The Diane Rehm Show

The guilty, especially serial felons, are often justly convicted in public opinion and the media. When a high profile repeat perpetrator has been a sports success protected by peers then accomplices are also justly subject to conviction under public opinion and media scrutiny. The luridness of a sexual crime fosters a tabloid atmosphere. It will be as difficult to successfully try Jerry Sandusky in our court system as it would have been to try high profile accused terrorists. Like financial criminals, who cannot be tried in court for fear of undermining corporate capitalism, Sandusky will be strongly encouraged by operators of the college sports system to cop a plea and serve the remainder of his life, or commit a quiet suicide much like Ken Lay. My point is that just as there is a class system and self-serving conspiracy and collusion in business that defrauds the populace, big time sports does the same thing. At core it is a vacuous cult of the exceptional body, and business, of the merciless heart. These realms are protected by an invisible wall (force field) of unjustified admiration, hyper-excitement and immunity from accountability. Like the Greek gods, extreme in their archetypes of mythic misbehavior, people have come to expect those in power to steal, destroy and rape. Like intoxicated winning politicians the egomaniac in all of us asks,"What is the point of triumph at an exalted level if you cannot use it to cheat and injure with impunity?" We are all capable of murder and treason and other crimes under the right conditions. To claim men (and women) don't form exclusive cliques and injure others for advantage is silly. To claim there is not a pedophile cult implied in bigtime sports, the priesthood and other areas of power is to embrace the improbable. To claim we are a society that fails to treat and punish powerful people is accurate. We are a sadistic and classed society. Rest in peace or in a small cell, Jerry. You've had your day.

Read the indictment. Not that long. Go from there

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-P...
http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3563711/copy-of-sandusky-indictment....

The other day when Sandusky briefly talked with reporters he said" we want the opportunity to present our side" How many Sandusky's are there? I know he is innocent until proven guilty but seems like some serious disassociation going on there.

What do you think he meant by saying "present our side" Seems like if he were all there he would have said "I want the opportunity to present my side in a court of law not in the court of public opinion" or something like that.

"present our side" that is just so odd

wonderful to have your program deal with this issue -- a purely non sensational presentation. thank you.

Mitsi...the only silver lining with these alleged ugly, criminal crimes is that there may be some type of justice and we may come to understand this very serious disease better.

I have often heard that there is a substantial percentage of abusers who were once the victims of the same crimes that they perpetrate. Can your guests comment on any research or statistics about this topic?

Child sexual abuse is not only complicated by the issue of shame, but issue of knowledge and agency.
People who have been sexually abused come to an awareness of the fact that they were sexually abused and their agency (capability to do something about it) at different times in their lives. Some people go to their grave never having either of these, never having dealt with their victimization.
Sexual abuse is constructed so that secrecy is at a premium and it is sometimes just "luck" or happenstance that anyone outside of that child's intimate circle will know about it and have the fortitude to do something about it.
To further complicate matters, there is often no guarantee that the adults around that child will be capable of dealing with or understanding what happened, or feel that they are capable of (or that it is necessary to) do something about it. We know in words as a public community what we say "sexual abuse" is; but a lot of minimizing and "mental accomodating" is made by the minds of adults in order to "go on with life" (i.e. 'oh, it was just a touch'...'well, he/she didn't mean anything by it..", etc.)---not realizing, or WANTING to realize how much even one simple act of this sort can change a child's life forever.
This is why sexual abuse is so prevalent. Perpetrators can get away with abusing children in this way because it can remain hidden on many different levels. There are enough surrounding adults who have also been victims and have never recovered who are around other children-- and thus remain in a denial that doesn't allow them to be healed or to help the children around them.
And by the time some children realize what happened and are able to do something about it, they are adults, far removed from the time the abuse happened. Unless the abuse was extensive or blatantly horrific,(or perpetrated in an institutional situation) can they really feel that coming forward will get any positive recourse?

Charlie lots of us asking this question hope they address the question

Regards the flow of show content - you had a caller from Maine with a likely case in progress and who clearly was desperate for some meaningful help or a direction to move. The answer she got was dismissive and unhelpful. I am deeply disappointed in that response from this show that has an opportunity to do so much more.

The goal of removing statutes of limitations for juvenile sexual-abuse cases is laudable, but there does seem to be a lack of reasonable restraint. I offer one of my own experiences as an example. In August 1971, when I was 14 and on the junior-varsity soccer team at my high school, after practicing together with the varsity team on an extremely hot day, our coaches encouraged both teams to jump into the indoor school pool to cool off. This was considered by all of us to be an unplanned treat. The school's swimsuit cleaning service had not started up yet, so they told us all to go in without suits. They prohibited us from wearing our sweat-drenched soccer practice shorts or underwear. This group of about 40 buck-naked teenage boys, ranging from barely-pubescent ones such as myself to 18-year-olds with loads of chest hair, cavorted in the pool in front of the clothed coaches for a half-hour. One reason this event sticks painfully in my memory is that I remember a 16-year-old varsity player jumping on me, him using the cover of the murky water to rub his partial erection against my back, while I struggled to push him off without making too much of a scene. I can still remember his name, and the names of the highly respected coaches, as well as how traumatic this was for me at the time. By the laws of either 1971 or 2011, I was the victim of a sexual assault. But by today's standards, what the coaches did was also clearly wrong. However, the coaches' culpability was not so clear by the standards of 1971. Should I still be able to file charges, or sue that boy who assaulted me, who is now 57? Or the coaches and school? I do not want to trivialize the need for longer periods in statutes of limitations, but everyone must recognize that attitudes and behavioral standards do change over the years. I believe it is appropriate to remove statutes of limitation only for serious sexual assaults, probably only felonies.

A Zoller great points

AZOLLER what is your source of information that more girls are abused than boys. I would think that would be a hard statistic to quantify. I think girls are more likely to report it then boys especially if the perpetrator is a female.
I grew up in Foster care in Massachusetts during that time I lived in at two different foster homes. I was abused in both of them in ways most people couldn't even imagine. as were my brothers and at least 20 other boys in one of the homes. This was back in the late 60s and early 70s. As far as I know no there was only one time that anyone reported it. About 5 of the kids ran away from the home and when they were found they told the police officer what was happening. The officer returned the kids to the home and told the perpetrator "you wouldn't believe what these kids are saying about you." That was the end of it. Since that time I found that most of the people in town and the teachers at the local school knew what was going on and said nothing except to tell some of the kids what perverts they were. We all learned quickly don't ever tell anyone. After years of therapy I have come to terms with things. I have forgiven the perpetrator. Surprisingly enough that was the easy part. What I struggle with is forgiving the people who knew and did nothing. I feel for the victims in this case I think I understand what they are facing. Not to mention the fact that as word gets out that they are victims people will be suspicious of them when they are around children.

Wow! You are quite a piece of work!
First, you double-down once again by saying that I use "hatred and unsavory rhetoric" and then offer what sounds like it's supposed to pass or an offer of a "fresh start?! These are the facts, Grady Lee Howard. You called me a racist. Right on this board. I never made a racist statement. I never implied racism in any of my posts and I challenged you to show the basis of the charge. You never did and you never could. Instead of admitting your mistake, and being done with it, you doubled-down by saying that I agree on some points with other posters who have made statements that YOU interpret as racist. Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler - does that make him a Nazi? Bill Ayers is a friend of President Obama. Does that make him a terrorist? You, on the other hand, used the derogatory term "Oreo", a racist term, with respect to Herman Cain and want to claim that your hands are clean with respect to racism? That is not a credible position to argue from. Your twisted logic wherein you try to justify your misstatements and dislike for the views of other posters is transparent. Oh, and your inflammatory post has been excised by the moderator of the board - but I suspect you know that by now.

Part 3
"I know the probability is that while you can be quite cruel and selfish ... blah, blah, blah"
I know the probability is that you live in your mother's basement. People who actually HAVE wealth, don't tend to talk about their "Swiss Bank accounts" and how "comfortable" they are. You know zero about me, what I do, or how I spend my time. I find the debate on this MB interesting and fun because there are so many here with whom I (and a few others here) disagree. One of the beauties of the anonymous internet is that it can be an agora of ideas and spirited discourse with arguments not tainted by pre-conceived notions of who people are and how much dey got. Those kinds of assumptions are born of ignorance, bred of assumption, and usually wrong.
"You and I have both gone over the top and disrespected this often informative show."
Review my posts. I treat posters with respect who treat others with respect. That is why I am able to have prolonged civil discussions with posters with whom I vehemently disagree. That is the point I made to the moderator (via email). They agreed. That is why your post was removed.
"At that time I will give you and myself and everyone on here a fresh start and a clean slate and try to uplift the discourse rather than dragging it down. "
That will be welcome. Start with not assuming you know who people are, what motivates them, or which of your pigeon holes they belong in. Then debate issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. That will take you a long way toward civil discourse.