Please withhold judgment against Joe Paterno -- November 10, 2011

Statute of Joseph Vincent Paterno on the campus of Pennsylvania State University (Photo Credit: Robert J. La Verghetta) 

I am deeply dismayed by the unfolding scandal at Penn State. The alleged acts of sexual abuse described in the 23-page grand jury indictment is sickening. But even more alarming is the media and public outcry against Coach Joe Paterno. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions against Joe Paterno until we have more facts.

Please bear in mind that the grand jury presentment is a summary of factual allegations only. The events described therein have not been proven. Those factual allegations were made at a hearing put on by prosecutors without the presence of a judge. A presentment (like an indictment) requires only probable cause -- a fairly permissive standard of evidence -- and permits prosecutors to put on a case in a real courtroom where the accused can answer the charges and mount a defense. To actually convict the accused, the prosecution's case must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Any little doubt can prevent conviction. Joe Paterno has not been charged in the presentment. But he has already been indicted, convicted and sentenced by many in the media and public. Would you make an important judgment -- like causing another person to lose his job and honor, based on part of a story when more facts are still awaiting to the light of day?

According to the presentment, Mike McQueary told the grand jury in December 2010 that he saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the shower of the Penn State locker room on March 1, 2002. The next day, McQueary called Paterno and went to Paterno's home and "reported what he had seen." Paterno testified that McQueary was very upset and called Tim Curley to his home the following day, a Sunday, and told Curley what McQueary had reported -- specifically Jerry Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." About one and one-half weeks later, McQueary met and told Curley and Gary Schultz what he saw -- "Sandusky having anal sex." A couple weeks later, Curly told McQueary that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident was reported to Sandusky's charity, the Second Mile. No further reports were filed with the police.

Those are the only facts we know about the case. We do not know how Joe Paterno perceived the situation and whether he knew of Sandusky's past acts of alleged sexual abuse. Jerry Sandusky's own son is apparently stunned by the charges, according to his college roommate Byron Scott who now plays in the NFL. If Sandusky's own son is stunned, then what does that say about Paterno and others' knowledge of Sandusky's misdeeds? We also do not know whether he knew of the university's response -- which was ostensibly to prevent Sandusky from entering the locker room at odd hours and to warn Sandusky's charity from which the unidentified boy probably came, so that they could take action to investigate and protect the boy. Suppose they did and Sandusky was uncovered in 2002. Should Joe Paterno still be punished for failing to notify the police?

Failing to notify the police of suspected child abuse is a misdemeanor in Pennsylvania. Perjury and child abuse are felonies. The latter much more serious than the former. Should a person guilty of a misdemeanor lose his job? If Paterno's failure to report should result in the loss of his job -- would the same charge apply to every other person who had reason to know of Sandusky's alleged conduct but did not report -- this list would include McQueary, McQueary's father who also heard about the allegations, staff at Second Mile who received the university's warning, the janitor who saw a separate incident in the shower, the janitor whom he told, and the janitorial supervisor who was also informed. Should all of those people also lose their jobs?

Many say that Paterno's stature makes him different, that he was in a position of authority and could have overstepped his supervisors and gone to the police. They say that he is guilty of allowing eight boys (perhaps more) to be violated. Suppose that he is guilty of failing to prevent the crimes of another and deserves to be punished in some way -- what is the fair way to assess the punishment? At the sentencing stage of the criminal process, the court will consider not only the convict's criminal conduct but other factors in including mitigating circumstances and redeeming qualities. For all those who cry out about the eight boys being violated by Sandusky, what about the thousands of boys who benefited from Paterno's coaching and guidance over the years? Do they mean nothing?

We live in a society that values fair play and substantial justice. That is why the criminal justice process is designed for charges to be investigated and then answered. We have only heard part of the story from the prosecution. The rest remains unanswered. Yet, much of the media and part of the public has been whipped up into a frenzy. They have indicted, convicted and sentenced Joe Paterno based on a few unproven factual allegation that, at best, tell only part of the story. Most troubling for me is this feeling that somehow it is un-American if Penn State does not fire Joe Paterno right this moment. This kind of jumping to conclusions is what led Duke to fire its lacrosse coach before the full story was revealed.

Please withhold judgment until the story is clear. Sandusky has been indicted. He is unlikely to be able to perpetrate any more child abuse between now and the trial. The harm has been done can't be undone. But we should avoid committing any more harm.