The Sandusky sentence: No closure
“YECH!” was our initial reaction to word that serial child molester Jerry Sandusky would be issuing a statement professing not contrition but his innocence in advance of Tuesday's sentencing on 45 counts of sex abuse.
Then we actually heard his words, recorded for and aired by Penn State's student-run online radio station. And it was all we could do to not retch. For those words only reinforce how dangerous and manipulative the former Penn State assistant football coach really is and how absolutely just is the effective life sentence he received.
Mr. Sandusky, 68, was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison. One of the offenses involved the rape of a young boy in a Penn State shower, witnessed by a graduate assistant. All told, 10 boys were molested over 15 years.
But in his statement, Sandusky blamed his victims and even their families. He intimated what would have had to have been a fantastical conspiracy. And he complained of a rush to trial and an unfair trial. Consider his statement for what it was — laying the groundwork for an appeal.
That is Sandusky's right, of course. But given the massive evidence presented, it's difficult to imagine any judge ever granting a new trial.
Sandusky's sentencing, however, does not end this sordid affair. There remain plenty of questions about who at Penn State knew what and when; two former high-ranking officials still must stand trial.
And, most tragically, Jerry Sandusky's victims will live in their own sad hell for the rest of their lives.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Obama’s amnesty tab: Where credit isn’t due
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- The truth behind H-1B
- Nonprofit questions: Highmark’s future
- China’s bank: Obama’s blunder
- Judgment calls