Philosophical question: do you attribute blame to a third party who doesn't act?

[TarHeelNation11]

The Schiano - UT thing has brought back to my attention an issue I always seem to struggle with, or at least an issue I often disagree with most on, philosophically.

For those who don't know, during court proceedings, former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary testified that Greg Schiano witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child and brought it to the attention of another assistant coach, and supposedly neither of those men brought it to higher-ups' attention after that. As y'all have heard, Tennessee fans went loco over Schiano's potential hiring because of these allegations.

This brings me to the philosophical portion. For me, personally, I struggle to really assign much of any blame to peripheral people like McQueary, Schiano, Paterno, etc in the whole Sandusky ordeal. They were not the ones committing horrific, disgusting, ungodly acts. Only one man was doing that, and that was Sandusky. IMO, Sandusky is the only one culpable and shoulders 100% of the blame. Personally, I do not think it makes philosophical sense to blame -- and especially deny employment -- others near the situation who didn't commit any heinous acts themselves.

Philosophically, what's your take on assigning blame (including legal charges) to third-parties or onlookers who do not act? Some states have such laws on the books where you can be charged for not assisting in preventing a crime and things like that. To me, only the one committing the acts is at fault. To me, it's completely unfair to assign blame to a related party just because he/she was there, or saw something. To me, it shifts blame away from the individual(s) who are actually culpable and attempts to defray blame onto additional people who shouldn't be blamed.

Thoughts?

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

 

[tarheel0910]

The Schiano - UT thing has brought back to my attention an issue I always seem to struggle with, or at least an issue I often disagree with most on, philosophically.

For those who don't know, during court proceedings, former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary testified that Greg Schiano witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child and brought it to the attention of another assistant coach, and supposedly neither of those men brought it to higher-ups' attention after that. As y'all have heard, Tennessee fans went loco over Schiano's potential hiring because of these allegations.

This brings me to the philosophical portion. For me, personally, I struggle to really assign much of any blame to peripheral people like McQueary, Schiano, Paterno, etc in the whole Sandusky ordeal. They were not the ones committing horrific, disgusting, ungodly acts. Only one man was doing that, and that was Sandusky. IMO, Sandusky is the only one culpable and shoulders 100% of the blame. Personally, I do not think it makes philosophical sense to blame -- and especially deny employment -- others near the situation who didn't commit any heinous acts themselves.

Philosophically, what's your take on assigning blame (including legal charges) to third-parties or onlookers who do not act? Some states have such laws on the books where you can be charged for not assisting in preventing a crime and things like that. To me, only the one committing the acts is at fault. To me, it's completely unfair to assign blame to a related party just because he/she was there, or saw something. To me, it shifts blame away from the individual(s) who are actually culpable and attempts to defray blame onto additional people who shouldn't be blamed.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't blame Schiano for Sandusky's actions, however in that situation you have a moral responsibility to act in some way. If he really did witness it and did nothing, that's not the type of person I want leading a group of young kids.

 

[UNC71-00]

Depends, but if the crime involves minors, animals, mentally/physically challenged people or elderly (to name a few) then yes, I hold the third party accountable.

We all have to look out for the defenseless.

 

[CanuckChuck]

Personally, I do not think it makes philosophical sense to blame -- and especially deny employment -- others near the situation who didn't commit any heinous acts themselves.

Thoughts?

So you are cool with working with a person who could watch the murder of one of your loved ones and think "Meh, none of my business."?

As far as Schiano goes what I know of the story is that this is a second (or third) hand account from McQueary and I don't know what Schiano's version of the events so I can't make a call on his exact situation.

CC

 

[gunslingerdick]

I wouldn't blame Schiano for Sandusky's actions, however in that situation you have a moral responsibility to act in some way. If he really did witness it and did nothing, that's not the type of person I want leading a group of young kids.

Agree with that. But I don't believe McQueary.

 

[Littlejon]

IF someone had witnessed a crime against a person in progress and not reported it, then I would agree that he/she/it is, at the very least, guilty of the lesser "crime" of not acting on behalf of that someone and should be held at least partially responsible for any subsequent harm that person suffered because of his/her/it's inaction. Guilty of the actual crime? No, but definitely guilty of not preventing more harm to that person. To what degree should he/she/it be punished for inaction? Well, I am not so sure. If I see someone about to kill another person, but do nothing and that person is killed because I didn't prevent it, then I would expect to bear a good deal of responsibility for that person's murder and whatever punishment that came with that. Same with any other crime that could've been "prevented" had I acted. If I witness some perv raping someone and don't try to stop it or, at the very least, report that to someone who can stop it, then I am guilty of causing that person further harm and possible someone else down the road that the perv harms.

The problem with these scenarios is that is it impossible to gauge what a person sees or thinks he/she/it sees and can do about it. Plus there is the possibility of fear of reprisals, right or wrong, that cause someone to pause or keep quiet. For instance, if I live in a high crime area where gangs roam freely and are known to operate and I see one of these gang members committing a crime, the "right" thing for me to do is try to stop it or at least call the cops. Problem is that doing so may mean I am harmed or my family is harmed. I know I need to do something, but I also know my doing something may cause others to be harmed. It is a lose-lose situation and one I can't always fault someone for inaction when they have to weigh consequences.

In this case, however, Schiano was accused of going to another coach and telling him he saw Sandusky raping a kid and the other coach did nothing. He supposedly didn't go to the authorities himself, which is supposedly why people are upset with him. Problem is he and the other coach both denied this ever happened. I can't stand Schiano, but I also can't stand UT fans and alumni going after him on this either.

 

[dadika13]

Ah, the ole good samaritan law.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

So you are cool with working with a person who could watch the murder of one of your loved ones and think "Meh, none of my business."?

That's certainly an extreme example, but sure in that situation I would be pissed at those people, but I would not consider them guilty of a crime. You know who I would really be pissed at? The person(s) who actually murdered my loved ones. This weird passing the baton of guilt thing doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Legally: I don't think anyone should be obligated to report anything, get in trouble for happening to have witnessed something and not properly report it, etc.

Morally: I think you should report something like a murder or molestation.

I don't know the details of his involvement or who he may have reported to, or whatever. I think that once he tells a superior, his obligation has been satisfied. If JoePa doesn't do anything about it, that's on him, not on the small-time assistant.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I do find it funny that so many people boycotted the hiring though. It's not like Schiano did anything to perpetuate the Diddler U culture at PSU.

Even funnier was that the AD actually caved to the pressure!

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Legally: I don't think anyone should be obligated to report anything, get in trouble for happening to have witnessed something and not properly report it, etc.

Morally: I think you should report something like a murder or molestation.

I think this encapsulates my feelings on this quite well. In general, I'm strongly opposed to legislating morality, even when it's morale issues I believe in as a Christian. So this is just another example of that, IMO. Good-samaritan laws shouldn't be a thing, especially in today's sue-happy culture. Heaven forbid you try to help someone you find injured and then they sue you for making it worse.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Not sure what happened with Schiano, but if he (or anyone for that matter) witnessed an old man sexually abuse small childeren and refused to intervene, they should be jailed at the least and executed at the worst.

It’s one thing to not report a crime for fear of retribution from the mob. Protecting a child rapist is inexcusable.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

but if he (or anyone for that matter) witnessed an old man sexually abuse small childeren and refused to intervene, they should be jailed at the least and executed at the worst.

What charge are we getting him on to jail and kill him?

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

What charge are we getting him on to jail and kill him?

The Good Samaritan Law, obviously. Didn't you read the thread?

 

[ticket2ride04]

What charge are we getting him on to jail and kill him?

I wasn’t speaking in the context of any law, though I’m sure there is one. Just stating how I personally feel about the matter.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I wasn’t speaking in the context of any law, though I’m sure there is one.

There isn't.

 

[ticket2ride04]

There isn't.

Not so fast my friend

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Not so fast my friend

Ya, 10 states have laws requiring that. Pennsylvania isn't one of them.

Close but no cigar.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Ya, 10 states have laws requiring that. Pennsylvania isn't one of them.

Close but no cigar.

I didn’t say PA.

I initially surmised there might be some kind of Good Samaritan law in existence. I didn’t specify where or in what capacity. You emphatically said there wasn’t one. I showed you that to be untrue.

 

[TarHeelMark]

1. I think Sandusky should get the death penalty.
2. I think Schiano is a horses-ass.
3. From what I know, there was never any sworn testimony that Schiano said he observed Sandusky; only heresay.
4. Schiano was hired by Tampa Bay, ESPN, and OSU since all the Sandusky stuff came up. One has to assume he was fully vetted before being hired.
5. The UT fans and boosters are scum for using this as a way to force out a coaching hire they didn't want.
6. The UT AD is a pussy to immediately give in to the mob mentality.

Again, I don't like Schiano, and don't blame UT for not liking the hire. However what transpired here is BS. I hope the vols get stuck with Mr. Magoo.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I didn’t say PA.

I initially surmised there might be some kind of Good Samaritan law in existence. I didn’t specify where or in what capacity. You emphatically said there wasn’t one. I showed you that to be untrue.

I'm aware of the laws you're referencing, which are actually called "Duty to Act" laws. Good Samaritan laws actually protect people who are trying to help, but make a situation worse by helping. I can see how you might be confused, as a lot of people refer to the Duty to Act laws as Good Samaritan laws, but they're actually different.

And you didn't have to say PA. The whole case happened in PA so that was already implied.

 

[ticket2ride04]

I'm aware of the laws you're referencing, which are actually called "Duty to Act" laws. Good Samaritan laws actually protect people who are trying to help, but make a situation worse by helping. I can see how you might be confused, as a lot of people refer to the Duty to Act laws as Good Samaritan laws, but they're actually different.

And you didn't have to say PA. The whole case happened in PA so that was already implied.

Yes, I’m aware of where the incident took place. As I noted in another post, I was lamenting on what I personally felt should happen to anyone in such a situation. It has nothing to do with any law. It’s no different than me stating police officers shouldn’t be able to write speeding tickets for drivers on toll roads.

Again, I was interjecting an opinion, not what should happen based on any law or lack thereof. But I see how you could be confused.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

But I see how you could be confused.

Yes, it's pretty easy to see how I could be confused... The poaster I was quoting and trying to make sense of is a bozo.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Yes, it's pretty easy to see how I could be confused... The poaster I was quoting and trying to make sense of is a bozo.

Oh the iron knee

 

[coryfly]

Agree with that. But I don't believe McQueary.

That is the key. If McQueary is telling the truth then screw Schiano. Obviously there is a ton of question marks about whether he is telling the truth though.

 

[coryfly]

1. I think Sandusky should get the death penalty.
2. I think Schiano is a horses-ass.
3. From what I know, there was never any sworn testimony that Schiano said he observed Sandusky; only heresay.
4. Schiano was hired by Tampa Bay, ESPN, and OSU since all the Sandusky stuff came up. One has to assume he was fully vetted before being hired.
5. The UT fans and boosters are scum for using this as a way to force out a coaching hire they didn't want.
6. The UT AD is a pussy to immediately give in to the mob mentality.

Again, I don't like Schiano, and don't blame UT for not liking the hire. However what transpired here is BS. I hope the vols get stuck with Mr. Magoo.

I don't know. A fanbase, and also important lawmakers who interjected, not wanting anything that even may be related to that to be associated with one of the most important people in the state seems kind of ok to me.