Penn State: Possible Lengthy Bowl Ban amd Scholarship Losses

[huskers1217]

46, why another investigation?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

46, why another investigation?

I dunno. I am just repeating what I am hearing.

 

[Kinzu]

So this is the rumoured sanctions. It's pretty fucking heavy. Not the death penalty, but they'll be on life support for roughly ever (from a leak from CBS news)

1. Suspension of Football operations for 1 year.
2. No TV until 2015.
3. Bowl ban until 2015.
4. No scholarships for 2013.
5. All current players can transfer with no penalty.
6. NCAA Clearinghouse to expedite all transfers
7. All players transferring will not count against scholarship limit for receiving schools
8. Loss of 8 scholarships per year from 2014 to 2020.
9. In 2014 may drop to Div 1AA with no penalty and the right to return to Div 1A after 2020.
10. Wins and records back to 1998 will be vacated.
11. Ticket revenue offset to be given to scheduled opponents.

This is the rumour. It might as well be the death penalty if true.


[MEDIA=twitter]227222282349719552[/MEDIA]/photo/1/large

This would be freaking epic, but it would kill the school so i doubt it's true.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I don't think that's fair. One, not all states have the death penalty. Even ones that do rarely use it. Since California reinstated the death penalty in 1976 only 13 prisoners were eventually killed by the state.

That's true, though the states with the death penalty tend to have higher homicide rates than those that don't. And Texas, the one state that does routinely use the death penalty, is on the higher side in terms of violent crime.

But it's not just about the death penalty. As said, incarceration in the US is far higher than in other industrialized nations (or any other nations, period). Only Russia even comes close. If Sick's theory were accurate, those types of sanctions would result in the US having markedly lower crime rates.

 

[mem49er]

And there's the hammer.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7JTWCg&usg=AFQjCNEFqdfDSar68QKgBL4wMru13A2hlg

 

[threelittleturds]

And there's the hammer.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7JTWCg&usg=AFQjCNEFqdfDSar68QKgBL4wMru13A2hlg

Well, that is pretty awesome that the $60 million is going to the groups or organizations of child abuse victims.

 

[MHSL82]

That's true, though the states with the death penalty tend to have higher homicide rates than those that don't. And Texas, the one state that does routinely use the death penalty, is on the higher side in terms of violent crime.

But it's not just about the death penalty. As said, incarceration in the US is far higher than in other industrialized nations (or any other nations, period). Only Russia even comes close. If Sick's theory were accurate, those types of sanctions would result in the US having markedly lower crime rates.

This may go to show that the death penalty isn't effective or as effective as it is believed by some, but isn't the high homicide rate one of the reasons why those states have the death penalty? That sounds obvious, but some people who are against the death penalty act like the death penalty causes the high homicide rate, when the high rate happened in spite of the death penalty that was designed to deter it.

So, it may be ineffective... or maybe those high rates would be even higher without the death penalty and we're just talking about places that have high rates? It's hard to tell, as most of us just read articles if that, without real research. I assume some of our members have done their research but it's easy to see a stat and jump to conclusions.

I have no idea how Texas would be if there were no death penalty. The fact that it's a low percentage of homicides that result in the penalty and it's getting smaller, means to me, that it doesn't have a big positive or negative effect. If it has no or little effect, the question is not deterrence, it's justice. I absolutely think it's just to sentence the serial killer to the death penalty, but I also believe in innocent before proven guilty. I believe in fingerprints and blood tests, but I also know the difficulties of reliability. Sometimes it proves murder, sometimes it proves presence at the scene, sometimes it proves contact of the weapon, and in more likely than not, it's right on who the murderer was, but when one is wrong, it's a terrible injustice (but is unfortunately exaggerated to make all convictions look unjust). Reasonable doubt, not unreasonable belief in one's innocence despite evidence.

The costs of the death penalty is more than a life sentence. But, it isn't the "putting to death" that costs so much obviously; it's the legal fees that the government has to pay for both sides while it drags on forever. (It's like those who say abstinence doesn't work - abstinence does work, teaching kids that abstinence is the only choice does not work.) If it saves an innocent person, fine, but I dislike that some people are against the penalty not for it's effect, but its legal fees, though I understand as a tax payer it may seem like money for nothing. If the deterrence is there, it may save my daughter's life from a killer - if it's not, it's lost money. Since I'll never be a killer, it doesn't really affect me unless I'm falsely accused or someone goes undeterred to get me or my family and friends.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This may go to show that the death penalty isn't effective or as effective as it is believed by some, but isn't the high homicide rate one of the reasons why those states have the death penalty? That sounds obvious, but some people who are against the death penalty act like the death penalty causes the high homicide rate, when the high rate happened in spite of the death penalty that was designed to deter it.

So, it may be ineffective... or maybe those high rates would be even higher without the death penalty and we're just talking about places that have high rates? It's hard to tell, as most of us just read articles if that, without real research. I assume some of our members have done their research but it's easy to see a stat and jump to conclusions.

I have no idea how Texas would be if there were no death penalty. The fact that it's a low percentage of homicides that result in the penalty and it's getting smaller, means to me, that it doesn't have a big positive or negative effect. If it has no or little effect, the question is not deterrence, it's justice. I absolutely think it's just to sentence the serial killer to the death penalty, but I also believe in innocent before proven guilty. I believe in fingerprints and blood tests, but I also know the difficulties of reliability. Sometimes it proves murder, sometimes it proves presence at the scene, sometimes it proves contact of the weapon, and in more likely than not, it's right on who the murderer was, but when one is wrong, it's a terrible injustice (but is unfortunately exaggerated to make all convictions look unjust). Reasonable doubt, not unreasonable belief in one's innocence despite evidence.

The costs of the death penalty is more than a life sentence. But, it isn't the "putting to death" that costs so much obviously; it's the legal fees that the government has to pay for both sides while it drags on forever. (It's like those who say abstinence doesn't work - abstinence does work, teaching kids that abstinence is the only choice does not work.) If it saves an innocent person, fine, but I dislike that some people are against the penalty not for it's effect, but its legal fees, though I understand as a tax payer it may seem like money for nothing. If the deterrence is there, it may save my daughter's life from a killer - if it's not, it's lost money. Since I'll never be a killer, it doesn't really affect me unless I'm falsely accused or someone goes undeterred to get me or my family and friends.

Again, not trying to stir up a big death penalty debate here, just pointing out that there is strong evidence that a more lenient criminal justice system does not necessarily lead to more crime. However, my personal belief is that most people who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty are not deterred by the death penalty. First, I don't think too many people genuinely view, say, 20+ years in prison as all that much "better" than the death penalty, and second, I don't think murderers and rapists really stop to think about the ramifications before they do it.

As said, if we're talking applying the death penalty more broadly, I imagine it would have some deterrent effect. But I think there are pretty serious ethical questions when it comes to the death penalty for less serious crimes.

 

[threelittleturds]

Again, not trying to stir up a big death penalty debate here, just pointing out that there is strong evidence that a more lenient criminal justice system does not necessarily lead to more crime. However, my personal belief is that most people who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty are not deterred by the death penalty. First, I don't think too many people genuinely view, say, 20+ years in prison as all that much "better" than the death penalty, and second, I don't think murderers and rapists really stop to think about the ramifications before they do it.

As said, if we're talking applying the death penalty more broadly, I imagine it would have some deterrent effect. But I think there are pretty serious ethical questions when it comes to the death penalty for less serious crimes.

An interesting thing about some murders is how the killer had a previous conviction and already spent time in prison... and when they are caught and interviewed they say that their motivation for murder was to avoid going back to prison. That whole, leave no witnesses concept.

 

[MHSL82]

Again, not trying to stir up a big death penalty debate here, just pointing out that there is strong evidence that a more lenient criminal justice system does not necessarily lead to more crime. However, my personal belief is that most people who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty are not deterred by the death penalty. First, I don't think too many people genuinely view, say, 20+ years in prison as all that much "better" than the death penalty, and second, I don't think murderers and rapists really stop to think about the ramifications before they do it.

As said, if we're talking applying the death penalty more broadly, I imagine it would have some deterrent effect. But I think there are pretty serious ethical questions when it comes to the death penalty for less serious crimes.

Good point, criminals don't exactly go to court to see what happens to the killers before they go and kill. If everyone who killed, right or wrong, were given the death penalty and no appeals, then that would be the extreme deterrence, which would work. But here and there, some are and some aren't, only know about it if you read the newspaper, etc. are all things that make the criminal less deterred.

 

[MHSL82]

An interesting thing about some murders is how the killer had a previous conviction and already spent time in prison... and when they are caught and interviewed they say that their motivation for murder was to avoid going back to prison. That whole, leave no witnesses concept.

Three strikes law - you are allowed to kill once, go to prison, kill again, go to jail, the third killing, death penalty! Just kidding, I know what the actual three strikes law is.

 

[I_am_1z]

I know it's unrealistic, but I hope there's a way the players can file a suit against the NCAA for impeding them from their aspirations.

Again, they've done nothing wrong here, but I feel as if they've gotten a bad wrap for standing behind JoePa in the wake of the matter

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I know it's unrealistic, but I hope there's a way the players can file a suit against the NCAA for impeding them from their aspirations.

Again, they've done nothing wrong here, but I feel as if they've gotten a bad wrap for standing behind JoePa in the wake of the matter

Haven't read up on the sanctions, but I'd imagine they'll let guys transfer if they want to.

 

[Bemular]

Haven't read up on the sanctions, but I'd imagine they'll let guys transfer if they want to.

Absolutely! The NCAA will provide assistance to those who want to transfer.

 

[Bemular]

Again, not trying to stir up a big death penalty debate here, just pointing out that there is strong evidence that a more lenient criminal justice system does not necessarily lead to more crime. However, my personal belief is that most people who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty are not deterred by the death penalty. First, I don't think too many people genuinely view, say, 20+ years in prison as all that much "better" than the death penalty, and second, I don't think murderers and rapists really stop to think about the ramifications before they do it.

As said, if we're talking applying the death penalty more broadly, I imagine it would have some deterrent effect. But I think there are pretty serious ethical questions when it comes to the death penalty for less serious crimes.

I have always been an advocate for the punishment deterring the crime - not fitting the crime. That said, I think you are spot-on with your analogy about capital crimes and capital punishment. In most cases the punishment of death will not deter someone bent on taking a life.

 

[imac_21]

I know it's unrealistic, but I hope there's a way the players can file a suit against the NCAA for impeding them from their aspirations.

Again, they've done nothing wrong here, but I feel as if they've gotten a bad wrap for standing behind JoePa in the wake of the matter

From what I understand, they cannot sue because the president of PSU signed off on the punishment. No one can sue.

But if the PSU players were to sue (say the president didn't accept the punishment) then wouldn't every player at a school that is being sanctioned be able to sue. What did USC's "indiscretions" regarding Reggie Bush have to do with Matt Barkley etc? What did Pryor getting free tattoos have to do with the current players at OSU?

 

[mem49er]

From what I understand, they cannot sue because the president of PSU signed off on the punishment. No one can sue.

But if the PSU players were to sue (say the president didn't accept the punishment) then wouldn't every player at a school that is being sanctioned be able to sue. What did USC's "indiscretions" regarding Reggie Bush have to do with Matt Barkley etc? What did Pryor getting free tattoos have to do with the current players at OSU?

There's probably some sort of waiver all student athletes sign.

 

[Bemular]

What would the students sue for? They still have their scholarships so they have not suffered any personal, property or financial losses. Just wondering out loud here.

 

[imac_21]

What would the students sue for? They still have their scholarships so they have not suffered any personal, property or financial losses. Just wondering out loud here.

All I can think of is the the lost opportunity to play in a bowl game and the weakened team they will be a part of in the future with the reduced scholarships.

Justifiable? Not even a little bit. But if I had to pick something the players could potentially sue for, I guess that would be it.

 

[Bemular]

All I can think of is the the lost opportunity to play in a bowl game and the weakened team they will be a part of in the future with the reduced scholarships.

Justifiable? Not even a little bit. But if I had to pick something the players could potentially sue for, I guess that would be it.

Yeah, I think that is probably close to covering most if not all of it.