Jerry Sandusky already has been convicted by the media and the public of a series of atrocious sexual crimes against young boys committed over many years. He deserves no sympathy even if one-tenth of what is reported about him is true. He appears to be as bad a sexual predator as there is. We can already imagine how unpopular even the admittedly-provocative title of this piece might seem.
But why has he already been convicted? Is it because he has been formally charged? Probably not, since the Police Criminal Complaint the Pennsylvania procedural counterpart of an indictment by itself merely sketched out with very few details the allegations against him. Is it because he has publicly and on the record, so to speak, acknowledged being with children in a compromising setting?
Probably not, even though his lawyer surprisingly allowed him to admit far too much in last week's TV interview, i. Rather, Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty because the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has de facto violated his rights. To be sure, in such a horrible case, one is inclined to side with the prosecutor.
It is hard to criticize a prosecutor who, after many years of what looks like a cover-up by Penn State officials, has finally been able through a painstaking investigation to acquire evidence and expose Sandusky's serial crimes.
The truth, however, is that in issuing the ubiquitous Grand Jury Report or "presentment" , which ostensibly was used merely to describe the grand jury's "findings" -- the Attorney General has inescapably proven in the public's mind Sandusky's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Can any trial jury selected to decide this case conceivably find Sandusky not guilty given what the public already has learned from the clearly incendiary Report which countless press websites incorrectly identify as the Sandusky Indictment?
What is this so-called "grand jury report"? It is basically an official document ostensibly drafted by a grand jury to describe its "findings" after it has investigated certain conduct. Most frequently, the conduct that results in grand jury reports around the nation doesn't result in criminal charges, but rather in a statement, sometimes called a "presentment," that describes private or official wrongdoing and proposes remedies and recommends reforms.
When a grand jury report is issued, in Pennsylvania as well as in most jurisdictions, the law requires that the facts disclosed in the report not, in the language of the Pennsylvania statute "prejudice fair consideration of a pending criminal matter. It is not possible. The name "Sandusky" is already synonymous with "monster" without a witness ever having been sworn in open court. Why should it matter?
After all, Sandusky is clearly guilty, isn't he? Such violations of both the law and ethics raise great concern about the legal actions taken against Penn State administrators and Sandusky. For decades, Pennsylvania lawmakers have shunned their responsibilities when it comes to school funding, severely If you are a smoker or a former smoker, and between the ages of 50 and 80, you may qualify or be eligible for a These are troubled and troubling times, as arguments persist over mandatory masks and vaccinations, over individual On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will cast their votes in local elections.
While there are no federal- or state-level With strikes already underway in Pennsylvania and tens of thousands more workers preparing to walk off across the Ron Smith is an emeritus professor of kinesiology at the Pennsylvania State University. Imagine a country in which rampant crime can overrun cities in broad daylight. Imagine citizens harassed for This time of year, dear readers, is when us writers curate lists. Some are about the best movies, top kitchen An anniversary has just occurred.
A romantic evening used to be a fabulous dinner, terrific wine and irresistible dessert. Romance was time on a
0コメント