Imagine a couple of hypothetical scenarios. Both involve your spouse.
Say your husband telecommutes to an educational non-profit. He works from home about three weeks a month, and goes to the office for one week of meetings and other business functions. When at home you notice that he sometimes takes an afternoon off and has a cocktail while streaming a movie on Netflix. You ask if he should be doing this and he says probably not. But he adds, “when the cat’s away dot dot dot” and goes back to his movie. Do you call his boss and tell about his abuse of company time — he is getting paid full-time, after all? Or do you grin, bear it, and look for another opportunity to bring up his ill-formed work ethic?
Here’s the second hypothetical. Say your wife, who works for another non-profit, this one a county agency that places homeless families in government-assisted facilities, has figured out a way to embezzle funds from several budget lines in her agency. You are disappointed. When you discover that she is using the money to pay for a high-end collection of running gear that you thought was pretty pricey but decided not to inquire about because you are often accused of being a control freak, you become angry. But what do you do, after you confront her and she says she is sorry and will stop? Do you tell her boss and thus insure that she will lose her job, which will certainly hurt the family’s financial health? Do you report her to the civil authorities and risk seeing your wife going to jail? Or do you simply tell your session so that they can shepherd your wife to repentance?
The point of these scenarios is that when you are close to or love someone who does something wrong, you are likely not to get litigious and insist that the full force of the law be brought against your relative or friend. Instead, you will likely try to do anything to save your spouse from punishment and embarrassment. You may know that this is wrong. But the law is a cold instrument when it comes to loving someone and looking out for them. You may even be willing to let someone else be the bad cop rather than yourself. In the long run it may even help the relationship that you were not the snitch while your conscience is clear in not having to cover for your friend or relative.
Longtime readers of Old Life may likely see where this is going if they have been following the news about Penn State. Yesterday, the Louis Freeh report on the Sandusky scandal at Penn State came out. Philadelphia’s talk show hosts cannot shut up about it. Too good for ratings, not to mention more self-righteous posturing. But it has also been in the headlines of most radio news syndicates. The report is a big deal because it shows apparently that Joe Paterno, the man considered to be without a moral peer in the world of collegiate athletics, knew about Sandusky’s behavior and kept it from “authorities” (Freeh used this word frequently in his remarks before the press but did not define them — are they civil, political, religious, university, divine?).
I do not doubt that Joe Paterno did something here that was wrong — how wrong is a question that few in our culture of moral midgets are qualified to determine. I am even convinced that he committed other acts that were wrong. How his career should be regarded is hard to say since the public is involved in this process of regarding and right now JoePa’s stock has plummeted. Reputations are flimsy investments. Whether I am a moral cretin for not shouting from the mountain top that JoePa is desperately wicked may be debatable if readers take into account the scenarios above. I did not know Joe Paterno personally. But from what I did know, he was a hero, a friend, a commendable “authority,” someone to whom to be loyal. For this reason, I cannot look at JoePa only through the bright light of the law, or through harrowing thoughts about Sandusky’s victims. JoePa was admirable and a moral failing does not change all his other accomplishments.
Could it be that Sandusky was at one time also an admirable man? Could it be that JoePa esteemed Sandusky and did not want to see his friend suffer, even though he knew that what Sandusky was doing was wrong? Freeh’s report never considers this angle. In fact, a line from Freeh’s remarks to the press yesterday indicate what may be a glaring flaw in this report:
The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno’s.
The words, “even though,” suggest that Paterno should have taken action against Sandusky precisely because he had such a long association with him. It assumes, quite counter intuitively, that the closer you are to someone, the more inclined you will be to turn them in. Huh? What makes much more sense, at least on planet earth, as opposed to the moral laboratory that most commentators on this scandal inhabit, is that Paterno did not take any action precisely because he was so close to Sandusky. Maybe the report says a lot about the relationship between JoePa and Sandusky that would undermine this speculation. But Freeh’s remarks never seen to entertain this possibility. (Freeh even says in god-like fashion that Paterno and company did nothing to stop Sandusky. Was Freeh a fly on the wall in JoePa’s office, home, or local watering hole where the head coach may have pleaded with his assistant to stop playing around with boys? Was Freeh actually tailing JoePa with FBI agents long before he conducted this investigation?)
And one of the reasons why Freeh and others can’t fathom that JoePa may have had a close and fraternal bond with Sandusky is that for most Americans a pederast is not a human being but a monster. So it is unthinkable that anyone could ever like or love such a person. But if sin comes in all shapes and sizes, in persons lovable, smart, funny, intelligent, and even inspiring, then it is possible to imagine why JoePa may have acted the way he did. Heck, all of us who are married, have children, or come from families (which would be practically anyone reading this) knows what it is like to look away from a loved one’s foibles, failings, and sins, and “pick your battles.”
Old Life 
I listened to a helpful post-report analysis by JayPa today. I thought he did a good job of expressing the problem with judging someone based upon the present data and not considering the historical context in which he operated with the information of which he was aware.
I don’t know if he was negligent or to what degree he was culpable, but it is surprising how much he is presented as if he had been perpetrator.
LikeLike
Anyone who knows even a little about this sort of abuse, knows that the predator is almost always believed and protected and the victims, particularly children, particularly ‘throw away children’, are never believed and considered liars or that they misunderstood affection for sexual advance, etc. And children, particularly boys of that age, almost never tell for reasons of shame and embarrassment. Hindsight is a nice recliner, but it’s likely Freeh himself would’ve done something similar to what Paterno did. Nobody wants to believe it when they hear it, and to paint this an even darker shade, even mothers who know their children are being molested by her husband, an uncle, aunt, whatever, most often throw the child ‘under the bus’ so as to protect herself and her often tenuous financial and physical options should she speak up. The guys doing broadcasts from the strip club, haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
LikeLike
The assumption appears to be that Sandusky and Paterno were friends and that Paterno was conflicted because of the friendship. The problem is that that just isn’t true according to the local press people I know who covered the program back in the day. At the time of the scandal Paterno and Sandusky had no relationship at least in the positive sense. They strongly disliked each other and only spoke directly on rare occasions. I think that the personal animosity mediated by staff and lack of communication more than friendship is what drove the botched response.
LikeLike
Property crimes are less severe than the sexual abuse of minors. Any responsible man who knew what Sandusky was doing should have turned him in, period.
LikeLike
Hello Darryl:
1. I wouldn’t offer a comparison of crimes against property to felonious crimes against a person (s), e.g. theft (time, dollars) v. statuory rape/statutory sexual offenses. Two different breeds entirely.
2. Rather than a personal perspective, the issue is a public matter, that is, one of social policy and harm to society. That’s the focus of criminal law: society. The DAs must protect the public, irrespective of personal perspectives. Louis Freeh, an investigative arm of law enforcement or some admin-service of the school, coldly did his duty. That’s exactly what was needed. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” said SGT Joe Friday (Dragnet).
3. That’s why we have juries, as a cushion against the cold-heartedness of the law. They serve as shock absorbers, in theory. A jury of twelve “reasonable persons” gave their “common sense” verdicts (Lord Coke: a “reasonable person” is that “admirable but odious and imaginary character who perfectly stalks the Halls of Justice). Some elemental humanity is sought through a jury.
4. Aside from the criminal case with other cases going to trial (e.g. perjury), there will be budget-busting civil actions to come. Penn State will be attempting to settle these claims to the tune of millions rather than go to a jury trial.
5. On another front, sociologically, how do leaders act when under pressure? What are the theories that obtain? Elitism-theory? Marxist theories? Etc. I’ve seen a few coverups in the military, assuredly. Not many, but a few. Including some lying by senior people. Also, the coverup in the SGM-Mahaney world. How do leaders act in general? I suppose once the law and literature courses are finished (two years hence), I’ll get around to the sociology courses. Here’s my shorthand view of it. Some leaders lacked gonads. It’s call thumb-sucking. A leader would have ended this fast. Would have acted decisively and courageously. But, I digress.
6. Also, in terms of psychology and psychiatry, a field of incompetence. From an unprofessional perspective, sociopathy and clinical narcissism? Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrists, thinks so. Can organizations evinces these patterns also?
7. Thanks Darryl for entertaining my unscientific perambulations. My basic point: two different criminal species, to wit, crimes against property and crimes against people. Statuory rape/sexual offenses are extremely serious. Class B felonies in NC.
Regards,
Donald Philip Veitch
LikeLike
Erik, shoulda and woulda turn out to bear very little relation on the stat line when it comes to this crime. And most responsible people who know about it or worse suspect it, never say a word, and in fact if they only suspect it, they tend to shun and turn away from the suspected victim, because they don’t want to know about it or be reminded of it. The closer the relations(for instance, incest), the less is said not more. It generally takes a stranger to the situation to even begin to think about doing something and even then the more involved they get in the situation the less likely they are to do something about it.
LikeLike
Yes, reflecting on several serious cover-ups.
1. While running into a narrow Puerto Rican harbour, our Naval vessel ran aground. It stopped with violent shaking. The Skipper ordered her backwards and forwards. The swirl of brown waters (rather than blue/green in the Caribbean waters) roiled and swirled violently and with ever-widening eddies around the ship. We knew what had happened. However, the Skipper ordered the Quarter Master (the man on the charts on the bridge) to put in the navigator’s log, “We encountered unusual acoustical effects.” Of course, something like that can never be hidden for long. Crews talk. There was a conscious and serious effort by the senior officers to batten down the verbal hatches. The leaks went stateside. The Admiral got wind of it. Upon return to home port, the Admiral ordered the ship to the dry dock. The ship’s bottom was “dented in” on the port side. I won’t forget the Admiral and his staff walking under this huge ship in the dry dock. There was a quick relief for cause. Loss of trust, lying, and perilous ship-handling.
2. Or, a submarine Skipper hit a shrimping trawler in the lengthy run into New London, CT, just north of Long Island. The submarine caught the shrimpers’ nets in the starboard keel, dragging the trawler backwards and nearly sinking her. The Skipper saw it, knew it, yet violation the law of the sea, to render aid to vessels in distress. Yet, the Skipper steam full flank away from the trawler and toward the estuary. Long story, but another cover-up. While the Skipper was proceeding quickly to the piers, calls to the US Coast Guard and tugboats hastened to the distressed vessel. Several tugs were really running quickly out to sea, more quickly than usual. Well, old ADM “Wild Bull” Houley was notified, that old feisty Irish Romanist and aggressive fast-attack Skipper. He was a wildcat for sure. Well, old “Will Bull” Houley was on the pier as the sub docked. The ADM then boarded and the Skipper denied everything. He was immediately relieved right in front of the crew on the outboard decks. The ADM’s Chief of Staff assumed command. (It didn’t help that the Skipper had previously banged the front of the sub into the pier while docking in Cuba, causing damage to the sonar dome on the front-end, and attempting to squirrel out of that one too.) The old “Wild Bull” put that Skipper on admin-leave, pending court martial. I think the Skipper resigned in lieu of court martial, but we didn’t know. We went back to sea.
3. There are several others, now that I think about it: leaders covering-up for leaders. Several stories I could tell, some worse than the above. Aside from the legal dimensions re: Sandusky/Paterno/Penn State case, an interesting dimension is the sociological theory about leadership behaviours. Do some leaders provide cover for other leaders? Absolutely. “All hands, keep your hands on your wallets.” “Trust, but verify.” While there is a strong presumption (a careful but sometimes squishily defined word in the law, “presumption”) of good order, intelligence, and decency on the part of leaders, it is a presumption that is rebuttable if there is a solid factual pattern. Many good questions arise about SGM, cover-up, and sociological theory along with the unexplained and very uncritical passes from Mohler, Dever, and Duncan, three names that have tanked amongst close observers of SGM . That’s the fundamental idea behind the Constitution and amendments, restriction of potential corruption at leadership levels. Checks and balances.
4. Darryl, look at my Anglican Church. It’s a mess. It’s about leadership. As for Paterno, were he alive, the issue for him would be “accessory before, to, and after the fact” to criminal, felonious statutory rape/statutory sexual offenses. At least for NC rules, that means two classes below the original offense of class B felony, e.g. ergo, class D. Probably 10 years. Given a lot of horizontal homogeneity amongst the states re: criminal law, I’d expect similar issues in PA as would be seen in NC and other states.
5. I’ll ponder this further, that is, leadership corruptions. It surely happened in ancient Israel. And…in church history. My maxim, “Keep a sharp lookout, boys! Keep the powder dry!”
From an Anglican living in the theological ruins of a grievous, chastening, but strengthening Babylonian exile,
DPV
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: (Freeh even says in god-like fashion that Paterno and company did nothing to stop Sandusky. Was Freeh a fly on the wall in JoePa’s office, home, or local watering hole where the head coach may have pleaded with his assistant to stop playing around with boys? Was Freeh actually tailing JoePa with FBI agents long before he conducted this investigation?)
RS: What person really knows what Paterno knew, what he didn’t know, and what he did or didn’t do? He is not around to tell us now. Virtually all that is being said about what Paterno knew is simply speculation. When people seek for true justice they will not settle for speculation. The news media should be ashamed. Good post Dr. Hart, but a few quotes from Edwards would have made it better.
LikeLike
Lots of sympathy for those in the heat of things in 1998 or 2001, but this post fails to address JoPa’s apparent perjury in 2011, when he lied about being familiar with the 1998 investigation.
I’m not saying I would have acted differently in ’98 or ’01 — I pray I would have. But I think what the later lie shows is the degree to which Paterno was concerned with the Pharisaism of his “legacy,” even in his dying months. And though it is speculation, I think we can pretty reliably project back a decade and presume that this was a motivation back in the day. This is how institutions work… they preserve their self-image at all costs.
So while I appreciate the analysis in this post, I think it fails to reckon with the institutional CYA that was driving matters when these crimes were first coming to light.
LikeLike
AdamM, maybe the tie was between Mrs. JoePa and Mrs. Sandusky.
LikeLike
Viking, the, I see your points but do think a difference exists between covering up for someone by endorsing them and simply covering.
LikeLike
Richard, flattery will get Edwards nowhere.
LikeLike
Brian, if JoePa (and others) perjured themselves, why haven’t charges been filed? I’m not denying that JoePa fudged the truth or that he was trying to save the reputation of the program, not to mention his. And which of the commentators imitating Captain Renault — shocked, shocked to see that reputation protection is going on here — would not try to save their own reputation or that of their newspaper, network, or radio program? All I am saying is that the moral outrage combined with a failure to imagine how a decent person can do something wrong.
LikeLike
Darryl, while it’s true that love covers a multitude of sins, I feel that the only reason JoePa kept silent was so that his precious football program didn’t have to go through a scandal. JoePa’s sin was selfishness. The irony is, he has lost everything now. They’re tearing down the statue of him as we speak. The only good news is that JoePa is dead, or he would be facing criminal charges, and probably wind up in prison.
LikeLike
Did anyone imagine that the Freeh report would come out and say: “Actually, Joe Paterno did report the problem to the University and, under the circumstances, that was a reasonable thing for him to do”? Perhaps some men would be willing to write such reports but that would be to commit political suicide. It is much easier to insist that EVERYONE should have done MUCH more. Perhaps the Freeh report is simply a careful and responsible review of the events. Yet, we can never know this given that a report that substantially cleared any of the well known individuals involved is entirely unthinkable.
LikeLike
Darryl:
1. A bit off topic to your main thesis, but a more narrow slice is factored off here. To wit, theological failure and corruption of leadership, namely, “theological liberalism.”
2. Due to Penn State, a review of SGM-issues, and age, am reflecting on this. “Liberalism.”
3. Am gathering a number of personal reflections on encounters with mainline liberals. I’ve got quite a few stories dealing with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, (Northern) Baptists, (liberal) Southern Baptists (pre-1980 types), UCCers, and a few others. I’ve got some sea stories. Time to collect them for the children and my grandson.
4. Related to this, I’ve been following many websites, news sites, and blogs covering the TEC’s recent GC 2012 that authorized LBGT liturgical rites for same sex marriage. The level of vitriol, venom and hostiliy from liberal “comments” on those sites is spirited and powerful.
5. This review will necessarily take me back to Prof. Machen, a review of the Bible, and each loci of systematic theology. In the context of these many, many personal, undigested, and uncollected stories. I’ve got a lot of stories. There aren’t so nice. Upon reflection, I’m getting rather mean-spirited about them. Yet, must retain deliberativeness, focus, and fairness.
6. Again, a narrower slice from the Penn State story, to wit, leadership corruption.
7. Thank God for Prof. Machen and others. A leader’s leader.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch: Upon reflection, I’m getting rather mean-spirited about them.
RS: From your book of Common Prayer, read The Fourth Sunday after Easter.
LikeLike
Richard:
1. Indeed, a wonderfully Augustinian prayer (as they all are), to wit:
“O Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men; Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
2. Nontheless, Penn State, SGM-reviews, and the recent actions of TEC’s GC 2012 have inspired the collection of some personal anecdotes with “theological liberals.” Quite a few of them. And expressions of gratitude for Machen, a table-name for me in youth thanks to my Dad. “Those Princetons,” we were told, “were a careful and scholarly breed.”
3. The Westminster Confession’s handling of humans in Chapters 3 and 5 is chilling, to wit, the judicial remand to “hardening of hearts.”
4. Imagine singing Isaiah 1.1-10? My Great-G-G-Grandparents were Scots Presbyterians in Glasgow. (I have the family Bible with names, etc.) The Psalms were included in the back (for singing) along with metrical versions of Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, close approximations of the text. The text of Gen. 17 was sung at one of the baptisms. But, back on point: singing Isaiah 1.1-10? Relative to “theological liberalism?” I’m going to re-read the Bible here with this focus in mind.
Enough. Still reflecting on 20ish (?) or so stories of interactions with liberals. Said to included, but not limited to: hostility and venom.
I am sure others here have had their share of interactions also. Thanks, Darryl, you’ve given the impetus to the review.
Regards,
Donald Philip Veitch
LikeLike
“A moral failing does not change all his other accomplishments.” You’re sounding like defenders of Dabney.
I fail to see how your intro cases compare to the JoePa case, in any way. A moral failing, in no way involving illegal actions, is not comparable to failing to report (and likely even concealing and lying about) the actions of a sex offender that amounted to at least 40 counts / multiple victims of rape. If a wife just ignored something awful and illegal the husband was doing (such as Sandusky’s actions), this would count as a deep moral wrong and tarnish the quality of the relationship, contrary to your claim that “What makes much more sense, at least on planet earth, as opposed to the moral laboratory that most commentators on this scandal inhabit, is that Paterno did not take any action precisely because he was so close to Sandusky.” So on your view being close to a person involves (or warrants?) not reporting seriously illegal actions they are committing, even when those actions involve life-destroying harms to other people? Some friend, JoePa.
Stick to history, maybe?
LikeLike
patrick: “A moral failing does not change all his other accomplishments.” You’re sounding like defenders of Dabney.
I fail to see how your intro cases compare to the JoePa case, in any way.
RS: Remember, he just used those cases as examples in order to make a point that very few people (if any) strive for strict justice in terms of wanting the law to punish those they are close to. I don’t think he was comparing the two situations.
Patrcik: A moral failing, in no way involving illegal actions, is not comparable to failing to report (and likely even concealing and lying about) the actions of a sex offender that amounted to at least 40 counts / multiple victims of rape.
RS: Why do you think that it was likely that Joe P concealed and lied about these things? Do you know that he knew all that was going on? We can say it is hard to believe that he didn’t know something, but do we really know how much he knew?
Patrick: If a wife just ignored something awful and illegal the husband was doing (such as Sandusky’s actions), this would count as a deep moral wrong and tarnish the quality of the relationship, contrary to your claim that “What makes much more sense, at least on planet earth, as opposed to the moral laboratory that most commentators on this scandal inhabit, is that Paterno did not take any action precisely because he was so close to Sandusky.”
RS: I don’t think that was his whole point. However, the facts (as opposed to speculation) of what Paterno did and didn’t do are quite few. We know that he did go to those higher up the ladder than himself with what he was told. Remember, he could only do what he knew and what he knew was most likely not what is known now. We cannot convict a man based on what we think he should have known.
Patrick: So on your view being close to a person involves (or warrants?) not reporting seriously illegal actions they are committing, even when those actions involve life-destroying harms to other people? Some friend, JoePa.
RS: Do you really know what he knew? Didn’t he report all that we know that he knew?
LikeLike
Patrick, the point wasn’t to exonerate JoePa. It was to imagine the conflict someone might have when a good friend or relative does something wrong. If this imaginary point has not pull on you, it could be a case of moral superiority. It could also be a function of a poorly developed imagination.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch:
“2. Rather than a personal perspective, the issue is a public matter, that is, one of social policy and harm to society. That’s the focus of criminal law: society. The DAs must protect the public, irrespective of personal perspectives. Louis Freeh, an investigative arm of law enforcement or some admin-service of the school, coldly did his duty. That’s exactly what was needed. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” said SGT Joe Friday (Dragnet).”
That’s exactly the problem not a good excuse. DA’s shouldn’t set public policy. That goes against the very philosophy of our constitution. These public good policies are why we are in the mess we are in. The law should only be concerned with the personal.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch: “ Rather than a personal perspective, the issue is a public matter, that is, one of social policy and harm to society. That’s the focus of criminal law: society. The DAs must protect the public, irrespective of personal perspectives. Louis Freeh, an investigative arm of law enforcement or some admin-service of the school, coldly did his duty. That’s exactly what was needed. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” said SGT Joe Friday (Dragnet).”
RS: Without disagreeing with your point, it does raise the question as to what should be considered as “facts” and why we think that people are objective enough to just give us “facts” apart from their subjective interpretation of them along with their deductions and implications. If we follow a good theory of the will (for example, like that of Jonathan Edwards), we can see that people are driven by their desires and not just by facts. The things that we want to believe we can find a lot of evidence for, yet for the things that we don’t want to believe we can overlook a lot of things and dismiss them as not fitting the conclusions that I want.
LikeLike
Richard says: “The things that we want to believe we can find a lot of evidence for, yet for the things that we don’t want to believe we can overlook a lot of things and dismiss them as not fitting the conclusions that I want.”
I am just a poor boy
Though my story’s seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
LikeLike
@Gas, DA’s don’t establish policy or laws, legislatures do. DAs must follow legislatures.
@Richard, there are substantial issues and disagreements, amongst legal commentators themselves, about the competencies of juries.
@Darryl, the inquiries continue re: “my personal” interactions with “theological liberals.” Narcissistic, it’s “all about me,” I know. Yet, I’ve worked with many liberals across the denominations for years. Collecting and digesting those inquiries. “Indifferentism,” an old word used in the WTS catalogue, has a renewed redolence. Thank God for the old school Princetonian, Professor Machen.
As a lad, Dad often talked about “those old Princetonians,” a “scholarly breed” he advised. I was a young ignoramus (like now). As a young lad, what did I know? Dad had it right.
Again, the deliberations continue on leadership corruption (including SGM, etc.). Including some unfortunate military IGs.
LikeLike
Also, for complainers re: Paterno, read the PA Statutes before further discussion. Theologians, silence if not legally trained. Seminarians, Elders, Pastors and others need legal training before pontificating. At least Dr. Van Drunem, WTS-C, got a law degree before commenting on natural law. If legally trained, please comment. If not legally trained, so advise. Otherwise, what credentials are on offer? As the retired Federal Judge keeps telling me (and us), ‘READ THE STATUTES, READ THE STATUTES, READ THE STATUTES.” We need those PA statutes to be posted here, the specifics and details passed by duly constituted legislatures in PA. I’ve read the NC statutes, but we need the PA statutes. The CA statutes (which I’ve read) are tough-minded. I suspect a horizontal homogeneity across the states.
Regards.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch: Also, for complainers re: Paterno, read the PA Statutes before further discussion. Theologians, silence if not legally trained. Seminarians, Elders, Pastors and others need legal training before pontificating. At least Dr. Van Drunem, WTS-C, got a law degree before commenting on natural law. If legally trained, please comment. If not legally trained, so advise. Otherwise, what credentials are on offer? As the retired Federal Judge keeps telling me (and us), ‘READ THE STATUTES, READ THE STATUTES, READ THE STATUTES.” We need those PA statutes to be posted here, the specifics and details passed by duly constituted legislatures in PA. I’ve read the NC statutes, but we need the PA statutes. The CA statutes (which I’ve read) are tough-minded. I suspect a horizontal homogeneity across the states.
RS: The statutes do not necessarily determine what Joe P knew and what he did not know and how people who are reporting these things can know. The statutes may determine in one sense what the law is, but they do not determine what justice. If only lawyers can determine all of these issues, then only theologians can determine the theology of those same issues and philosophers can only determine the philosophy in those issues. Of course if there is any history involved at all, then D.G Hart may have something to say.
LikeLike