The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Didn't take the jury very long.  Now this sick son of a bitch will die in prison. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I hope someone kills this sick fuck!

Quick and Fair Trial, California and Florida could learn from Pennsylvania.

I'm sure if O.J. had killed dozens of his ex-wives or if Casey Anthony had killed dozens of her children, and their victims could testify, their trials would have been just as speedy.

This case presents an interesting thought experiment, though:  should Sandusky be dumped into the general prison population to be raped and/or killed?  If so, why not just give him the death penalty, or sentence him to torture?

I would love to see that happen, but you know they're going to keep him in protective custody.  He wouldn't last a week in general population.

Yes, the cases were exactly the same.

Sandusky is interesting to me.  He just doesn't get it.  When you hear him talk, it's as if he doesn't understand that he's been raping kids.  ...as if it's all a justifiable misunderstanding.

His attitude to the whoe thing was eerily reminiscent of how Michael Jackson felt about sleeping in the same bed as young boys.

Completely disagree.

The 8th amendment probids (rightfully) that the goverment actively participate in torture as punishment.  It does not say the goverment has to offer him special protection from harm.

I say put him in general population, but would oppose the goverment doing the actual rape. 

I take that to mean that as long as the gov't is not actually performing the task, they are not responsible.  Correct?

If Casey Anthony were convicted of killing her daughter, would it have been reasonable to put her in a "male" prison?  Should that be that a fair punishment for women who have committed sufficiently heinous crimes?  There's nothing in the Constitution that requires gender-separated prisons, after all.  And if she gets raped, well, the government wasn't the one doing it.

From what I understand a number of prisons have the general population segregated anyway. He can be in general pop, but be in a pod (or whatever they call it in that particular prison) filled with other molesters and snithces, etc.

If you are suggesting that all prisons go coed, I would agree the constitution doesn't prohibit that.  If you are suggesting putting some but not all females in coed prisons based on the specific crime -- I would have a problem with that. 

The fact that Sandusky is more likely to be attacked in prison than the run of the mill car thief is Sandusky's problem not the gov't's.  On the other hand I would have a problem of specifically assinging Sandusky to a particular prison b/c they have a higher incidents of attacking child molesters.   

Please do explain.

Again, why isn't that "Sandusky's problem"?

If your position is that the gov't is not to be accountable for actions it does not directly participate in, why does it matter if Casey Anthony is specifically assigned to a cellblock of convicted rapists?  She has to be assigned somewhere.

There is a difference between specifically setting some one up for harm as opposed to going out of your way to prevent it. 

I know you are smart enough to know the difference.  Stop playing games.

Putting Sandusky into gen-pop is specifically setting him up for harm; he is quite obviously a target for violence from other prisoners.  I'm not sure how you can turn a blind eye to that.

In the United States, more men are raped than women. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women)  And that is entirely because of the blase attitude Americans take towards prison rape, as if the act of being convicted of a crime means you deserve whatever else you get.

Now, if you wanted to make an argument that if any criminal ever deserved to be raped, it's Jerry Sandusky... well, I'd have a hard time disputing that.  But you can't kind of be in favor of torture; you're either for it or you're against it.  And if we don't have the political will to make it possible for a monster like Sandusky to be legally tortured, then why do we turn a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of lesser criminals that are raped each year?

That is my point.  I don't give a shit that the lesser criminals are raped and I certainly don't feel Sandusky deserves any special protection. 

And that's my point: if we don't have a problem throwing a guy into prison to be raped repeatedly for being caught with a bag of weed, why should we have a problem throwing a woman who killed her child into the same prison to be repeatedly raped by the same guys?

It's all a sick joke.