In life and in law, actions speak louder than words. Jerry Sandusky, the center of the Penn State child molestation scandal, recently and publicly admitted to a TV sportscaster that he touched boys while showering with them. While not a criminal confession, this is a powerful statement against interest that is to the point of being incriminating.
Without the intent to gratify oneself sexually, touching a boy in a shower is not, by itself, a crime. But, under the circumstances, what other reason than sexual gratification would a grown man regularly participate in this form of behavior?
In my view, it would be reasonable for a jury, in weighing Sandusky's words against his actions, to infer the criminal intent necessary to convict him of a sexual offense. Assuming that no further evidence of his guilt is forthcoming, the former coach has just talked himself into prison.
Without the intent to gratify oneself sexually, touching a boy in a shower is not, by itself, a crime. But, under the circumstances, what other reason than sexual gratification would a grown man regularly participate in this form of behavior?
In my view, it would be reasonable for a jury, in weighing Sandusky's words against his actions, to infer the criminal intent necessary to convict him of a sexual offense. Assuming that no further evidence of his guilt is forthcoming, the former coach has just talked himself into prison.
Agree completely. Also during the interview, it took Jerry Sandusky seventeen seconds to answer this question from Bob Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"
ReplyDeleteCould Paterno face charges?
ReplyDelete