Sandusky Victim Is Rightfully Considering Suing The Institution That Failed To Protect Him
Jerry Sandusky may have been found guilty in the massive Penn State Clearly Doesn’t Care About Children 2012 scandal. But despite the verdict and the whopping report revealing how four of the most powerful men looked the other way for over decade, one of Sandusky’s victims now is contemplating going after the institution that failed to prioritize his safety. As well he should.
The Washington Post reports that the unidentified man has come forward as the young boy Sandusky was infamously sexually assaulting in the locker room showers. His legal team claims to have acquiredÂ â€œoverwhelming evidenceâ€ on Sandusky’s abuse, which if they’re anything like the startling details of the independent Freeh report, must be pretty damning. Michael McQueary, one of the men who reportedly knew of Sandusky’s sexual proclivities, testified last year that he saw the boy in question and Sandusky in the shower, both naked together, and heard “skin-on-skin slapping sounds.” He admitted to the court that he thought “some kind of intercourse was going on.” To back track, McQueary then told the recently deceased Joe Paterno, who then did nothing.
The victim’s lawyers eloquently put into a statement why their client is threatening to sue:
â€œOur client has to live the rest of his life not only dealing with the effects of Sanduskyâ€™s childhood sexual abuse, but also with the knowledge that many powerful adults, including those at the highest levels of Penn State, put their own interests and the interests of a child predator above their legal obligations to protect him.â€
Penn State has no comment on the pending litigation, but according to the Post, is “seriously” considering the suit.
Sandusky is very well on his way to being punished for such deplorable crimes, but the institution that collectively housed and fostered those who chose –repeatedly — to ignore the suffering of children are accountable as well. Fourteen years of abuse, it’s arguable, would not have been possible without some serious fractures in protocol, communication, and simple willingness to prosecute those who pose threats to children. The institution should be made to answer to the victims whose abuse they allowed to fester on their grounds.