Penn State Scandal: Judge Shows Severe Lack of Judgment with Sandusky Decision

Judge Leslie Dutchcot is either crooked or was recklessly foolish. It is impossible to say which choice is fitting at this point, but not that those are the only two options. 

The Decision

Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News reported that prosecutors requested that Sandusky be held on $500,000.00 bail and be required to wear a leg monitor. Judge Dutchcot then ordered that Sandusky be held on a $100,000 unsecured bail and have no contact with children.

The unsecured bail means that the $100,000 in only owed should Sandusky not show for his court date. Given the fact that Sandusky is facing 40 counts of sex crimes related to boys this decision seems a little light.

However, it is not in the decision itself where eyebrows are seriously raised.

Judge's Connections

According to report by Deadspin.com Judge Dutchcot's public profile displays the fact that she is a volunteer for The Second Mile. The same Second Mile that Jerry Sandusky's charity established to help troubled youth.

Problems with This Connection

This connection could mean very little. Attorneys often volunteer for charities. Dutchcot could have felt this was an admirable cause and simply volunteered her time and/or services, and had no connection to Sandusky.

But the fact that there is any connection at all means that Dutchcot should have excused herself from presiding over this issue. This leaves way to much room for criticism.

Conclusion

This is a high profile case. Every decision is going to be gone over with a fine toothed comb. With a wide range of allegations popping up regarding this case the last thing anyone needed was a judge with any connection to the defendant.

The fact that Dutchcot did not excuse herself, and then offered up an arraignment far lighter than the prosecution's suggestion only opens the door for more speculation of scandal.

Why would Dutchcot issue this arraignment if she did not have an ulterior motive? There is no clear answer to this question, and that is the problem.

If Dutchcot is approaching this case with pure intentions she needlessly opened the door to this kind of speculation due to her prior involvement with Sandusky's charity.

And as foolish as that decision is it is far easier to swallow than the fact that she did so to protect an accused child molester.