Well, I’m glad you’re proud of the fact that a man was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, instead of in a court of law, after his death without an opportunity to defend himself.
You mean like Hitler? What was he convicted of?
“after his death without an opportunity to defend himself.”
And after he skirted any possible consequences from his inaction. I guess dying was easier than further abusing his power by killing all the witnesses.
On principle, I agree with you.
But in a more practical sense, do you really believe he was completely innocent in this whole thing?
I am fine with innocent until guilty, but I am not sure he would come out of this OK.
How much do you donate to PSU football each year?
Columnist Scott Ostler wrote a great column in the SF Chronicle last November that addresses your argument: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves
Ostler wrote: Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?" The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered. But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided. It's the same deal on the flip side...
Other graphs from that Ostler column: What is the over-under number on how many people have to know about a depraved predator working under their noses before one of them takes a step to stop the predator and protect the victims? Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball commentator, called it "a conspiracy of cowards." ... With responsibility comes responsibility... "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," Paterno said in a statement. That's pathetic. You need hindsight to tell you that you must do whatever you can to stop a dangerous criminal?
Yea, like the defenseless boys he had a chance to defend but didn’t.