe how Jerry Sandusky has impacted my life. There are no words adequate to express the pain and misery he has inflicted in the past, present and future.”

    There are no words….. So often, we just have the silence of men and boys… because it’s so hard to find words when you never have… when, perhaps, no one ever has… when so many do so much to silence you.

    Thanks TS so much for giving us words. It helps so, so much.

  2. He sounds like a classic, uncaring sociopath.

    I think it’s time to abandon the understatement and start using the verb “to be” in the simple present tense – and in other tenses and grammatical structures addressing specific time frames!

    He is…
    He was…
    He has been…
    He will be….
    He shall remain to be ….
    He continues to be ….

    … and there is no such thing as a “Classic” sociopath. That idea and thinking is dangerous because it promotes the idea of tick boxes and fixed patterns. Sandusky kept on reinventing himself to others, time and time again, and he nearly got away with it.

    Even now he is still attempting to reinvent himself and reality – and don’t forget – when he attacks kids from the second mile he is attacking one in particular “Matt Sandusky” – the second miler he adopted and made his own!

    Don’t forget, that should there be any appeal and any retrial there will be one witness that so many will wish to hear from…. and this time they will!

    Should Mr Sandusky and Mr Amendola suddenly decide to not lodge appeals and follow other legal routes, get ready for yet more missives, including the one where Mr S says he has decided to take it all on the chin and not go back to court – because he loves his adopted son Matt – and does not want to see him damaged more by being dragged through the courts. Control Freakery is like that!

    It is interesting that Sandusky uses the idea of conspiracies. It’s interesting, as his is not the only Child Sexual predation and abuse case to have occurred within easy reach of happy valley – Incidents in those cases have intersected with Mr Sandusky and The Second Mile – There has been activity across state lines, making it Federal …… and, The Grand Jury is still sitting and listening and sifting evidence.

  3. The sentence in the Jerry Sandusky case will only serve to guarantee that future victims of abuse will be more at risk of more harm to themselves than having some perp rub up against them. It will likely guarantee that future victims will more likely become missing or found dead as a result of the perp eliminating the crucial witness than face such potential long sentences. The judge in the Sandusky case has sentenced many of our children to harm or death now with this ridiculous nonsensical disposition.

  4. Jan, the judge’s decision hardly affects future crimes against abuse victims. The sentence the judge gave was greatly reduced from the potential 400 years Sandusky faced. Indeed, the lower sentence is quite unusual for such a high-profile, multiple victim case.

  5. and there is no such thing as a “Classic” sociopath. That idea and thinking is dangerous because it promotes the idea of tick boxes and fixed patterns.(Media)

    I think the “Classic” part is the “all about me” aspect.

  6. T.S., keep an eye on the stats that will surely increase on child abuse victims. This has been documented many times before. Watch and you will see some kid found murdered or missing because the suspected-abuser simply now eliminated the source of any complaints, this has been proven so many times before. And, that is not Justice imo.

  7. This sentence is as ludicrous and preposterous as any the US court system has spewed forth in the last 100 years. A 68-year-old man sentenced to 60 years makes about as much sense as expecting his victims to regain their innocence now that he’s in jail. Our idiotic sentencing system makes a complete mockery of real suffering.

  8. @JanCorey – you seem most passionate and concerned. Could you, by any chance, provide some references to your claim that there will now be a spike in murder rates or disappearance rates for children – and that is specifically linked to sexual predators killing their victims to prevent them from acting as witnesses?

    It is a very concerning and worrisome matter – and has implications in so many areas of law enforcement, witness protection and public eduction. I would also welcome any sources that show a similar pattern following high profile rape cases of any kind …… or is it just kids who get bumped off?

    I may be some time! I have embarked upon a hunt for an emergent “Fabula Urbanus” (also known as “Mythus Urbanus”) and they are such tricky beasties to keep at bay, track and put out of everyone’s misery!

  9. Yes, MediaHound, I could provide some of the many references to the facts I spoke of. However, I will not contribute to anyone’s laziness when the facts are so easily obtained if one looks in the right places. as far as this resulting in more murders and more missing children, simply watch any channel on any television set to see if there are any more cases of harmed or missing children. My money is on the likelihood there will be more, even though you may believe there will not be any more now. If I ever hear and confirm of one more child being harmed or missing, I will do everything I can to let you know just how wrong you were.

  10. @MediaJound, yes, I did respond to your questions but the moderator has not yet approved it. Sorry.

  11. Yes, MediaHound, I could provide some of the many references to the facts I spoke of. However, I will not contribute to anyone’s laziness when the facts are so easily obtained if one looks in the right places.

    If they are so easy to find, then it should be no problem for you to link to them. As far as I know, there is no evidence that sentencing a man convicted of 40+ counts of sexual abuse to 30 to 60 years would put children at greater risk for abuse. The closest thing I can think of is that some victims may be less likely to report their abuse if they thought the abuser faced a mandatory high sentence.

  12. Because they are so easy to confirm, they can do it themselves, I do not spoon-feed basic facts because I do not desire to contribute to anyone’s laziness and to contribute to their self-reliance upon others having to do their own work themselves. It just goes against all common sense about trying to improve one’s self by one’s self. But, thanks for trying to stand up for someone who can’t do that very well on their own. I, too, feel sorry for such people like that, it is a learned behavior and they are often trapped into that style of confrontation lifelong imo,; ignore the facts, kill the messenger instead of doing some research on their own to actually learn the facts first. I pity them.

  13. Well, TS, their lose then for those lazy people. I’ll still rely upon proven facts instead.

  14. Not only is it not a good argument Jan, but contrary to what you may think, you’re the one who’s actually being lazy. You’ve made an assertation, the burden is therefore on your shoulders to prove it. You cannot make a claim and then demand that people prove your claim for you

  15. An excellent “argument” Paul, although I have never argued for anything. I simply rely upon the proven facts. If you still chose not to research proven facts and Law, then you will remain with the uninformed. I will still reside on the other side of the tracks using proven facts as a guide. I have no burden of educating the lasy folks, I choose to stand by the facts. I do have over 100 links saved on this subject but it takes effort to achieve that library and it is not for the lazy, imo.

  16. When someone is calling your bluff and you still don’t want to put your cards on the table, but rather decide to fold’em – then most reasonable people will assume that you were bluffing. Telling them after you folded that you in fact had a straight flush, but you folded because you didn’t want to play annymore with those lazy folks (who should get their won straight flushes – the analogue is a bit strained here 🙂 ) not only cements the opinion that it originally was a bluff, but also reveals you to be somewhat of a sore loser.

  17. I never said you made an argument (although, actually you have:

    argument (ˈɑːɡjʊmənt)
    — n
    a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate: the argument on birth control will never be concluded )

    However, you are right that you are under no “obligation” to provide proof, this is after all just an internet blog and not a court of law, but by that same token we’re not obligated to take your views seriously. Someone who arrogantly makes an argument and then demands that everybody prove his point for him is not one who is debating in good faith.

  18. You can ignore the facts if you choose Paul, no one can make you understand things that you refuse to investigate and learn the truth about. Why facts scare you so much is something only you know. We are not here at this site to be your psychologist or psychiatrist, that is something you need to do on your own time. Demanding that other people with proven facts provide information that is freely available to you, yet you refuse to investigate, study, and decipher, is something even T.S. wouldn’t do unless T.S. is not too busy at the time or just curious about.

  19. Demanding that other people with proven facts provide information that is freely available to you, yet you refuse to investigate, study, and decipher, is something even T.S. wouldn’t do unless T.S. is not too busy at the time or just curious about.

    Actually, TS would provide the facts even if the information were easy to find because TS understands that when he makes an argument it is his responsibility to prove it.

  20. If it was my responsibility to prove proven documented facts, I would in a second but, it is not my responsibility to teach the untrainable imo. .Instead you are making the “argument” that it is the questioner’s responsibility and I wholeheartedly agree with you T.S. Sometimes I find uninformed people not just lazy but exhausting we well.

  21. Thank God, T.S., I didn’t comment something like the moon is not made of cheese. Factually known, but those uninformed people would want a link so they can use it to verify what they still do not know for sure. What is for sure, imo, is that those types of people will never amount to much and one judges their competency levels when one reviews their accomplishments. Sorry there Moon, you cannot be made of cheese no matter how much you desire to be made of cheese and ranting towards disbelievers will never magically make you into cheese. Imo, the moon will never be made of cheese no matter how many do not agree and no matter how many links they want.

  22. Jan, your claim does not actually match any known studies. I cannot think of any studies I have seen or read in the last 15 years that states that sentencing someone convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault on nearly a dozen different children will lead to sex offenders further abusing or killing their victims. The closest I have seen to that is the claim by some law enforcement figures that mandatory minimums might make victims less likely to report abuse and make offenders less likely to take plea deals.

    If you have any study that says otherwise, present it. That is how an argument works. You make a claim, someone refutes the claim, you present the evidence supporting the claim. It does not matter how “self evident” you think the evidence is. You made an argument, so you have a responsibility to prove it.

  23. T.S., It is not my responsibility to educate the uneducated. Here on a blog, I can pose a comment based upon an issue I am aware of and pose my point of view in my comments that I base upon information I gathered by my own efforts. If others disagree with that position based upon their limited-knowledge, then if they choose to become better-informed then their current limited-knowledge, I see it as their responsibility to become educated on their own to get them let’s say “get them up-to-speed” with those that are better-informed. I do, however, feel badly for those that remain so limited, especially when they try to attack those that are and they defend their limited-position of incompetence. But, we can’t help everyone.

  24. Actually, I do have some studies and a ton of links that back up my comments. They are out there, you just have to look in the right places, and the moon is still not made of cheese. I rely upon facts, not attacks and speculations. I find that simpler and more constructive.

  25. Jan, the Mitt Romney approach is not working in your favor. Let me walk you through this: You claim you have tons of links and some studies, but you will not tell anyone what they are. Instead, you want everyone to look for something without knowing what they are looking for. You will not name the study or present the link, so we are supposed to take you word that there are studies supporting your ridiculous claim? I do not think so.

    I cannot believe anyone with actual evidence would play this kind of game, unless the person is just trying to be disruptive. I am inclined to think it is the latter, so until I see a link to a study I will leave your comment in moderation.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s