NEW YORK (Reuters) ? When Pennsylvania toughened up its child-abuse reporting law four years ago, the idea was to compel adults to take action when they suspected wrongdoing.
But even under the higher standard, Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno, who said Wednesday he will retire because of a child-abuse scandal focused on one of his former assistant coaches, apparently will not face criminal liability.
Legal experts also said two university officials charged with failing to report the suspected abuse potentially have a strong defense. The officials could rely on a loophole in the old law that could excuse their alleged silence.
In the scandal, one of Paterno's former assistants, Jerry Sandusky, has been charged with sexually abusing eight boys over a decade.
On one occasion, in 2002, a graduate student said he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a naked boy in a campus locker room and reported the incident to Paterno, according to a grand jury report. Paterno, 84, in turn informed athletic director Timothy Curley and a week and a half later, university finance official Gary Schultz also heard about the allegations.
Curley and Schultz have been charged with failing to report the incident and also face perjury charges. Lawyers for the two men have said their clients are innocent. Paterno, who could not be reached for comment, has not been charged.
Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, a wide range of professionals who come in contact with children and have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that a child in the care of their organization has been abused are required to report it or face criminal charges.
The law was tightened in 2007 after a 2005 grand jury report into a sexual abuse scandal at the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia. That report revealed that pastors of parishes knew of incidents of child sexual abuse by priests.
But because the pastors did not hear from the children directly, they did not report the incidents because they had been advised they were not required to, according to Frank Cervone, executive director for the Support Center for Child Advocates.
At that point, the legislature intervened and the law no longer requires the child to come forward.
In the case of Curley and Schultz, the toughened standards may not make a difference because the events occurred in 2002, before the changes were made to the law. As a result, Curley and Schultz may argue they had no legal duty to report the allegations because the child did not report the offense to them, said Cathleen Palm, executive director of Protect Our Children Committee.
"It is possible that we now know was a major loophole in our law was at play in this particular case," Palm said.
According to the grand jury report, Paterno called Curley the day after hearing the allegations from the eyewitness. About a week and a half later, the eyewitness was called to a meeting with Curley and Schultz where he recounted what he had seen.
Under that version of events, Paterno appeared to fulfill his obligation under the law, Cervone said.
"A subordinate can discharge his mandatory reporting responsibility by reporting to his boss," Cervone said.
At a news conference Monday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly appeared to back up that view when she said that Paterno is not a target of its investigation.
"He had a responsibility to report the incident to the school authorities and he did it," said Kelly.
While Paterno appeared to fulfill his legal duty after being told about the locker room incident, that should not end the scrutiny of Paterno's actions, Palm said.
"The question then becomes: should he have then either asked them if they filed a report or should he have made the call himself?" Palm said.
The law does not address that question, she said.
(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Eileen Daspin and Bill Trott)
cyclops cyclops zanesville google ice cream sandwich google ice cream sandwich soulja boy jason campbell
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.