I was annoyed with the hyperbolic hatred directed at Michael Vick when he was being prosecuted (which isn't to say I thought he should escape punishment), and unfortunately tempers do not seem to have dissipated with time. So let me just endorse Roland Martin's column top-to-bottom, but particularly this line: "Frankly, I'm sick of Americans who talk all day about 'do the crime, then do the time,' then still want to treat a man like a criminal when he gets out of prison."
As Martin says, there are plenty of reasonable restrictions we might impose on Vick post-prison that are related to his particular offense (such as a prohibition on owning dogs). But seeing as his offense had nothing to do with football, there is no reason to block him from earning a living in his chosen profession. Particularly given the number of pro-athletes facing far more serious charges (such as spousal abuse) who continue to play with little to no objection from the public, the idea that Vick represents some uniquely horrible case just verifies the cynical observation that we'd have sent the 82nd Airborne to Darfur years ago if we only knew that dogs were among the victims of the genocide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Micheal Vick's crimes have been compared to that of wife beating, drunk driving, drug abuse, etc. Please see that his crimes are unique. His crimes were not a one-time event committed out of rage or passion, nor were they accidental or involve any kind of uncontrollable addiction. Instead, his crimes were ongoing and premeditated, and they also involved the deliberate execution of totally helpless animals that were completely dependent upon humans and, considering the time-span these crimes were committed over, I do not believe there was any remorse involved until “the gig was up”. This puts these crimes in a different category. Furthermore, I am certain that Michael would still be involved in these activities were he not caught. Not to lessen violence against humans (I certainly place more value on human life as opposed to an animal’s life), but I doubt if even a halfway-comparable heinous crime was committed against a person, the perpetrator would be able to play football in the NFL.
I will not continue with a long lecture on the cruelties of dog-fighting or tell you how unscrupulous people have taken advantage of the intelligence, strength, and obedient nature of the pit bull breeds and other breeds of fighting dogs, but I can’t help but mention at least one extremely cruel thing that is done to these dogs – the teeth of female dogs are ground down so that they cannot bite to defend themselves when they are bred OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER. Again, please consider that actions such as this, and other despicable acts amounting to torture, were ongoing, premeditated, and deliberate.
I do not hate Michael Vick, nor do I wish him a rotten life, but he certainly does not deserve the privilege of playing in the NFL. Certainly, if I were the owner of an NFL team, I would not want Michael Vick to be on my team. Talk about bad press and unpopularity. I certainly would not want to be his teammate!
Many pshchopaths/sociopaths begin their "career" with cruelty to animals. I would be curious to know what Michael Vick was like as child. Let's face it, the guy has a major character flaw. Gee, because of that, maybe he DOES belong in the NFL.
I wonder whether Anonymous considers a long history of spousal abuse to be "accidental or involve any kind of uncontrollable addiction."
also involved the deliberate execution of totally helpless animals that were completely dependent upon humansYou realize that governmental and 501(c)(3) organizations also engage in "the deliberate execution of totally helpless animals that were completely dependent upon humans" too, right? No-kill shelters are the exception, not the rule. I won't even get into the cruelties perpetrated on animals in factory-farming, yet this is wholly legal and the farmers aren't shunned.
The most troubling forms of animal cruelty, from the perspective of psychology and concern about a developing psychopath, are those where cruelty is for its own sake: the abuser derives pleasure from the sight of suffering. AFAIK, that isn't the case with Vick -- his was more a problem of being indifferent to suffering.
pg - I agree with alot of your points, and thank you for the comparisons; points well-taken but my opinion stands. We are talking about Michael Vick here. We cannot excuse his wrongs because others are "getting away with it". Like they always said "two wrongs don't make a right" And I really don't know how you personnally know that vic didn't derive pleasure viewing these acts. I truly hope that he didn't.
Spousal abuse involves rage and passion, none of which was present with vic - instead he was cold and calculating in his actions. If I didn't illustrate that well, I apologize. As spousal abusers usually do, he had no remorse while all this was going on. All that aside, the spousal abusers, felons, whatever should not have been reinstated to the NFL and they should be gone.
I am not one of those extreme animal rights people, I value my dogs, but I do keep them in the proper perspective. However, anyone with any standards shows respect and humanity towards all creatures. And I have a great problem with cold, calculated, intentional, remorseless crimes committed against them.
For all the money and fame NFL players receive, they must strive to a higher standard. Sorry I, and many others, feel it's part of the package.
Thank you for your thoughts to ponder.
"We are talking about Michael Vick here. We cannot excuse his wrongs because others are "getting away with it"."
And have you shown the same level of concern you're displaying about Vick -- who in fact didn't "get away with it," who pled guilty and served his sentence -- for those others' actions?
"And I really don't know how you personally know that vic didn't derive pleasure viewing these acts."
1) He was the owner of the property and participated in dogfights, but denied killing any of the dogs himself.
2) There were no allegations that he engaged in or provided support for animal abuse except as it related to these dog-fighting operations.
"Spousal abuse involves rage and passion, none of which was present with vic - instead he was cold and calculating in his actions. If I didn't illustrate that well, I apologize. As spousal abusers usually do, he had no remorse while all this was going on."
You're not indicating a very thorough understanding of the range of spousal abuse. A great deal of it, particularly that perpetrated on only one side and over a period of time, is less about "rage and passion" (which you appear to consider exculpatory emotions) than about controlling another person and viewing her as less than human. Remorse is simply part of the cycle of abuse, because otherwise the victim would leave the first time it happened; it's necessary to make the victim believe that it won't happen again, that it's just due to a passing emotion ("rage and passion"), even that the victim did something to set it off and if only she'd do better, it won't recur.
"I am not one of those extreme animal rights people, I value my dogs, but I do keep them in the proper perspective. However, anyone with any standards shows respect and humanity towards all creatures. And I have a great problem with cold, calculated, intentional, remorseless crimes committed against them."
If you think crimes can be committed against animals, you're pretty much saying they have rights. An entity wholly without legal rights cannot have a crime against it. This would be why a slave owner's raping his slave often wouldn't be deemed a crime against the slave, but instead a crime -- miscegenation -- against the community. Similarly, our law treats animal abuse as a crime against the community, not against the animal.
"For all the money and fame NFL players receive, they must strive to a higher standard. Sorry I, and many others, feel it's part of the package."
NFL players receive money and fame because they're the best at playing a game of rushing a bunch of large men at each other in an attempt to get a ball from one end of a field to the next. It's not like college admissions where you can make up for a bad SAT and GPA with really good life experiences and showing what a great contributor to the community you'll be. NFL players are chosen based on their playing skills. They'll be suspended or excluded if their actions are thought to risk the overall league's image, but some "higher standard" of how they treat animals compared to how Tyson's Chicken does isn't the metric used.
People are OK with mistreating animals we eat; they're not OK with mistreating animals that are pets. That's all this is about.
pg - thank you for the dissertation; I could also respond in the same manner of spinning, twisting, misconstruing, etc. Believe me, I could really put a different spin on the things you stated. However, I have to go walk my dog.
I think the point is that the type of moral hatred that is being enacted against Vick really isn't warranted by any legitimate peneological justification. Martin is right: He's done the time, and part of the social bargain inherent in punishment is that you get to rejoin the community of human beings once you've completed your time. We simply don't have the right to exile him indefinitely as a persona non grata so we can better enact out moral outrage over animal cruelty.
"I could also respond in the same manner of spinning, twisting, misconstruing, etc."
Or you could say what I spun, twisted and misconstrued of your words. That's always an option too, if such spinning, twisting, misconstruing actually occurred.
I do not hate Michael Vick, nor do I wish him a life of misfortune; his life has value. He does not though deserve the privilege of playing in the NFL. If not playing in the NFL will ruin his life, there's something wrong. Though he may have to live a bit more humbly, there are other avenues he could explore - I'm sure, in any case, he will be better off than your average ex-con who has trouble getting a job even at Mcdonalds. Oh, but I forgot, vic is really good at "playing a game of rushing a bunch of large men at each other in an attempt to get a ball from one end of a field to the next" Silly of me, that explains everything!
I have compared his crimes to others and explained why I think his are unique. But please don't misundertand me, I am not setting a double standard - those players too who are spousal abusers, felons, crooks, etc. should never have been let back in the NFL.
Of course you don't hate him. You just think he should be consigned to a lifetime of menial, low-status labor for the rest of his life (and be glad for the privilege!).
Glad we got that squared away. It's amazing we don't do a better job at ex-felon reintegration!
Wow - my mouth is just TOO full of the words that have been put in it. I never indicated menial labor, although maybe you're afraid that menial labor won't even have him and that the nfl is the only place that will take him - they seem to have no standards at all these days considering the other criminals. They're clearly only about the money.
Anonymous,
OK, so what job are you willing to help Vick to if he's kept out of the NFL because there's a new moral standards requirement? You disclaim wanting him to engage in menial labor, so what would you have him do? Would you want him barred from publishing a book about his experiences (after all, then he'd be profiting from his crimes)? Allowed to have any kind of job in the media? How about coaching or teaching kids?
If you don't want Vick to be allowed to do the job he's been training to do for almost his entire life, perhaps you could offer this ex-con some alternatives instead of just putting forward a series of denials that you mean him any harm.
Gee whiz – give the guy some credit. WITHOUT playing in the NFL, he CAN make a success of himself and he has the potential to make a positive impact and I wish him the best in doing so. I DO NOT wish him a life of menial labor (I don’t wish anyone that life). I think you know, as well as I do, that he will be presented with other opportunities that will afford him a nice life. It is up to him to find and earn appropriate opportunties, not for me to suggest them.
Don’t you see that his ability in “playing a game of rushing a bunch of large men at each other in an attempt to get a ball from one end of a field to the next” isn’t the only thing matters about this man?! No wonder I don’t care for professional sports. The average person can’t afford to attend games and the amount of money involved is sinful – players combined salaries could wipe out world hunger and then some. It’s all about the money, no matter what, sickening. Not to mention all the scandals, I’m sure many haven’t even been exposed.
Well, it kind of is up to you, because you've decided that certain professions should be permanently barred to Vick even post-sentence, but haven't really given a coherent standard for what those professions are, which means that Vick has no way of knowing in advance if any given profession will set off your moralism alarm and considered inappropriate.
As best I can tell, the problem you have with the NFL is a mix of a) that he would make too much money in the NFL (which he shouldn't be allowed to do, because he's too sinful to make money at this point) and b) the NFL is too high profile (which isn't right, because he should continue to be exiled from the public eye). So it seems like you'd only allow a job that was a) lower-paying and b) lower-status, but you haven't drawn a line or given a standard for where the line should be. You also haven't really given a warrant for why we should extend Vick's punishment past "do the crime do the time", but I've given up on getting an answer.
Many places require criminal clearances, such as the school district where I teach. Sorry about his luck, he’ll have to go somewhere that doesn’t do this. You know, we should all forgive Michael Vick, but sometimes as a result of what we do, we lose certain privileges permanently – that’s life. It doesn’t always just amount to "do the crime do the time". At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, we need to teach our children that. And you know, he probably won’t take me seriously, but after I think about it, I may try, probably unsuccessfully, to contact Mr. Vick with some possibilities for him.
I need to mention that it is unfair that Michael Vick is receiving so much more publicity than other players who have committed crimes. Because of the limited publicity and my lack of interest in sports, I am really not aware of these other incidents and for that I am sorry. Upon finding out about them, I am equally or more so incensed.
Now, I have to let the neighbor’s dog out to pee since he has arthritis and needs help. I then have to take my dogs a walk before we take a nap (I sleep with pit bulls you know). We have been up all night sniffing out drugs – my dogs are certified in this (after I rescued them) and quite good at it. After our nap, we have to go to the hospital to visit patients – they are also certified therapy dogs. We are very community-minded and committed to making worthwhile contributions to society. I will leave you people to your concern, comments, and obsession on the importance of “playing a game of rushing a bunch of large men at each other in an attempt to get a ball from one end of a field to the next.”
Indeed, some crimes do come with a permanent loss of privileges. They are the one's we give life without parole to. If you wish to make animal cruelty one of them, by all means, petition your legislature.
That's a little unfair: We do impose some post-sentence restrictions on many offenders, which PG and I both concede are valid. But they meet two criteria that aren't present here: They're related to the crime itself (such as the prohibition on Vick owning dogs, which we support), and, more importantly, they're handed down by a judge as part of the legal sentence. You want an extra-legal sanction -- essentially social vigilantism -- and that's what's morally abhorrent here. No judge and no statute says "animal cruelty is punishable by a maximum of X years in prison, and $X fine, and permanent suspension from the NFL."
Mr. Schraub – you are obviously very young; I recognize at least a small part my students in you. I do not by any means intend this as a bad thing. Youth is wonderful and I think you will make an excellent lawyer. You young people will be taking care of us oldsters someday and I need to try to make allowances for your slightly loose ethics and somewhat nonsensical ideas. In turn, I hope you will make allowances for elderly people like me whose ethics, based on life experience, are set in stone which I admit is probably a bad thing. I can’t, with my advanced age, keep up with your talent for spin; I’m better off with my high school debate club. Sometimes, loss of privilege is not legally/officially mandated, it's just a fact of life in a decent society. By all means, we should teach our children to be forgiving, but consequences must be suffered. I’m sorry if you consider me morally abhorrent and somewhat of a vigilante, but we DO need tighter standards all around in this society regarding this issue and many others; I am very active in campaigning for them.
PG – I just don’t know what to say about you. I STILL don’t get how you personally know that vic didn’t experience pleasure viewing dogfights and cruelty despite your comments regarding denials and allegations. Were you there? Did you have a pleasure meter attached to his brain? I don’t get it. “There were no allegations that he engaged in or provided support for animal abuse except as it related to these dog-fighting operations.” Do you think that dog-fighting is not animal abuse, really, grab a clue. “He was the owner of the property and participated in dogfights, but denied killing any of the dogs himself.” Even if he didn’t personally kill any dogs, don’t you think he knew that dog fights often result in death? Come on! A lot of the other things you said don’t even make sense to me. You can spin and I’m sure you’re an intelligent person, but you certainly can’t measure up to Mr. Schraub.
Anon,
How kind of you to take a break from your Serious Life Activities to discuss this issue with us, albeit in a patronizing and sometimes insulting manner. I do wish that you would consider the possibility that you don't know as much about the psychology of abusers, whether of humans or animals, as you seem to believe.
When I pointed out that spousal abuse isn't necessarily due to an immediate emotional reaction, you said I was "spinning, twisting, misconstruing," rather than responding to the factual claim I'd made. When I noted that Vick's abuses were limited solely to those related to dog-fighting, which is uncommon for the psychopathic personality type that starts with animal abuse because such a person generally abuses whatever is within his control and will have the fewest immediate consequences, you ignored this in favor of stating that dog-fighting is animal abuse -- a point that no one here is debating.
If this is what high school debate coaches are teaching -- throw adjectives at your opponent's argument instead of engaging it; change the subject in order to claim that your opponent isn't addressing it -- yikes.
You seem to be less interested in understanding Vick than in condemning him. I'm guessing as a pit bull owner you are feeding your dogs meat -- what are you doing to ensure that the animals who have become your dogs' food were not abused in life? It's easier to set up another person as a bogeyman, the Villain who doesn't regard pit bulls with the fondness that you do, than to examine the beam in one's own eye. If we put our energies into keeping Michael Vick from playing for the NFL, we don't have to look at our own failings as stewards of the earth's animals.
If the wisdom of age is to draw the worst conclusions about other people -- like that they are psychopaths-in-training -- on little or no evidence, I hope I get hit by a bus first.
You illustrate my points perfectly.
p.s - I never meant to imply he actually is a psychopath, again with your spin.
The problem here isn't about loose ethics versus firm rules. Much the opposite: you haven't put forward any coherent criteria supporting your position whatsoever (I would hope your HS debate team would tear you to pieces on this) -- no standard, no principle, nothing but a vague moral intuition that Vick deserves this.
Meanwhile, whatever else you might want to say about my position, it has the advantage of being quite the brightline: we punish people according to law, and once they've done their time, we welcome them back into the community of Americans and humans as equals (and to the extent we deviate, we do so according to legal decisions set down contemporaneous with the sentence, not retroactively upon release). You haven't given a counter-standard. You've merely asserted that (for some crimes?) there is a nebulous and undefined class of punishments that should extend permanently and indefinitely, without any requirement that they be warranted or imposed by law, or that they bear any relationship to the crime being punished. That's "loose ethics" defined. At the end of the day, that's incompatible with a system based on rule of law. You could learn some valuable lessons from King Rex in this regard.
There are valid grounds to say we should punish crimes more severely (in general or for specific grounds). There are also valid grounds to say we should expand the variety of options in punishment. None of this is in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that they should be done retroactively and outside the scope of law. You have a problem with the way the law plays out, petition the folks who control the laws. Don't take it into your own hands.
Yes,they tear me apart on a regular basis and I am very proud of their many accomplishments and awards.
I guess my argument involved an idealistic world that isn't a reality. We all use only the points that suit our purpose as you have done. We'll just have to agree to disagree; my old brain needs a rest.
Anonymous,
If you didn't mean to imply that Vick is a psychopath-in-training by this:
'Many pshchopaths/sociopaths begin their "career" with cruelty to animals. I would be curious to know what Michael Vick was like as child. Let's face it, the guy has a major character flaw.'
then perhaps you should be more careful about your writing, as I don't know how else to interpret that series of sentences. Does the first sentence have nothing to do with the second nor the third? Would you like to explain what you did intend by such a paragraph?
This is the recurring problem in this discussion: you respond to everything with "That's not what I meant!" without ever explaining what you did mean. Nice for making everyone else look like big meanies, I suppose, but not helpful to increasing understanding, and not supportive of your claim that your words are being "twisted," as opposed to being read by other English speakers who have only your words to rely upon and cannot read your mind.
Your interpretive skills seem to be lacking. Psychopaths aren't the only ones with major character flaws. I think you too are repetitive in your logic and also contribute a problem in this discussion.
Anyways you two, I seem to have failed this class. Don't really care though - I can think and speak however I like no matter how incoherent I am.
Really pg, did you stick a pleasure meter on Michael Vick's brain?
And yes Mr. Schraub there do and always will exist "nebulous and undefined classes of punishments that should extend permanently and indefinitely, without any requirement that they be warranted or imposed by law, or that they bear any relationship to the crime being punished." This may not alwasy be fair, but issues are not always black and white as it seems you are trying to paint them.
Thank you but I will pass on your reading advice. I need to concentrate all my efforts on being coherent.
"Anyways you two, I seem to have failed this class. Don't really care though - I can think and speak however I like no matter how incoherent I am."
If you don't care about being coherent and comprehensible, then there's no reason for anyone else to care about what you have to say. I'll not interfere with your talking to yourself from now on.
Really - take a chill pill
Sorry - maybe you can't comprehend that. What I mean is 'calm down'
David, do you think that in light of some proposals to reduce anonymity on the net that it would be worthwhile for bloggers to take stock of their own blogs and weigh the number of useful contributions made by anonymous commenters compared to the number of rather pointless ones? I tend to assume that anonymous commenters probably are no worse in this respect than people who do trouble to sign into Blogger to comment, although almost certainly worse than people whose real identities can be tracked, but I can't say I have the slightest bit of empirical evidence for it.
For a blog as small as mine, a goodly chunk of "anonymous" commenters are friends of mine who don't bother to have a blogger account. I would like a little more fine-tuned options for managing my comment section than what blogger gives me, but it's a minor concern at this point. Given the relatively small number of comments I get, I don't think even the more foolish ones I get will exert enough of a force to change the overall tenor of the blog.
True -- you haven't had a significant number of people use your blog as a forum for attacking either you or other individuals, and particularly not in ways that would cause you to feel physically threatened. I guess there's some question of whether we should make the rules for the internet based on that small minority who have had that occur.
This blog is pretty old and I don't know how I stumbled upon it but your commentary caught my eye and nobody probably will read my comment, but...
"...that we'd have sent the 82nd Airborne to Darfur years ago if we only knew that dogs were among the victims of the genocide."
Yes a ludricrous notion, but just a tad too sarcastic and "biting" (sorry couldn't help myself). I don't know what value that you, personally, place on dogs, but keep in mind they can be trained to serve mankind as no other animal can. Dogs save lives. We all know they guide the blind and assist others who are handicapped. Dogs are also used to detect and alert when an epileptic is about to have a seizure or when a diabetic's sugar is too low. Dogs are now being used to sniff out cancer. Many people trapped in the rubble of 9/11 owe their lives to a dog. There are therapy dogs and there are dogs who assist struggling readers by acting as a noncritical "listener" - this program is enjoying much success for the districts employing it. And of course there are police dogs, drug/cadaver sniffers, search and rescue, etc.
Mr. Vick certainly generates much controversy; what a heavy load it must be. However, the sticking point with me is his malicious intent. For example, although the result was worse, Dante Stallworth did not set out, with intent, to kill anyone. Mr. Vick committed acts of barbaric torture upon defenseless dogs with full knowledge and intent over a long period of time (also gambling, etc). And we must certainly examine the torture aspect. Mr. Vick's indifference to acts of cruelty is a concern. This type of personality trait does not "heal" easily or quickly, if ever. Cruelty to animals is often a prelude to crimes against humanity and sometimes a symptom of a sociopathic personality.
I am trying to grant Mr. Vick more compassion, but without much luck. I would like to ask him if he would still be "at it" had he not been caught. I can't believe 60 Minutes did not ask him this. I feel he probably would be; he admitted that he did not feel guilt till he was in prison. Additionally, if he is capable of the sorrow and remorse he proclaimed on 60 Minutes, why didn't he stop before he got caught? or before he had to lie?
Rather than the humane society, a feel a more appropriate cause for Mr. Vick - since he has the good fortune of NFL reinstatement - would be assisting other felons reintegrate themselves into society. It's difficult for many, however deserving, even to find a minimum wage job.
I love football, but it will, from now on, be slightly tainted for me. I believe the Vick issue goes beyond the black and white notion of "he paid his debt". There are far too many shades of grey. Sometimes even though the debt is paid, not all privilieges are regained. I still haven't made up my mind whether I personally feel he should have regained the NFL privilege. I am certain that, if I (or most other "regular" people) had committed a felony, my own employer would not take me back even if the crime had nothing to do with my job.
Post a Comment