Showing posts with label Michael Vick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Vick. Show all posts

Friday, December 21, 2007

Justice for All

I asked a few days ago for your thoughts on the Michael Vick verdict. For those who've forgotten, he received 23 months in a federal penitentiary for his role in a dog-fighting ring in Virginia. I posted about it a few months ago (when he first plead guilty); I didn't really weigh in on the issue as much as I contrasted the public outcry associated with Vick with the lack of interest in another football player who, a few years ago, while driving under the influence of alcohol, struck and killed another motorist.

My point was that we're desensitized to drunk-drivers killing other motorists. So when we hear about it, it doesn't really affect us. Perhaps we tsk-tsk a little, and make the comments we're expected to make, but we really don't pay much attention-and we certainly don't cry out for the perpetrator to be sent off to prison for the rest of his life; we don't scream for the "death penalty"; we don't hope that wild animals will feast on his carcass for all of eternity (all things that I've heard associated with Michael Vick).

But then we've already hashed that out, haven't we? If you want to read more, hop over to the archives and read the post; some fascinating comments there.

The question of the day is this: is 23 months sufficient? Is it too long?

I was surfing around on the net and came across a story at ESPN online from a few days ago. The writer made a statement that was really telling, I think. He said this:

In the months since Michael Vick pleaded guilty for his
role in a federal dogfighting case, Vick should have been trying to impress
federal officials with his honesty and contrition. It would have reduced his
time in prison considerably.


Instead, Vick flunked a drug test, lied about his drug
use and failed a lie-detector test on his role in the executions of fighting
dogs that failed to perform.


In his sentencing hearing Monday in Richmond, Va.,
Vick paid the price.

It seems as though Mr. Munson, over at ESPN.com, doesn't really care all that much whether or not the punishment is appropriate for the crime; he's bothered by the fact that Vick neglected to "butter up" the judge into levying a lighter sentence!

It amazes me! The chatter isn't "he got what he deserved" or "that's not nearly long enough"; it's "if he'd acted a little nicer, been a little more respectful, been a little more endearing to the judge, he'd have got a little easier deal".

Our society has become so politicized. It's disgusting.

But then that's not my point either.

A handful of you provided your thoughts on the verdict; your comments were insightful and enlightened, but they did span the spectrum. It doesn't seem that there's any consensus among folks who care; just as many feel the sentence is adequate, as feel it should have been longer, as feel it's much too long. It's bizarre. I have to think that, had the case been tried before a jury, it would have ended up, after long and arduous debate, in a hung jury.

But, what do I think?

I like animals-am disgusted by violence toward them. I think that those who purposely perpetuate violence against animals-particularly for their personal enjoyment-deserve to be dealt with harshly.

But I also try to put things in perspective (a virtue that seems to be lacking anymore). For example, if a few dogs are worth 23 months, how much more is a human life worth? Infinitely more, I would imagine; but then, how many stories have you heard of folks who've killed--either purposely or accidentally but negligently--who haven't received more than token punishment-a slap on the hand?

So here's what I think: I, frankly, was surprised when I heard that the sentence was 23 months. I'd had an internal, silent wager going on in my head, and the consensus among the many voices up there was that he'd end up with 6 months in a light-security pen somewhere, with time off for good behavior; some probation; a hefty requirement for community service (perhaps filming free commercials for the ASPCA); and a fine of $1 million or so.

Not that I think 23 months is too long; in fact, when I think about it, it seems right. But it doesn't seem to be in perspective. It seems stiff compared to so many of the sentences that we hear about anymore.

If nothing else, perhaps we, as thoughtful members of society, can take this as a lesson: remember that it's easy to grow apathetic when we hear horror stories in the news each and every day. And when those horror stories become commonplace, we cease taking notice, and sooner or later, the punishment doesn't matter anymore. And then we hear of some new crime against humanity, and the outcry is huge. And because of that outcry, the punishment is swift, and severe (and, perhaps, appropriate).

And so this is the lesson: don't ever grow apathetic; don't allow yourself to become desensitized. If a few dogs equate to 23 months, then each and every time you hear of a human life taken, or a child molested or abused, or a spouse beaten or terrorized, cry out. Make your voice heard then. If we are going to demand justice for an animal, let's demand it, too, for each and every human that deserves it.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

The Jury

New reader Doug K., faithful friend and mentor, sent me a link to the pic below. It seemed apropos.
Enjoy!

The jury members are: Back row, L to R-Scooby Doo, Goofy, Underdog, Astro (from the Jetsons). Front row, L to R-Snoopy, Droopy, Grim (from Mother Goose and Grimm, the comic strip), and Ren (from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon).

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Desensitization

I've been, I'll admit, dragging my feet. I've been obsessing because, to be honest, I'm torn.

But I had a revelation today.

Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons quarterback, said, via his attorney on Monday, that he will plead guilty to federal charges of conspiracy associated with an illegal dogfighting operation that Vick participated in. Allegedly, Vick operated a Kennel-"Bad Newz Kennels"-from his multi-million dollar Virginia home. Vick is purported to have provided the operating and gambling funding for the operation. He's also said to have organized fights-in which dogs were often forced to fight to their death. Others indicted implicated him as an active participant in the euthanization of at least eight dogs (deemed unfit to fight), by strangling or drowning. Government agents who raided the home are said to have found, among other paraphernalia, muzzles, whips, cages, shocking devices, and "rape stands" (to which overly aggressive dogs were strapped and forced to breed).

I asked a few colleagues, off-hand, what they thought-if they felt Vick deserved a second chance. And I've got a broad range of responses. And I've read a number of stories on the internet, and they run the gamut too. It seems the jury is still out on this one-and I think I know why.

Let me ask you: what is the sole purpose of a professional football player? It's NOT to win. It's not even, really, to do a great job at his position. It's, simply stated, to attract fans to their games (as well as to the television to WATCH their games). There are various methods of accomplishing this-including winning, doing a fantastic job as a quarterback, and even by acting outrageously on the field (like Terrell Owens)-but at the end of the day, what matters is attracting fans.

You see, football is all about economics. We've sat here for the last few days, waiting for a "sign" from the owners and managers of the Falcons, or even for some sort of statement from other coaches, managers or owners. But the reality is, they're waiting for a sign from US. Because (this is my big insight) WE are the ones who decide whether or not Vick gets a second chance.

Some of you, partakers of this healthy, yet sumptuous, fare called MyndFood, have voted on my most recent poll. Of those who actually know who Vick is, the majority of you (around 60%) don't feel Vick deserves a second chance. It surprises me, actually, that the percentage isn't higher (for those who've followed this in the news, you know the public outcry has been HUGE). Which is ironic-considering the fact that, in 1998, Leonard Little, St. Louis Rams defensive end was driving, intoxicated, and caused an automobile accident, killing another motorist. He received a slap on the hand-90 days in jail, four years of probation, and 1000 hours of community service.

In 2004 he was again arrested for driving under the influence. He was acquitted of drunk driving, but was convicted of speeding.

He signed, in 2006, a three year contract extension with the Rams.

Which brings me around to my point. Do I think Vick deserves a second chance? Yes. Everyone deserves a second chance (and perhaps a third, fourth, fifth, twelfth...). Will he get one? Absolutely! If there's profit to be had (and it's not a bad thing folks-don't get me wrong), he'll be hired again in a heartbeat. That is, there will be 32 coaches, General Managers and owners out there WILLING to give him a second chance-but will only put their money where their mouth is if YOU, the voting public, will accept him, and support their team.

But I'm not sure if you will. Why? I can't say. Hypocritical, to say the least, considering Leonard Little's experience. But then, we Americans, have a skewed perspective. I asked a gentleman, in passing, whether or not Vick deserved a second chance and he said, "Absolutely not!" I asked him why not. He said because animals and children are helpless beings, and he feels no sympathy for Vick.

Apparently drivers killed when in vehicles that are hit by drunken drivers are NOT helpless. Do you see? It has nothing to do with animals being helpless, it has to do with the fact that we're desensitized-motorists killed by drunken drivers have become "normal" news fodder, and it doesn't affect us any more. On the other hand, drowned dogs and rape stands-that shocks and incenses us! No second chances!

I'm not asking you to change your stance. If you truly feel he's lost all value to society, and can never regain any status as a productive member of an NFL team, fine; I respect your opinion. But I AM asking you to re-evaluate your reasoning. If it's simply because you're shocked and dismayed, then think again.

I, for one, hope to see him on the field again.

By the way Michael: if you happen to be reading this, I think your best chance is with the Raiders...