Jerry Sandusky is scheduled to be sentenced next week, but this case is far from over.

We don't mean the pending trial of two top Penn State administrators accused of lying to a grand jury and failing to report a serial child rapist -- although that should shed light on exactly what university officials knew and whether they tried to cover it up.

What's also unclear is why the investigation opened by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett's office took three years to complete and whether other young boys were put at risk while it dragged on.

There's also the nagging question posed by House Democratic Leader Frank Dermody: Whether Corbett set a slow pace so as not to harm his his succesful gubernatorial campaign.

Inconceivable?

Just look at the fallout after Sandusky finally was arrested early last year.

Corbett launched his campaign in 2009, the same year the attorney general's offce received the case from prosecutors in Centre County who cited a conflict of interest.

Let's say he charged Sandusky sometime in 2009 or 2010 while running for governor. Would voters see him as the man who arrested a monster or as the guy who took down a beloved coach and legendary football program?

Probably both -- and one would have jeopardized his chances of claiming Pennsylvania's highest office.

Corbett denies he mishandled the investigation and seems genuinely offended by Dermody's suggestion he manipulated the timing of an arrest.

Like it or not, though, it's out there, and both the Democrat and Republican now running for state attorney general told the Patriot-News they would review the investigation if elected.

Yet state House Republicans refuse even to discuss the idea of having an outside agency -- the U.S. attorney's office -- review the handling of the Sandusky case.

A Democratic-backed resolution asking for such a review was introduced in December, but it never moved out of committee. This week the Democrats collected enough signatures for a discharge resolution, which would recall the resolution from committee for a full House vote.

But as soon as they introduced the resolution Wednesday, GOP House Speaker Sam Smith immediately ended that day's session, according to The Associated Press.

The House is now in recess until Oct. 15, but Democrats are vowing they won't back down on the resolution, setting the stage for legislative gridlock or at least a bruising battle.

Is that really what we need right now -- over this?

The Republicans should allow the vote. They hold the majority, and they can reject it.

But what is the harm in asking for an independent review of the Sandusky investigation?

If it was mishandled, the lawmakers should want to know; if it was done correctly, the review would reveal that, too, and put the matter to rest once and for all.