I'm just so outraged at the American football public. They are voting for this guy, this idiot Michael Vick, the dog killer and abuser, as their favorite player. The man should be in jail. I'm very disgusted with football fans right now.
I'm just so outraged at the American football public. They are voting for this guy, this idiot Michael Vick, the dog killer and abuser, as their favorite player. The man should be in jail. I'm very disgusted with football fans right now.
I love animals, and abhor animal abuse. Keep in mind, however, Michael Vick is a convicted felon (for these exact crimes), and served 21 months in prison, followed by 2 more months of house arrest. He was also forced to declare bankruptcy due to a combination of nearly 2 years in jail, and poor management of his finances up to that point. Just desserts for his crime.
However, he has paid his debt to society and demonstrates -if not remorse- at least the perception that he plans to walk the straight-and-narrow from now on. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say his crimes are forgivable. For premeditated murder, rape, treason, child molestation and the like I'd be less forgiving.
Well Said.....Originally Posted by LostInTheWoods
I'm with you. He got off far too light and it's unbelievable to me what football fans will approve of. He paid his debt to society? Yeah, according to current law.
While true -I am a football fan- that doesn't enter the equation. I'd stand by my statement if Michael Vick was a cashier at Wal-Mart, a factory worker, a farmer, or leader of the free world. I'm also an animal lover (though not quite to PETA levels), and I cried like it was a scene from Ol' Yeller when I had to take in my Lab to be euthanized a few years ago.
How much "value" we place on the life of an animal varies widely within a culture, let alone between different cultures. In many cultures, animal fighting is embraced as entirely normal. Examples include cock fighting, bull fighting, etc. Its not for me, but I could likely convince few people in Indonesia that this is unacceptable.
We routinely bleed-out cows and turn them into tasty steaks and burgers. Chicken, turkey, sheep...the list goes on and on. Obviously, as a society we value their lives less than human life. So where is the line draw when people choose to mistreat animals for sport? Some would argue "an eye-for-an-eye, let's set the dogs on him". Others would argue "what's the big deal?". So, as a society we must determine the appropriate punishment. Something between shrugging our shoulders and the death penalty.
I have seen people convicted of manslaughter (as in, the slaughter of a man (or woman)) allowed parole with little or no jail time. Michael Vick served roughly two years. Granted, manslaughter generally infers lack of intent to harm, so there is a difference on that ground. If our society as a whole no longer feels his punishment is adequate, then they only way to alter this is by forcing the hand of lawmakers to increase penalties.
Football kicked him out and then let him back in. I will never support that sport again for that outrageous reversal. Vick's remorse is at being caught. He makes me ill and so do the fans that are voting for him now.
Of course, our society "kicked him out (sent him to prison) and then let him back in (released him from prison)". Will you never again support American society?
As to whether or not he feels remorse for his crime - that's not a prerequisite for being released from prison. I would suspect a significant number of criminals released from prison shall never feel remorse for their crimes, and only regret being caught.
The state of Florida has statistics available online covering prison sentences for violent crimes. For perspective, since 1979 those persons convicted of assault or battery on law enforcement officers serve an average of roughly 2 years in prison - which happens to be roughly the same time Michael Vick served for animal abuse. Now, I suppose your thoughts on this will depend on the amount of respect and appreciation you have for our law enforcement officers, but if you can assault an officer of the law and average 2 years in prison, does 2 years for animal cruelty seem satisfactory?
And what of all the other convicted felons released from prison? Let's say a fellow is arrested fleeing from a liquor store, having just robbed the cashier. This is his first offence. Before this, he was a fry cook at McDonald's. He is tried and sentenced by the laws of the land that society has agreed upon. He gets 21 months in prison, followed by two months of house arrest. He never bothers to apologize for his crimes.
Within a month, he's working at McDonald's again. He works hard. He stays out of trouble. He excels. Within six months, he is a shift manager. Given time and the right opportunities he makes the most of what's available to him. The McDonald's he works at selects him as Employee of the Year.
Has this McDonald's committed an unforgivable act? Will you no longer support McDonald's for giving this convicted felon a second chance?
The real travesty occurred when man genetically engineered these dogs to fight to the death. The breed was created as a fighting dog, by man. Just like any pedigree, pit bulls are bred to a standard. Those that don't fit the standard are cast away like last weeks newspaper. This happens when any breed of dog is created. Think about the long term health effects that seem to plague any pedigree. We alter these animals genetically than stand back to witness the painful, crippling effects. The list is as long as your arm, hip dysplasia, cataracts, liver dysfunction, kidney dysfunction and on and on. If you ask me, and you did, that is the real crime. Hundreds or thousands of dogs die so we can get one that we can stand back and admire.
I don't condone what Michael Vick did, It's not clear to me what he actually did do.
He stood in front of a judge, was sentenced and paid the debt. According to the laws of that jurisdiction he is a free man. I will see him as such, his celebrity makes no difference.
LostInTheWoods and RobertBrown, you make good points, but you've overlooked one important factor, in my opinion. Those other criminals you mention as examples of those who paid their debts to society usually are not paid huge amounts of money and are not considered role models for our younger people, as "celebriities" such as professional ball players are. And yes, I accept the fact that I might be in the minority, but I have no use for or respect for anyone who engages in any cruel, sadistic activities, whether their victims be human or other animal. I have no problem with killing animals for food or to get rid of varmints that may be harmful, but I do believe in doing it in the quickest, most painless way possible. Of course I also have no problem with capital punishment for criminals, and in fact, feel that the death penalty is grossly underutilized.
Bird, I see where you're coming from. And I agree with much of what you say (no approval from me regarding sadistic activity, engaging in what must be done as humanely as possible when dealing with animals, or utilization of the death penalty when the crime calls for it (although that would be another very long discussion ...LOL)).
Now, as far as the celebrity status associated with Vick or other "celebrities", that's a bit tougher. I see the Vick case as one of the better examples of celebrity crime and punishment. He was tried, found guilty and punished. No one, no matter how much celebrity status they apply to him, can deny he spent 21 months behind bars and lost millions of dollars. It is a good example that no matter who you are... if you do the crime, you do the time. Not like the continuous drama of Lindsey Lohan, or Mel Gibson's DUI, Robert Downey Jr, OJ Simpson, etc, etc.
In an odd sort of way, its amusing that he was punished quickly and severely (if I remember correctly, he received the maximum punishment allowed for this crime - but don't hold me to that) for crimes against animals, while the typical celerity usually gets off lightly with crimes against themselves (drugs, etc.) or other humans (domestic violence, DUI, etc.).
Back to his celebrity status, how do you punish him for that? His power as a celebrity is given by the fans. Its not something he has much control over. I believe that certain occupations must be held to a higher standard (i.e. law enforcement, judges, etc.). But where do you draw the line? Should consequences be more severe for professional athletes? Actors? Teachers? Clergy?
Now, certainly when they abuse their position's power over those with whom they have been entrusted by virtue of their position (e.g. teachers over their students), they deserve harsher treatment. But what if the teacher or the preacher was found guilty of crime outside the classroom or church? To an extent, they have a certain celebrity status. Do they not deserve another chance to succeed? Must we hold them to be infallible when it comes to any crime?
Some things, in my mind, are not forgivable. Premeditated murder, treason, rape, child molestation all come to mind. Those who commit lesser crimes, but do so again and again also try my patience quickly, and deserve (rapidly) increasing punishment. I will never approve of what they have done, and I will not likely forget it either. But I can accept that they have been punished and can have another chance to make the most of life.
Respectfully,
Lost
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote