Vick Offered Minimum One Year Prison Sentence as Part of Plea Deal

Someone would probably say that what Little did was a one-time unfortunate tragedy that was not deliberate or intentional (although I believe he's been arrested again since then for drunk driving right?) while Vick deliberately ran a dogfighting ring for several years that resulted in the brutal deaths of several living creatures.

I think there's an interesting point there. I'm not sure which side of this I'm on. While I see the arguement regarding lack of intent on Little's part, the reoccurences of the same behavior show an obvious lack of concern and appreciation for the loss of life he caused. Quite honestly, I believe he (Little) should be in jail right now.

Honestly a year is way to much. He has never been convicted of anything before. How is fighting some dogs (personal property) worth getting a YEAR is prison? Poor guy. No way he should accept.

No sense in piling on but are you serious with this post or just trolling?

I think there's an interesting point there. I'm not sure which side of this I'm on. While I see the arguement regarding lack of intent on Little's part, the reoccurences of the same behavior show an obvious lack of concern and appreciation for the loss of life he caused. Quite honestly, I believe he (Little) should be in jail right now.

I wonder if he got any jail time for the second offense? Something tells me he didn't

I remember seeing a pretty compelling piece a few years ago about the victim's husband. He's a photographer for Sports Illustrated I believe. So he has to actually attend a lot of NFL games. He said it makes him pretty sick to his stomach that he has to stand there and take pictures of the man who killed his wife making millions to run around and play a game. But at the same time, he finds it somewhat therapeutic.

Anyway, back to Vick. Something else I've heard is that if it goes to trial a lot of big names might be revealed. Major NFL, NBA, and Hollywood stars. A lot of people would prefer this doesn't go to trial.

Anyway, back to Vick. Something else I've heard is that if it goes to trial a lot of big names might be revealed. Major NFL, NBA, and Hollywood stars. A lot of people would prefer this doesn't go to trial.


Just as I suspected. That is probably part of the deal, so we may in fact find out even if it doesn't go to trial.

Why would it be a mistake for him to play in the NFL again if he pays his debt? We are talking about dog fighting. Not murder of a human being. Jeez!

Leonard Little is still playing in the NFL and what he did was so much worse than what Vick. In case you don't know about Leonard, he killed a women in a drunk driving accident. He smashed into her car after he ran a red light and he was drunk. Still playing in the NFL. Now what is worse?

The fact that Little and Lewis are still playing in the NFL is wrong. IMO, they both should have been banned. I think if they had committed these acts in today's NFL they would be in for significant bans. They did not and, for good or ill, Goodell is not retroactively going after bad behavior previously known to the NFL, only the bad behavior that he becomes aware of on his watch.

IMO, - b/c some who have performed reprehensible behavior and not been punished for it is not basis for failing to punish others who perform reprehensible behavior. (Following your logic - Because an admitted murderer is not convicted due to procedural or substantive errors by the State, we should never prosecute murderers).

As to the relative evil of Vick's actions, I realize there has been a series of threads about where, on the scale of evil, dogfighting should be placed. Here is my two cents on the subject: While I believe cruelty to animals is akin to cruelty to children (not the same as but of a like kind) and that those who practice it should have a special place in hell reserved for them, I recognize others do not feel this way.

I understand the crux of the argument of those who say "dogs are not human so don't apply 'human' penalties for their mistreatment". In fact, I don't disagree with the concept that animals and humans are fundamentally different and it is improper to act like killing an animal is the same as killing a human. With that said, we as humans are charged with caring for animals, particularly domesticated animals, because they are (like children) incapable of making their own choices and, in the case of domesticated animals, incapable of caring for themselves (and have been made that way by us).

Cruelty to those in your care, whether they be animals or human is simply wrong. For those who say, "it's just dogs", that has already been factored into the equation. If Vick had been accused of this type of cruelty to humans, there would be no question he would be going away for life or subject to the death penalty. Thus, to me, just on the cruelty issue, a one year prison term is not out of line for the nature of his actions. (As an extreme example of the other end of the spectrum - "cruelty to plants" wouldn't even warrant a storyline).

Finally, regardless of where you place his actions on the "evil scale", and as someone pointed out before, Vick conspired to create, participate in and fund illegal activities on a broad scale. We live under the rule of law, it is imperfect and flawed, but it is one of the driving tenets of our society.

Whether you agree or disagree that the act should be illegal, our society, as we know it, can only function if everyone accepts the proposition that acting illegally should be punished FURTHER - because to function as a society operating under the rule of law we have to trust one another to act legally, any penalty for an illegal act will be greatly enhanced when it can be demonstrated that you conspired to act illegally and, thus, attacked the very foundation of the rule of law.

As for a life time ban from football, the NFL has every right to determine, independent of the criminal penalties, that its product would be injured by allowing a convicted felon who conspired to act illegally to participate. Because of the basic deceptiveness of Vick's actions, any employer would rightfully suspect the trustworthiness and credibility of his statements. The NFL has the same right as any employer to legitimately judge Vick on his actions, independent of those of any other employee, and act appropriately.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;340673]

Cruelty to those in your care, whether they be animals or human is simply wrong. For those who say, "it's just dogs", that has already been factored into the equation. If Vick had been accused of this type of cruelty to humans, there would be no question he would be going away for life or subject to the death penalty. Thus, to me, just on the cruelty issue, a one year prison term is not out of line for the nature of his actions. (As an extreme example of the other end of the spectrum - "cruelty to plants" wouldn't even warrant a storyline).



QUOTE]

VERY well said.

I said in the last M. Vick thread that he would change his plea before No. 26th, it would apear he's now getting the kind of advice that may enable him to reestablish himself in the NFL if at all possible.

I know of no other player in the history of the league who has been convicted of a felony, and come back to play. Maybe Vick will be a first, we'll just have to wait and see.

5+ years vs 1 year? This is an easy choice even if he believes he is innocent. You would be pretty f'ing stupid to fight it and risk going to the shitter for 5+ years.

getting off easy

One year is not easy. The max sentence was 5-6 years correct? There is kinda an unwritten rule that in most cases of first time violators you would get half the time if convicted. So that would be 2.5-3 years. But usually when someone takes a plea they are looking for about half the max sentence, which in this case would be 1.25-1.5 years. So 1 year seems to be a fair offering.

5+ years vs 1 year? This is an easy choice even if he believes he is innocent. You would be pretty f'ing stupid to fight it and risk going to the shitter for 5+ years.

I doubt he would go for 5, more like 3 if convicted.