Jerry Sandusky Case Study

During his interviews with the New York Times and Bob Costas, Jerry Sandusky appeared to be lying. He frequently rambled and avoided fully answering some of the questions asked in the interviews. In the New York Times interview, Sandusky repeatedly avoided eye contact with the interviewer. He also lied about the strange answer he gave Bob Costas after being asked whether he was “sexually attracted to underage boys” (“Jerry Sandusky,” 2011). In the New York Times interview, Sandusky claims he didn’t know how to respond because he felt that if he said no, he wouldn’t be telling the truth since he did “enjoy spending time with young people” (“An Interview,” 2013). However, he was aware that Costas was asking him if he was sexually attracted to underage boys because he repeats the question back to Costas right after being asked. (“Jerry Sandusky,” 2011).

One of the things that was immediately suspect was his response to the question “are you sexually attracted to underage boys” (“Jerry Sandusky,” 2011). He didn’t immediately deny being
or outside the U.S. would agree that Sandusky is a “monster.” Some cultures would consider Sandusky’s behavior to be normal, while others would consider his behavior to be deviant. According to Schram & Tibbetts (2018), Richard Quinney believed that crime was created by people with power over political policies (p. ) Quinney described definitions of criminal activities as behavior that “conflict with the interests of the segments of society that have the power to shape political party” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2018, p. ) People with power in society have the ability to control what is viewed as criminal, and what is not. According to this theory, certain cultures would believe Sandusky was behaving normally, while others would believe Sandusky committed an act of mala in se. So, although most people in the U.S. would believe Sandusky is a “monster,” people in Iran or Africa may find his behavior