Sandusky's Case Study

According to the Pennsylvania law during the time of the investigation, state employees who were given information about child abuse were required to report to their immediate supervisors (Ganim, 2012). McQueary was responsible for reporting the case of Sandusky showering with a minor in 2002 to Paterno. Paterno later reported the incident to his supervisor Curley, who then reported the incident to Schultz. Schultz was Curley's supervisor, and he should have taken the initiative to report the allegations to the University Police Department (Crandall et al., 2014). Therefore, Paterno and McQueary should not have been implicated in any wrongdoing, criminal acts were not addressed, and legally were correct. During the trial, Paterno was criticized for his lack of notifying the law of the incident reported by

Due to the minimum of 30 years and maximum of 60 years imprisonment, it was determined Sandusky would spend his life behind bars (CNN, 2013). There were at least seven victims to come forward in a civil suit against the university in 2013 (CNN, 2013). The amount of the civil suit as undisclosed; however, in October of 2013 at least 25 other victims came forward with allegations against Sandusky with hopes to obtain compensation (Ley, 2016). The civil suit was due to the actions of Sandusky and could cost the university up to 60 million dollars. A United States (U.S.) district judge ruled the university was not legally responsible for the actions of Sandusky (Ley, 2016). Although he was employed by the university, his molestation acts occurred while under the presumption of the Second Mile program. The university interacted and communicated directly with victims to settle with them. Penn State officials failed to report the accounts of abuse to law enforcement and were unable to protect other minors from sexual advances of