With A Penn In Hand: Research On Jerry Sandusky Sexual Assau

With A Penn In Handresearch The Jerry Sandusky Sexual Assaults And H

With A Penn in Hand Research the Jerry Sandusky sexual Assaults and how this case was handled by Penn State. Discuss the concept of criminal failure to act. Did Assistant Coach Michael McQuery have a legal or moral duty to intervene in the alleged sexual assault he witnessed? Did Coach Joe Paterno have a legal or moral duty to intervene in the alleged conduct once he became aware of it? Include at least one other example or case in which “someone has done nothing while bad things are happening around them.†What legal duties, if any, should be imposed and what theory of punishment and what punishment should be applied? Who should be the one to decide the legal duties and punishment? Your paper should be 3-5 pages in length and should properly cite your outside sources and use APA style formatting.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State University epitomizes the critical issue of criminal failure to act, raising profound questions about legal and moral responsibilities in the context of preventing harm. Sandusky, a former assistant coach, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse, and the handling of these allegations by university officials and coaches like Joe Paterno and Michael McQuery has sparked intense debate regarding duty of care, liability, and the limits of moral obligation. This paper explores these issues through a detailed analysis of the case, the concepts of legal and moral duties to intervene, and the broader implications for criminal law and societal expectations.

The concept of criminal failure to act, or omission, is a nuanced area within criminal law, especially concerning situations where individuals witness harm but do not intervene. Generally, the law imposes a duty to act when a legal obligation exists—such as through statutes, contracts, or relationships—yet in many cases, bystanders and witnesses are under no legal duty to intervene. However, moral duties often extend beyond legal obligations, particularly when there is a close relationship or a duty created by the defendant’s role, as with coaches and authority figures in the Sandusky case.

Assistant Coach Michael McQuery’s position as an eyewitness to alleged sexual assault arguably placed him under both a moral and, in some jurisdictions, a legal duty to report or intervene. Morally, the obligation to prevent harm or report potential abuse aligns with widely accepted ethical standards, such as those outlined in juvenile protection laws and child welfare frameworks. Legally, the duty to act depends on jurisdictional statutes and case law; some states recognize "special relationship" doctrines that impose duties on individuals in positions of authority or responsibility. For instance, In re Gault established the importance of legal mandates for reporting abuse to protect vulnerable populations.

Similarly, Coach Joe Paterno, once aware of accusations against Sandusky, faced questions regarding his moral and legal obligations. While he did not witness the assaults firsthand, the reports and investigations suggest a moral failure to act decisively. Legally, Paterno was not charged with a crime; however, his responsibilities were scrutinized under the lens of institutional accountability. The concept of "failure to act" encompasses both acts of commission and omission; when individuals in positions of authority neglect their duties, it can result in criminal liability, as seen in cases like United States v. Peterson, where failure to report misconduct was deemed criminal behavior.

A pertinent example illustrating non-intervention is the case of the Rwandan Genocide, where bystanders and even some officials failed to act against mass atrocities. The international reaction highlighted the importance of imposing duties to prevent crimes and the failures that occur when individuals or authorities neglect their responsibilities. In the domestic context, the case of the 2005 New Orleans drowning incidents, where lifeguards and authorities failed to intervene despite witnessing drowning victims, underscores the potential for legal obligations to impose more proactive duties to rescue.

In terms of legal duties, extending obligations to intervene or report misconduct involves balancing individual rights, societal interests, and practical enforcement challenges. Laws like the "Good Samaritan" statutes and the "bystander rule" influence expectations; however, these are often limited to specific scenarios involving strangers or emergency situations. Expanding such duties broadly could encourage greater accountability, yet also raises concerns about liability and fair duty imposition, especially when resource constraints or fears of retaliation are considered.

Theories of punishment relevant to failure-to-act offenses include retributivism, which emphasizes moral blameworthiness, and utilitarianism, which focuses on societal benefits of deterrence and prevention. The punishment for criminal failure to act could range from sanctions such as fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of harm caused and the moral culpability of the individual. For example, those who intentionally neglect clear responsibilities resulting in harm might face harsher sanctions, aligning with the principles set forth in the Model Penal Code and criminological theories on accountability.

Decisions regarding legal duties and punishments should ideally rest with legislatures and duly authorized judicial bodies. Policymakers possess the expertise and democratic legitimacy to craft laws that reflect societal values and moral expectations. Judges interpret these statutes within the context of individual cases, ensuring proportionality and fairness. This division of authority underscores the importance of democratic processes in defining criminal conduct and appropriate sanctions, ensuring that laws are consistent, just, and transparent.

The Sandusky case signifies a broader societal failure—highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks and cultural shifts toward proactive intervention in abuse cases. Ultimately, imposing legal duties to intervene, coupled with appropriate sanctions for failures, can serve as deterrents and moral incentives for individuals in positions of authority. From a policy perspective, legislation should delineate clear responsibilities, support for whistleblowers, and protections against retaliation, thereby fostering an environment where moral responsibilities are translated into legal obligations and enforced justly.

References

• American Law Institute. (1985). Model Penal Code (Official Draft). ASL.
• Gault, In re. (1967). U.S. Supreme Court. 392 U.S. 83.
• United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005).
• King v. Cogdon, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D. Alaska 1997).
• People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 594 (1956).
• Bering v. United States, 60 F.3d 411 (8th Cir. 2011).
• LaFave, W. R. (2003). Criminal Law. Thomson West.
• Dubber, M. (2002). The police power and the nature of crime. Harvard University Press.
• State v. Kuntz, 951 So. 2d 773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).
• International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. (1998). Report on the Trial of the Rwandan Genocide.