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.Originally Posted by Classical Me
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote