<p>^^^grasping is a good word for this kind of rationalization. Having sex (any kind) with a 10 year old (any gender) is violent and non consensual, whether physical force, coercion, intimidation, trickery, or manipulation is the method used.</p>
<p>thank you pinot</p>
<p>I was trying to figure out how to even respond to this tangent.</p>
<p>Way too early to think that these are the only evidences that would come out. He was just on TV last night, wait a week or two, I think more will come out. An average pedophile abuse well over 100 kids over their career, I think Sandusky is well above average with his clever setup that he carefully built over the years with Second Mile, troubled kids and misfits that have unfortunate background with often times no strong family support.</p>
<p>It may well be that more allegations will come out. But there might also be many, many testimonials from boys who will say that Sandusky helped them and never molested them at all. They’ll probably be true, too. That’s another thing that may make a jury’s job harder.</p>
<p>A ten year old can’t consent. If they say, yes go ahead, have sex with me, it’s not consent, ever. There is a power play here, a control Dynamic, a physical size difference, and so on…I can’t believe someone suggests this might not be rape, just because a ten year old doesn’t scream or fight doesn’t mean he or she consented, and penetration is irrelevant, btw</p>
<p>That is the logic and justification used by pedophiles, that they don’t fight somehow it’s okay and they don’t say no so it must be okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said. There is absolutely no such thing as consensual sex with a 10 year old child.</p>
<p>I note again that the only evidence that the 2002 incident involved a 10-year-old child is McQueary’s testimony that he saw what appeared to him to be a 10-year-old child. We don’t know how strong that testimony would be on cross-examination, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. One doesn’t have to be convinced that he raped every boy he knew in order to believe that he raped one or more of the boys he knew.</p>
<p>“It may well be that more allegations will come out. But there might also be many, many testimonials from boys who will say that Sandusky helped them and never molested them at all. They’ll probably be true, too. That’s another thing that may make a jury’s job harder.”</p>
<p>Personally, if I was one of the jury, I would easily see through that. There is no doubt that outside of his sex offending activities, Sandusky does a lot of good things in the community and has helped a lot of kids. But that does not excuse him from the crime that he may have committed. If half a dozen came out and testified with consistencies in details, I think I would have no problem in believing them. I imagine a psychiatrist expert would come and say something like many if not most pedophiles lead a good life outside of their criminal activities, they compartmentalize their personality and behavior, it is part of their methods to continue to do what they do.</p>
<p>Several people have suggested that criminal defense attorneys are supposed to be objective when deciding to take clients, aren’t supposed to refuse clients, etc. That’s entirely wrong. The only occasion when a defense attorney is ethically required to take a client is if there’s nobody else available, which, as a practical matter, almost never occurs, because there’s almost always a pool of available lawyers that a court can appoint. I know a number of criminal defense attorneys, one of whom is a good friend, and she has always refused to defend people accused of sexual crimes such as rape, sexual assault, and anything to do with child molestation. Why? Her personal feelings, based in part on her time in a DA’s office prosecuting such crimes (she even specialized for a while in cases involving sexual assault by doctors on their patients – one wouldn’t think there would be enough cases like that to justify such a specialty, but there were.) It’s 100% her right to decline such cases. Nobody “has to” defend Sandusky.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The law agrees with you. These no such thing as “consensual” sex with a child younger than the statutory age of consent, which in Pennsylvania is 16 for statutory sexual assault and 18 for corruption of minors. In Pennsylvania, any sexual intercourse with a child under 13 is defined as “rape of a child,” a first-degree felony which carries a prison term of up to 40 years. Doesn’t matter what the kid thought,because that kid is legally incapable of giving consent. Any sexual intercourse with a child aged 13 up to 16 by a person four or more years older than the child is statutory sexual assault, a second-degree felony. The alleged acts could also fall into other crimes, such as “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child,” a first-degree felony (it’s by definition involuntary because legally the child is incapable of giving consent), “aggravated indecent assault” (a first-degree felony if the child is under 13 and a second degree felony if the child is 13-15), corruption of a minor, and unlawful contact with a minor.</p>
<p>Of course the prosecution would need to prove all the elements of these offenses and the jury would need to convict, but the law takes this very, very seriously. As it should.</p>
<p>“Not to belabor the point of my friend and his sex life at the age of 10, but it does have some POSSIBLE bearing on the scene witnessed by McQueary. In that what he witnessed was not necessarily <em>forcible</em> rape. IMHO, it was still rape, even if the 10 yr old “consented.” (With all of the obvious caveats around the concept that a 10 yr old COULD consent to sex with an adult.) IMHO, there is also a strong possibility that what the GA saw was not actual penetration…”</p>
<p>Legally, I believe it is impossible for a 10 year old to “consent”. It is rape no matter what.</p>
<p>"<em>forcible</em> rape" - That’s a new one.</p>
<p>“Nobody “has to” defend Sandusky.” No, but as you implied there will be no shortage of lawyers who would be willing to represent him.</p>
<p>Hunt would they age matter to you? 10 12 14 8</p>
<p>
Then PSU will have a huge problem - especially if Curley and Schultz continue to contradict McQ and are viewed as helping Sandusky’s defense. Plus many will feel Paterno was sacrificed for nothing.</p>
<p>^ Agree. Some type of justice is going to have to come out of this for PSU’s sake.</p>
<p>I think we are going back and forth about different things. I think Hunt’s point is very real and valid if the whole case against Sandusky is mainly dependent upon the 2002 incident. In that case, McQ has to come across as credible and airtight. Actually, the identity of the victim #2 is not even known at this point, so how could the age or consent issue be established at trial? But as we all know, there are many other victims, and if we have testimonies of those victims coupled with the rest including the 2002 incident, those form a very powerful argument.</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if Sandusky never gets to trial. He is a coward, and the possibility of him taking the coward’s way out to avoid prosecution should surprise nobody…and i don’t think he’ll flee…</p>
<p>^^^I think he believes either the DA will drop the charges or if there is a trial he wont be convicted.</p>
<p>Well considering few of the Priests around the area i live have been convicted,it wouldn’t be a stretch to think Sandusky will get off…</p>
<p>After the Costas interview, I wouldn’t be surprised if he went for an insanity plea.</p>