I’m so tired of seeing opinions tossed around about Michael Vick that I can’t stand it anymore. The last straw was an op-ed piece by Judge Benjamin Lerner that appeared on Philly.com. Judge Lerner opines that the Eagles’ signing of Vick is “at odds with the real nature and purpose of ‘second chances’ in our criminal justice system.” It’s truly pains me that a JUDGE of all people can put forth such poor logic. I’m going to recap his points along with my rebuttals since he seems to voice the opinion of most misguided Vick-haters. No, I don’t support dogfighting. I’m not even a big Michael Vick fan. But I’m tired of seeing the man trashed for no good reason. My rant is comprised of many words, so you’ll have to read the full post to see all of it.
However, the extent of a second chance depends in large part on the nature of the original criminal conduct. For example, if a repeat-offender drunken driver finally went to jail after killing someone in an alcohol-fueled crash, who would argue that he “deserved” to be allowed to drive again after he completed his prison sentence?
Let’s look at what Vick did, because the nature and extent of his crime should tell us a lot about what its long-term consequences should be.
Lerner’s first compares Vick to a repeat offender. So we can immediately dismiss that ridiculousness. Second, his analogy makes little sense since Vick is trying to play football — an activity completely unrelated to his offense. This point might hold some water if Vick wanted to start up another kennel. Third, Vick’s activities didn’t result in any loss of human life.
His was not a spur-of-the-moment, onetime offense motivated by out-of-control anger or fueled by drugs or alcohol.
Instead, he made a conscious decision to finance and help operate an illegal business that had, as part of its daily operation, the torture, maiming and execution of animals.
He participated in every aspect of the business, including the killings. He did this out of cruelty, and he did it for money, although he certainly had plenty of that. What’s worse, he did it not just once or twice, but rather he continued to engage in the same conduct over a period of several years.
In short, this is not simply about whether Vick spent some time in jail. And it’s not about whether his victims walked on two legs or four. It’s about whether there should be different long-term consequences for the cold-blooded, serial offender whose crimes are driven by greed than for the “average” criminal whose crimes are often linked to substance abuse, mental health issues or poverty.
It’s fine to highlight the fact that Vick participated in the business at multiple levels. However, Lerner fails to mention that it’s likely Vick wouldn’t have been able to accomplish all of this on his own. It’s easy to object to this nebulous idea of CRIME MASTERMIND MICHAEL VICK — but that’s probably pretty far from reality. Does somebody with $100 million really need to make chump change on some dog fights? While there was money involved, Vick did what he did for the sake of “sport” and entertainment. To say that greed had anything to do with Vick’s crimes is downright idiotic.
At the same time, it DOES matter that the victims walked on four legs. Dogfighting was legal in the United States for quite some time. These days, it’s most popular in poorer areas of the country. Frankly, I’m tired of ignorant (white) people not realizing the cultural implications of dogfighting. Throughout the world, there are many practices considered completely acceptable in some cultures but taboo in others. Beef is forbidden in the Hindu religion while dog meat is consumed around the globe. Cockfighting and bullfighting are common in Central and South America but illegal in the US. The fact is that dogfighting is ingrained in some cultures. At the time, Vick really didn’t think he was doing anything that bad due to ignorance and cultural conditioning. And if Vick was involved in some other blood sport without dogs, I seriously doubt that the anti-Vick constituency would be so large. Make no mistake: Michael Vick was wrong to harm animals in any way. But he wasn’t walking up to dogs on the street and shooting them in the head. He was simply participating in an activity that was socially acceptable within his small world.
I’m very much in favor of offender-rehabilitation programs for all these people, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are entitled to walk out of prison with no further consequences.
In fact, for most offenders, an appropriate sentence includes specific postprison obligations and restrictions.
It’s not hard for Vick to talk about remorse and regret when the rewards for his words are so great. It is hard for us to know how much of this he really means.
But that’s not the point. If a person with the ability to make a great living decides instead to operate a drug-selling operation, and if that person willingly chooses to punish “underperformers” in his business with torture and execution, we treat that person differently from a street drug-seller dealing with his own addiction.
It shouldn’t be difficult to understand that, even after prison, a “second chance” for both of them does not mean the same thing.
Because of the nature and extent of his crimes, Vick does not deserve the opportunity to play pro football again and be an “example” and “role model” unless and until he demonstrates significant remorse and rehabilitation by his conduct, not merely by his words.
HE MIGHT BE able to do that by performing the kind of community service offered to most ex-offenders. He certainly can’t do it by playing pro football for a lot of money.
Particularly, Vick shouldn’t be playing professional sports for an organization that trumpets a policy of not hiring high-quality athletes unless they are also high quality human beings. Both the NFL and the Eagles should have made Vick do more than talk with prove that he belongs in the latter category.
Lerner draws another laughable parallel as Vick is now compared to a rich drug dealer that tortures and executes his “soldiers”. Lerner’s point here is that Vick should be held to a different standard because he was rich and didn’t rely on the illegal activity to make a living. For that reason, the privilege of playing in the NFL should be withheld from him? That make absolutely no sense. It’s not like he was a tough-on-crime Governor that got caught visiting hookers. He was just a running quarterback. The only way the NFL relates to dogfighting is that it gave Vick capital to start his dogfighting business. SO WHAT? If Bill Gates goes to jail for raping a girl in a high-roller suite in Vegas, they’re not going to tell him he can’t run a software company because he hasn’t sufficiently shown remorse through his actions. At the same time, Lerner is right that the sentence could’ve included post-prison obligations and restrictions. But it didn’t. That’s because there are no additional post-prison mandates that could’ve been fair and effective. If the court had ruled he couldn’t play in the NFL, he would’ve gone to the UFL or CFL. What good would that do? Any restrictions placed on when and where Vick could work would be both arbitrary and excessive.
The last section outlines the disappointingly short-sighted sentiment that many Americans share: the law should punish offenders with prison and other such unpleasantness to make them remorseful. This couldn’t be more misguided. Laws and subsequent punishment exist for two reasons: to protect citizens by removing dangerous elements from the general public and to prevent future crime. Further punishing Michael Vick accomplishes neither of these goals. Lerner should realize that Michael Vick can become the most effective and out-spoken critic of dogfighting. Whether or not he’s actually remorseful (and I think he is), people will listen to what Vick has to say. It’s absurd to claim that court-mandated community service is the solution. In the past few years, Michael Vick has lost respect, a hundred million dollars, his freedom (temporarily), his job, his endorsements (forever), most of his fans, and, up until recently, his life. Football is the only thing the man has left. How can you possibly want to take that from him and claim it’s justice?
I also like how the judge would understand if it were, "[a] onetime offense motivated by out-of-control anger or fueled by drugs or alcohol." That's a great lesson for the kiddos out there! You're not as culpable if you lose control of your emotions or cognitive abilities via chemical stimulants, so if you want to do something bad, get wasted first. Bravo!
Sir,
It seems to me that there is a particular type of Vick defender, who either does not care one whit about the suffering of living beings that are not human, or has not studied the details of Vick's crimes in sufficient depth to understand the horrific nature of what he did. Your saying, "I’m tired of seeing the man trashed for no good reason." Suggests to me that you are at least the latter, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that you are not the former as well.
Vick engaged in, and was seen to enjoy, the rape, torture, and murder of living, feeling, thinking beings. Not one, or two, or even three, which would be reprehensible enough, but at least seven murders that we know of, and probably many more than that. How precisely is that "nothing"?
"Lerner’s first compares Vick to a repeat offender. So we can immediately dismiss that ridiculousness."
Vick is a repeat offender. Every dog that he tortured or murdered after the first, is a repeat. Therefore it is your thoughtless dismissal of the judges logic that I find ridiculous. (Comment continues in next post)
"Second, his analogy makes little sense since Vick is trying to play football — an activity completely unrelated to his offense. This point might hold some water if Vick wanted to start up another kennel."
Now here we come to an admitted grey area. Is his football career directly related? I am more than willing to admit that it is not. However many, myself amongst them view it as indirectly related. It certainly financed the activities for which he was tried and convicted. Further more, many, myself once again among them, do not see why someone who has engaged in the most heinous types of behavior possible, short of acting in like manner towards humans, should be rewarded with an easy and nearly instant return to a high profile, high paying professional sports career.
"Third, Vick’s activities didn’t result in any loss of human life."
And? Frankly it is this comment that makes me sadly suspect that you are indeed amongst the number of people who attach no value to the life and well being of anything that is not human. Now had Vick killed an animal to defend his life, or even his property, I would most likely be on his side. But he did not. His life, and well being would have been in no way shape or form damaged by not torturing and killing those dogs. Therefore the "it wasn't a human" argument is to me insupportable. Further more, it is well known that one of the signposts of a nascent serial killer, is their engaging in the torture and murder of animals. A way of honing their "craft" so to speak.
"Lerner fails to mention that it’s likely Vick wouldn’t have been able to accomplish all of this on his own."
Sadly it is true that in focusing (and not without some reason) on the higher profile Vick, many have forgotten that his accomplices largely got off scott free or much lighter than he did. (Comment continues in next post)
" While there was money involved, Vick did what he did for the sake of “sport” and entertainment. To say that greed had anything to do with Vick’s crimes is downright idiotic."
So the fact that money probably was not a motivator somehow makes what he did less horrible and horrifying to you? If he'd been engaged in dog fighting for money, it would make his actions no less monstrous, but at least a little more understandable on a mundane level. But all your comment does is support the idea that he tortured and murdered dogs because he enjoyed it. And how exactly in your world view is that not sick and sickening?
"At the same time, it DOES matter that the victims walked on four legs. Dogfighting was legal in the United States for quite some time. These days, it’s most popular in poorer areas of the country. Frankly, I’m tired of ignorant (white) people not realizing the cultural implications of dogfighting. Throughout the world, there are many practices considered completely acceptable in some cultures but taboo in others. Beef is forbidden in the Hindu religion while dog meat is consumed around the globe. Cockfighting and bullfighting are common in Central and South America but illegal in the US. The fact is that dogfighting is ingrained in some cultures. At the time, Vick really didn’t think he was doing anything that bad due to ignorance and cultural conditioning. And if Vick was involved in some other blood sport without dogs, I seriously doubt that the anti-Vick constituency would be so large. Make no mistake: Michael Vick was wrong to harm animals in any way. But he wasn’t walking up to dogs on the street and shooting them in the head. He was simply participating in an activity that was socially acceptable within his small world."
So? The last time I checked Vick was raised in the United States of America, not the slums of India, or some shanty town in Africa. No matter how insular a sub culture might be I do not buy for one minute that the message that torturing and murdering living, thinking, feeling beings for your own enjoyment is sick and wrong did not on some level reach him. That he lived in a subculture both growing up and then as a sports celebrity that made it far to easy to ignore that message is beyond dispute. However in no way shape or form does that excuse him from being held responsible for his actions. Furthermore the cultural relativism card is a poor one to play in this case. Not only because Vick was born and raised in the US, but also because quite frankly all your argument does is give validity to the world wide attempts to see animal related blood sports eradicated. And as for Vick having walked up to the dogs he murdered and simply shooting them in the head, that frankly while still sick and wrong would have been as mercy compared to the drowning, and stranglings, and electrocutions he used to kill them instead, after he had tortured them. Finally, your statement that the victims being dogs does not matter because dog fighting "used to be legal" in the US is particularly specious. Shall I then kill Vick and defend myself by saying that it "used to be legal" in the US to kill a negro? For some odd reason I suspect that my defense would not carry any weight with any reasonable, reasoning judge.
"That’s because there are no additional post-prison mandates that could’ve been fair and effective."
On the contrary. He could, and should have been required to attend counseling sessions, to give a portion of his salary to his victims that survived for their care and maintenance, to give a portion of his salary to help support an anti dog fighting group etc. Further more he could and should have been required to not own or have in his care any animal of any kind. I think those would have been fair, and effective, in helping to care for his victims and the victims of dog fighting in general, and in keeping innocent animals away from him, so as to help reduce the chances of him ever repeating his actions.
"Whether or not he’s actually remorseful (and I think he is), people will listen to what Vick has to say"
Frankly I disagree with you on both counts. I think that Vick is only sorry he got caught. Furthermore, for someone who is seemingly so tuned in to the psychology of the sub group that informed Vick's behavior and choices one moment, you seem woefully naive the next. It seems to me most likely that the very people who would choose to emulate, and lionize, Vick for his behavior, pre arrest, would not dismiss him out of hand as a sell out, and they would view his change of heart as disingenuous regardless of his sincerity.
"Football is the only thing the man has left. How can you possibly want to take that from him and claim it’s justice?"
On the contrary, he has his life, which is considerably more than many of his victims have. As for "taking football" from Vick, he did that himself by his actions. The injustice is that it was handed back to him, as if it was his god given right to return to a high paying high profile, professional sports career.
Whether or not you agree with my reasoning, the point of my piece was that Vick deserves a second chance in the NFL without unreasonable restrictions on his profession and additional harassment. Apparently, you agree with me since you suggest that he should give a portion of his NFL salary to charities and victims. I'd be fine with that. Arguing the cultural significance of dogfighting and animal rights aspect is pointless since you're clearly biased. And let's be real here, would you REALLY be satisfied if Vick simply went to counseling and donated part of his salary to victims/charity? I seriously doubt it.
Sir,
I understood the point of your piece. However I am far from in agreement with you. I said nothing about the NFL, but rather believe that if he were no more than a ditch digger for the rest of his life, a portion of his monies should be given to his victims as part of his restitution.
As for my bias, I am more than willing to admit that I am. Are you willing to do the same? Or will you continue to hide behind a thinly veiled contempt for any life that is not human, and the worst of cultural relativism?
Finally as far as my being "satisfied" I live by the creed of "Good, Better, Best". Best would be Vick made to feel in his soul the suffering of each animal he tortured and murdered, resulting in a true awakening of conscience, which would cause him to realize that making amends for his actions and helping to prevent anyone else from emulating them is more important than regaining his former glory. However since that is not likely, I would have settled for "Better" where in Vick was required to get counseling and help support the innocent animals he victimized. It certainly would have been a damn site better than the pathetic outcome at the "good" end of the spectrum wherein he at least did do some jail time, even if after his release he has been handed a return to a high profile high paying professional sports career, practically on a silver platter.
It would be completely pointless for Michael Vick to be a ditch digger. That wouldn't save any dogs' lives. That wouldn't make Vick "more" remorseful. Additionally, saying that I have "contempt for any life that is not human" because I sympathize with a human is wrong and incredibly narrow-minded. As for his NFL career, I didn't say he should regain "his former glory". Instead, I said that this man should be allowed to return to the ONLY thing that he's good at. Finally, is the issue at hand the well-being of dogs or the suffering of Michael Vick? If you'd like to protect dogs, then they would benefit the most by Vick using his platform as an NFL player to speak out against horrible crimes such as his own.
Sir,
This is one of those situations where the basis of a difference of opinion has to do with the framework of our beliefs. You choose to believe that Vick acting as an anti dog fighting spokesperson will accomplish something positive. Whereas I choose to believe that he will be dismissed out of hand by the very people that one would hope he would reach. Ultimately only time will tell what the reality will be.
As for your sympathizing with a human, given the fact that the human you are choosing to sympathize with is the one who tortured and murdered the animals that you clearly do not sympathize with, frankly I am not able to view such an opinion as anything other than contempt for those animals and the depth of their suffering at that humans hands.
Finally as to the well being of dogs, again I think this a matter of fundamental differences of frame. You view it as most beneficial to see Vick returned to a prominent situation to serve as spokesperson against the actions he once under took. Whereas I view it as most beneficial for Vick to have stood ruined by his actions, serving for all time as a warning that if you choose to torture and murder living, thinking, feeling beings you will be made to pay. A message that is not delivered by his being given back his career with absolutely no serious attempts made to see to the address of the psychopathology that made the choices he made seem correct to him.
So the only things you want from Vick are his money and suffering? I want him to redeem himself. If you didn't notice, he's about the only thing going on ESPN these days. So I think his words carry far more weight than you give them credit for. I have sympathy for the dogs that he killed. But sympathizing with a corpse (human, dog, fish, aardvark, ant, or otherwise) accomplishes very little. You "view it as most beneficial" for Vick to have stood ruined by his actions? BENEFICIAL TO WHOM? You or the dead dogs? You can't save them by punishing Michael Vick two years later. I'm tired of animal lovers making this case about revenge or their own appeasement. It's not. Move on.
Hey…does this guy know how to party, or what?!