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.

Tracey Plummer

I think whether or not he sees his grandchildren is up to his kids and their spouses and it isn't any one else's business. I get that he did something unforgivable, but that doesn't give anyone the right to make decisions for his family about his family. If one of his kids is comfortable with it and another isn't, then why is it anyone else's business? 

Susie19 Susie19

NO

Loref... Lorefield

There will plenty of time for consequences AFTER he is tried and convicted.


Being on house arrest is one thing, and that is harsher treatment than most people get. If his family wants to bring their kids to visit that is their business. 

nonmember avatar Trisha

A pedophile having contact with children is NOT a private family matter, no matter who the children are. Otherwise it wouldn't be a matter of a court decision. House arrest isn't some comfortable time indoors. Just as a prisoner charged with child rape wouldn't have access to kids, neither should he. Typical case of a priveleged white man being granted exceptions that wouldn't be granted to 99% of the population. Also, spare us the "he's hasn't been convicted" crap. Our constitution does not govern public opinion. I don't need a court to tell me something is wrong with Jerry Sandusky.

nonmember avatar Dez

People charged with crimes similar to those of Sandusky almost never get such easy treatment. From his bail being so low to him having visits with children, it's outrageous that these special privileges are being granted. A man accused of sexually assaulting his grandchild shouldn't see any of them. It's beyond a family issue. The prosecutors are the only ones with sense. Sandusky proves it is how great life can be for a child rapist with connections all over the state. I hope he dies a painful death.

i.payton i.payton

No -- since when do grandparents get to take their children to court in order to see their grandchildren? If I wanted to keep my kids away from my perfectly safe mother, I have that right.

Tracey Plummer

i.payton, I completely agree and that was my point. This is not a court decision it is a private family one. Trisha, I'm not giving you "he hasn't been convicted crap" (LOL). After he is convicted, which he almost certainly will be, the family will still have a decision whether to visit him or not. I'm saying it's their decision, not yours or anyone else's. Would I take my kid to visit him, hell no, but I'm not going to pass judgment on someone who would. They know their own family and have the right to make their own decisions without us butting in.

nonmember avatar Trisha

@Stacey: I'm telling you it's a BAD LEGAL decision. One that has very little precedent considering the charges. Accused child rapists don't typically get access to children. The relationship of the children to him is irrelevent. If it were simply a family matter a judge wouldn't need to grant permission. So that pretty much debunks the whole "it's a family issue" comment. Accused child rapists with 52 counts against them rarely get low bail the way he did, let alone access to potential victims. It's disgusting that these types of exceptions are being made. He is an accused child rapist on house arrest. This is not some house bound vacation and I'm pissed it's being treated as such. (The last part of my comment was directed @ the comment beneath yours).

Stacey. Stacey.

As far as him being on house arrest, money talks bshit walks.

As far as him seeing his grandkids, had he been incarcerated he would be allowed to have visitors, and it would have been the parents decision to take them there. So I dont see why him being at home would be any different. He is the one not allowed to go anywhere, his wife lives there too I dont see how the gov't should be able to stop people from going over there. If that's the case he should be in a jail.

Tracey Plummer

Trisha, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I maintain it is the family's choice, not the courts. While I agree it is a disgusting situation, someone needs to consider how this is all affecting the children and the family needs to do what is best for them, even if the rest of the country disagrees.

1-10 of 20 comments 12 Last
F