In the eyes of our legal system, Jerry Sandusky is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. But as Sandusky begins to speak out about the charges against him, there is a peculiar dysfunction in his moral reasoning, and he assumes we will make it after due consideration of the "facts" as he presents them.

This is what I mean: Jerry Sandusky hopes we will believe that he did not sodomize or otherwise perpetrate sexual violence against little boys but "merely" showered with them, engaged in naked horseplay with them, etc. This is a classic mistake of unrepentant sinners, and most if not all of us commit it quite frequently. It is called "meeting the sin halfway," a way of nodding to an accusation but denying it with a kind of "it was all a big misunderstanding" dodge.

Sandusky believes his story is more believable than the accusations. But it's not even more believable than his innocence. What he doesn't understand is that, if he were to claim he didn't even know these boys, it would be more believable than to say he showered with them and wrestled with them in a gym all alone after hours but there was no sexual component to any of it. There is no way to see this behavior as appropriate or decent or respectable. Should we believe his denials as they have been issued, we should still believe him to be a very stupid pervert.

I believe the charges against Sandusky will be proved true. His sin will out. But if he wants to lie about what happened, he should have gone all in. His obfuscation is just a way to paint a face on his sin, and it won't work. Partial confession is no confession.