Since the beginning of the Penn State revelations I have debated the edict of the NCAA upon the football program. It’ not the financial aspect, but rather that the penalties levied on past contests and on future contests as it relates to to the individual player, I think, is not relevant to the crimes committed by the six individuals involved. In short I believe that a great deal of overkill has taken place. Most of the response to my objection has been emotional in nature. In virtually every feedback to my argument people have responded as to how insensitive my point of view is towards the victims and the damage done to the young minds and their emotional future.
My answer, of course, is that the debate on the victims is a foregone conclusion and no further discussion is needed to illustrate the outcome of those heinous acts perpetrated on them and the effect on their future. Anything further is redundant and not the significance of my deliberation. The subject here is punishment for crimes committed.
In comments submitted to Facebook, ESPN, the Boston Herald, and my local news outlets, the first outrage is how lacking I am in feeling for the victims. Many scenarios are given about collateral damage in these instances. Mostly they point to the fact that players can move on, play elsewhere, or just play on with the circumstances. But the punishment for evil doing is the castigation put upon players past and present that some how they are guilty by association as is the football program at Penn State which is so evident with intrusion of the NCAA into punishment that belongs in the judicial system for conviction of child molestation.
The monetary fines imposed, the university having agreed to it, I can understand. The program ,no. And here is my position. When I started this opposition early on locally, the scenario given relating to collateral damage to crimes committed by individuals was that of Rod Blagojovich and his children. The writer relayed the misery due to the absence of their father and the how they suffer due to no fault of their own. That's collatteral damage. In trying to digest this, my first thought was, what utter nonsense as it pertains to Penn State. The state of Illinois did not put restrictions on Blago’s children . They were not denied recognition for accomplishments of past years. They were not forbidden to participate in future events and denied the award for any accomplishment. They were not denied access to the local parks. There was no indication of guilt being placed upon them through being associated with their father . I rejected the whole thing outright. Collateral damage is one thing but indicating guilt by association is quite another.
The next objection I ran into was in reference to a reply I got in the Boston Globe. I made the suggestion in my rebuttals, what if Mr. Sandusky had been an associate professor in the physics department and the same ten year scenario had gone on. The question I asked , would the Academy of Arts and Sciences have decimated the physics department ? Would they have taken away scholarships ? Would they have erased the previous ten years of awards and recognitions of students ? Would they have abolished the future participation of students in science fairs and off campus seminars ? The reply I got was astonishing in it’s hypocrisy. The commenter said yes, they probably would have. And there we have the hypocrisy of an independent body issuing punishment on the university. Those who dislike football programs and football in general think that because the guilty party was associated with football and Paterno was involved that the cover up was about protecting the program and Paterno.
The hypocrisy here is that the commenter believes that the physics department would have suffered the same fate. Many, more than likely, believe it also. One problem remains however, and that is the fact that there were three high level officers of the university that I’m sure, when it came to nitty gritty, would not give a damn about Paterno or the football program. There only thought would most likely have been about their jobs and legacy in the history of the school. Following that line of reasoning, then why only the punishment of the football program. The top three were not fully associated with the program but had more responsibility to the school as a whole. And yet, other than the the fines and monetary penalties levied by an outside athletic organization, there is absolutely no cry to penalize the school as a whole. Where is the state board of education. Why not the whole university put on academic probation ? Why not the whole university guilty by association. So now the hypocrisy of punishment for child molesters.
I hardly believe the physics thing would have happened for the simple reason that the physics department does not bring in the enormous amount of money that the football program brings in. The sole purpose for extending punishment to the football program is "that's where the money is". The NCAA is somehow empowered to punish public felonies by simple association.
Let's understand something. In the public sector the punishment for the same heinous crimes that were committed at Penn State would be the incarceration of the 6 or 7 people involved in those crimes. One, so far, seems destined to that end. But people who see little educational benefit in the major schools athletic programs think that punishment of the evil doers should, in some cases, include all the schools if they had their way. My question still remains, at what point in retribution does justice cease to be relevant.
If we delve into the justice system at large we see convicted child molesters given probation (Virginia) or short two year sentences(New York, convicted of 48 counts). My point here is that people approach the punishment of these hideous crimes of child molestation with too much maudlin emotion. At Penn State we want the death penalty for a program, but in Virginia probation is warranted. Not cover up mind you, but the actual crime.
In an interview the other night, a one Dr. Keith Ablow, a phychiatrist, was asked if he thought the NCAA had meted out the right punishment. Of course he thought that possibly not enough was done. The conversation then turned to the afore mentioned New York case. The mentioning of Jessica's law was brought up and immediately Dr. Ablow displayed his displeasure with the Jessica's law and it's mandate of a 25 year mandatory sentencing guideline. And there we have it. Liberal thinking jumps on the fact that punishment by association endows empathy for the plight of abused children, but then it can, somehow, come to the conclusion that mandatory sentencing is bad because, as Dr. Ablow said, there are " extenuating circumstances" in every case.
I'm just wondering, just between the two of us, what side of hypocrisy should we be on.
No comments:
Post a Comment