2kool4skool;964006 wrote:It goes both ways, you can believe someon growing marijuana doesn't deserve 5 years in prison, just as you can believe someone who covers for a child molester, resulting in more children being raped, deserves further punishment than being allowed to resign from his job and live out his years comfortably with his millions.
Sure it goes both ways. That doesn't make it any less crazy to espouse that belief. You can say Paterno should be locked up and sodomized, and I could argue that Sandusky should be sentenced to 3 years maximum (Please don't spin my hypothetical argument here because I'm not arguing that at all). They're both completely ridiculous and extreme views, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum.
You can argue that he deserves anything you want, but that doesn't make it rational to do so.
Also, there's no evidence he covered anything up. There's a big difference between going to your superiors, as recommended by law, and doing nothing at all or actively impeding an investigation. There would also be a big difference, in my opinion, between witnessing something first hand and simply reporting it up the line and hearing a possibly watered-down version of events after the fact and doing the same. You can believe whatever you want, but the evidence supporting actively covering something up vs. simply passing the buck isn't there.
If reports come out that he did aid Sandusky in any way or that he did deliberately withhold information then he should be charged with any law that may be applicable, but for now I'm going to believe an extremely thorough 2-3 year investigation over the people flying off the handle without all of the information. And that investigation charged 2 of his "superiors", refused to comment on whether potential charges would be forthcoming for the university president, but unequivocally cleared Joe Paterno.