Jerry Sandusky Should NOT Be Allowed to See His Grandchildren

That's Criminal 20

jerry sanduskyJerry Sandusky just doesn't get it, does he? The former Penn State assistant football coach currently awaiting trial on 52 (52!) child sexual assault charges seems to think he's entitled to visit with his grandchildren. And that conditions of his house arrest should be eased to accommodate said visits. Outrageous, right? That's what Pennsylvania's attorney general thought of Sandusky's request, pointing out that the former coach is "fortunate" to be under house arrest in the first place given the accusations leveled against him.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with the attorney general (and me). Judge John Cleland has ruled that Sandusky will in fact be allowed to visit with most of his grandchildren (excluding three who are involved in a custody battle).

Apparently the grandchildren are willing to see him and their parents support the ruling. I doubt Sandusky will be left alone with any of the kids (I hope he isn't anyway!), so my concern isn't for his grandchildren's immediate safety. But this definitely isn't going to help Sandusky face the fact that he did something -- many things -- wrong.

As recently as last week, Sandusky said it was "difficult to understand" why so many people were turning on him, even people who spent time "in his home with their kids."

Gee, Jerry, I can't imagine why that would be. Seriously?

This is the whole problem with Jerry Sandusky -- he's convinced himself he wasn't doing anything wrong. And without severe consequences, there's no reason for him to believe otherwise. Hey, if they're letting the man see his grandchildren, he can't be too much of a monster, right?

The special treatment for Jerry Sandusky needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

Do you think Jerry Sandusky should be allowed to see his grandchildren?

 

Image via Getty

in the news, sports, sex crime

20 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar Trisha

Stacey: Yes money does talk. Glad you aknowledged that much. If Jerry Sandusky was a low-income minority a judge wouldn't even consider giving him access to potential victims. And no, I don't know what state you live in but most prisons don't allow contact visits with children when the prisoner is an accused or convicted child rapist. As you said it is house ARREST. There are conditions. His wife's desires don't factor into legal decisions. It's not about "family" decisions. Families don't dictate how law is applied. Children are children. His relation to them is totally unimportant. You don't follow rules whenever they convenient for your relationships. That's why this decision was so asinine. This judge, just like the imcompetent twit who set this monster free on such little bail, needs to be investigated for ties to Sandusky. He is being treated scarily lenient for his accused crimes.

Loref... Lorefield

i.payton- He didn't sue the parents for the right to see his grandkids, READ the article.


He petitioned the court to allow him visits, which the court granted. This is all riding on the fact that his kids are agreeable to the visits! The judge absolutely did not order the parents to allow him visits.

Loref... Lorefield

@ Trisha- "Our constitution does not govern public opinion". I'm not sure what you mean by this, but thank God that the courts don't govern on public opinion, either.


Just what does the Constitution say about public opinion, or vistation, house arrest, or pedophiles, anyways? I would almost like to know what you were trying to say there.

JAFE JAFE

Not unless they want them sodomized. It's been a while now since he raped a young boy in the locker room. He's probably "getting in the mood."


Absolutely NOT.

nonmember avatar Trisha

That comment was in response to the whole "plenty of time for punishment after conviction" remark. I hope you weren't insinuating that the public has no right to be outraged by his special treatment. I'd also like to know what you meant by that since we're here seeking clarification. Keeping him away from children isn't punishment, it's precaution. A precaution our laws allow for. By your logic every single person charged with a crime should be set free with no restrictions before a trial. His influence in Pennsylvania is dangerously allowing him privileges others charged with his crimes wouldn't be privy to. The public has a right to a judicial system that doesn't deviate from standard precautions regarding child welfare whenever a wealthy, influential figure is involved. I don't care what his kids say. Their opinion wouldn't even matter if he wasn't who he was, nor should it. It's not like that family's judgement is reliable. One of the accusers is a grandchild. It's ridiculous that a court would even listen to this bs request.

nonmember avatar ChristineD-Lee

I stopped practicing criminal law in NYC over fifteen years ago, but I can still say that from a legal standpoint most judges would not have done what Sandusky's judge has done here. This guy is being treated with kid gloves legally and I am appalled. I finished my bachelor's at Penn State three decades ago. This case has rocked me to my core. However, knowing the culture surrounding it I cannot say I'm shocked at the way things are going. The football program's friends have more influence than those poor boys can possibly imagine. Don't expect this monster to be held accountable for his crimes.

KBW2 KBW2

Agreed i.payton

Stacey. Stacey.

Trisha, him being on house arrest is the core problem. If he was a low income minority he would be in jail no questions asked. But this isnt what we're discussing.


Since the judge allowed him house arrest his grandchildren should be allowed to go there if their parents let them. His wife lives there too. He needs to be in jail point blank if him having contact with his grandchildren is so questionable. However, he is not in jail. he has not been convicted of any crimes, and thank GOD we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.

nonmember avatar Trisha

That's where you're wrong Stacey. His special priviliges ARE the point. The low bail that allowed him freedom was the result of a judge with connections to his organization. I don't know where you get your idea of house arrest from, but I'd sure like to know what you are basing your assumption on. If a drug dealer or addict was on house arrest he's not going to be allowed visits from other know drug associates, even if they were related. This case is worse because he wants visits from those that fit the profile of his victims and a judge allowed it. House arrest isn't just about staying on your own property. I think you are misunderstanding that. There are restrictions. The judgement of his kids is irrelevent. Even if their opinion should've been taken into account, which they shouldn't have, one of his own grandkids has made an accusation. That's probable cause to cease all contact with minors until he is cleared of all charges. What's going on in this case is special treatment and it's appauling. House arrest wouldn't go like this for people without influence.

nonmember avatar Elaine

The daughter in law, whose children reported the inappropriate touching of her son, was much more convincing than the sons Sandusky probably also molested. She even went so far as to fight the relaxed bail terms allowing him contact with children. A paperwork glitch prevented her testimony from being given verbally in court, but you can't help but wonder why everything keeps happening to make his life easier. http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15576798&sid=7623874&cid=7623874

11-20 of 20 comments First 12
F