I've heard lots of snide comments about my home town and alma mater over the last several months thanks to the Jerry Sandusky case ("We are...Penn rape" - ah, yes, very classy). One of the most recent had to do with the composition of the jury, drawn from the State College area and by default having lots of ties to Penn State.
Displaying a lack of empathy akin to the one they attribute to senior administrators who apparently shielded Sandusky for years, many have openly opined that the people in and around State College are so blinded by love of Penn State football that a jury composed of locals was almost certain to acquit Sandusky because of his history with the team. Now that this jury has come back with guilty verdicts on all but a few charges, I wonder what those critics will say next. While I'd like to believe they'll rethink that initial assessment, I suspect it's more likely that many will simply double down and suggest that the fact that a few of the charges came back "not guilty" proves their warped point.
Alternatively, the storyline may become that of a jury more concerned with taking revenge on Sandusky for Joe Paterno's downfall than in justice for Sandusky's victims. On one level, of course, the jury's motives are irrelevant as long as justice has been done, but I am sick of hearing these blowhards disparage tens of thousands of people because of the sins of a few. If said blowhards are actually concerned with the truth, the story should be that a jury that many believed would be sympathetic to the defendant heard both sides of the case and concluded that the defendant was a monster. Success with honor, some might say.
No comments:
Post a Comment