In learning the details of the legal charade in which serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky seeks to retain his $4,900 per month public pension, a sensitive and caring individual is inclined to wish that the judge could respond to the case with laughter and to say to Sandusky, “You have the audacity to come in here seeking public funding of a lavish pension after your engagement in a criminal enterprise which resulted in the destruction of multiple, innocent young lives? Who in God’s name do you think you are?”
As distasteful and disgusting as Sandusky’s appearance on the stage with his trademark dopey and joking manner is to me — someone not involved in the case — I cannot imagine how painful and revolting it is for his victims and their families, to note that this is not only a man who is devoid of any remorse for his horrific crimes, but one who refuses to acknowledge his actions.
An argument has been made that Sandusky’s wife should not have to suffer for his actions, that she should be entitled to enjoy significant assets, including her husband’s generous pension. I would argue that someone who was blissfully ignorant of reality should find it difficult to look any member of the public in the eye as she continues to enjoy a life of financial security, having profited from what one wicked man built into a massive criminal enterprise.
If Sandusky emerges from this legal proceeding with a lavish pension, I give up.
Upper St. Clair