Sandusky Rape Case Analysis

The concept of criminal failure to act is an interesting one in that in the one hand it tries to make persons to be orally and ethically responsible for the common good, on the other hand it attempts to restrict or stop criminal liability in situations in which the defendants have no control over (Sistare, 1989). The concept advocates for the understanding that the failure by someone to act in a particular situation results in the cat tagged as omission. In the case of the Sandusky rape case at the Penn State University; there have been debates on whether or not the Assist Coach McQuery was justified not take action by preventing his senior, Sandusky form molesting r raping the boy (Sistare, 1989).
However, as the debate rages on, it is critical

Well, there has been argument that it was absolutely moral and imperative to physically respond and intervene by stopping the sexual assault. Some critiques have gone as far as questioning why McQuery with his 6’5 size was unable to confront the assailant who was older (Sandusky, 2000). Others have gone as far as asserting the failure by McQuery to intervene was because of disinterest in child rape and as such, had it that Sandusky was beating the boy the he (McQuery) would have acted immediately (Sandusky, 2000). That is the born of

That is because he was well aware of the sexual-abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky but did little to intervene probably with intent of protecting Jerry (Fiorillo, 2012). Given that Paterno was more powerful most well-regarded, most respected person on campus, he was the only person placed to take both legal and disciplinary actions against Sandusky. Sincerely, that was a failure on the part of Parteno both legally and morally for not intervening in the case (Fiorillo,