Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State Football Coach arrested last month for molesting eight young boys, was rearrested today.  He was charged with more counts involving two victims who came to light after his initial arrest.

It is common in cases of child molestation that victims do not report their abuse until other similar allegations surface. 

The facts alleged by these new victims appear to be similar to those alleged by the first eight victims.  The victims were all young boys who met Sandusky through his charity, The Second Mile.  Sandusky gave the boys gifts and took them to football games.  He began physically touching the boys, which eventually became sexual assaults. 

These kinds of similiarities tend to reinforce the truth of each of the allegations.  If specific enough, they can be classified as the defendant's modus operandi, or M.O.

The recent news about Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State football coach accused of molesting at least eight boys over a period of years, parallels stories from the 1990s of child molestation within the Catholic Church. 

In both cases, there was a man (or several men in the Catholic Church) accused of repeatedly molesting and even raping young children.  In both cases, reports of the molestation reached the man's superiors. 

In both cases, the superiors took minor measures, apparently to try to make sure no further acts of molestation occurred in their places of business.  At Penn State, the coaches and other superiors of Jerry Sandusky told him not to bring any more young boys to the college, where many of the attacks allegedly took place.  In the Catholic Church, priests who had molested young children were often transferred to other parishes. 

In both cases, none of the men who supervised the accused molesters contacted the police.  None of the men in charge acted to protect the children who had been abused.  The men in charge covered up for the accused molester, sweeped the problem under the rug, and went about their business, as if nothing had happened.  As if a child had not been sexually abused and likely scarred for the rest of his life.  As if more children would not be harmed because of their failures.

In both cases, the alleged sexual abuse was allowed to go on for many years.  In both cases, the failure of any one of the men in charge to contact the police, insulated the molester from any real consequences, and allowed more victims to be abused.  At least in the case of Penn State, two of the men who failed to step up and do the right thing have been charged for their failures. 

I'm not sure what this culture of silence and protecting abusive men at the expense of children is about.  I have to wonder if a woman had been involved somewhere along the way, whether it would have taken so long for these abuses to come out.

Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State coach accused of molesting at least eight young boys is getting off scott-free, at least for now.  Sandusky was indicted on November 4, 2011 of 40 counts related to child molestation.  

Sandusky retired from his Penn State coaching job in 1999 and retired from The Second Mile charity last year.  He has been receiving a pension of almost $60,000 per year since 1999.  That will not be affected by his criminal charges.

When Sandusky first appeared in court, the prosecution asked for $500,000 bail and electronic monitoring.  Bail is intended to ensure a criminal defendant appears in court to face the charges.  Generally, the more serious the charges, the higher the bail.  Also, if a defendant has the resources to pay, he will usually be assessed higher bail.  That will ensure he comes to court instead of fleeing.

Sandusky's bail was set at $100,000, unsecured.  He was not required to be electronically monitored.  The bail amount is lower than the prosecution requested, and is quite low considering the crimes he is accused of and his resources.  Even more surprising is the fact that his bail is unsecured. 

Normally when bail is set, the defendant has to put up the amount of the bail for the court to hold.  Or they may give a bail bondsman 10% of the bail amount, and the bail bondsman ensures the court will receive the rest if the defendant does not show up.  If the defendant does not show up in court, he forfeits all the money he posted. 

When bail is unsecured, however, the defendant does not need to front any money.  He basically promises to pay the bail amount if he does not appear.  However, the defendant is already required to appear, so  it does not seem that an unsecured promise to pay would do much more to ensure a defendant's appearance.

The defendant is already required to appear by law, and a judge can issue an arrest warrant if he fails to appear.  An additional promise to pay an unsecured bail amount does not seem like any more of an incentive to appear. 

Sandusky can therefore continue to live at home, go about his daily life, continue receiving his pension, and need not pay a penny in bail as long as he appears.  That is highly unusual for someone accused of such serious crimes.

It is no wonder that people are crying foul now that they have learned that the judge who set Sandusky's bail has donated money to and volunteered for his charity, The Second Mile.  Judges have a duty to recuse themselves from a case if there is even the appearance of an impropriety.  

If Judge Leslie Dutchcot did volunteer for or donate money to The Second Mile charity, she should recuse herself from Sandusky's case.  This is particularly so since Sandusky got access to his victims through The Second Mile charity, according to the indictment.