I didn't justify it. I said he should've been put on trial if he hadn't croaked first.
However, I was distinguishing between behavior and personal character. Crimes are about behavior. I think the big discrepancy between the man's character and behavior is what makes the Paterno part of it a tragedy. (Just the behavior part, leaving character completely out of it, is what makes for the main tragedy, which is what happened to the kids.)
I agree it's human nature to do what's necessary to protect children from harm. That's a big part of why I don't think he even knew how to think about it, because if he had, he would've stopped it. And not even being able to think about it is an aspect of his generation (and older). They didn't even have the concept of pedophilia in their brain. Rather, it was just part of a hazy. murky category of "Various creepy things that supposedly exist, but we've never seen them and certainly don't acknowledge them, they're all just ugly rumors from someplace else, not from here."
It seems to me that either you think he was a good person (as demonstrated by everything else about his life) who failed miserably at this thing... or else you think he was some kind of immoral monster who essentially said to himself, "Self, I know little kids are getting raped... but that's fine with me, I'll be sure to let it continue, just so the football program doesn't get nailed for it." Now, do you really believe it was the latter? I don't.
BTW, once it all came out, I think he suddenly did realize. I think that's what killed him.
Don't you think the fact he was in his mid-80s had more to do with it? It's a good narrative, but one that got overblown IMO.