skinsfan_nn
08-16-2007, 07:17 PM
The generalities of your comparison make it hard to compare and contrast the two situtations.
Each crime (dogfighting v. selling drugs) has various degrees. What Vick did appears to be at the most eggregious end of the dogfighting crimes. If you were the financier of a drug ring, you would probably walk away from the situation with more than "a citation". On the other hand, if you were fought your dog one time at an illegal dog fighting event, you probably would not do jail time.
Why jail time for one and not the other? Penalties are set out by statutes and within them certain ranges are given. Sentencing guidelines are developed and then followed by the Judges - subject to review by the appellate courts. Any time courts develop guidelines that offend the public or seem improper, the laws can be modified to address them. Based on the sentencing range, prosecutors develop guidelines as to appropriate settlement offers. Courts are not bound by the prosecutors recommendation reached after a plea agreement (Regardless of the offer by the prosecutors, the court could reject it and substitute a longer, or shorter, as long as it is within the courts sentencing guidelines).
Thus, the laws set out the penalties and a certain level of judicial/prosecutorial discretion comes into play depending on the severity of the crime w/in its general category. (first degree murder > second degree murder > manslaughter).
The bottom line is that, if the public doesn't like the categories, then the public can change the penalties.
If the most time Vick could have done for the indictment, as I read it, was 6 years, I am not seeing anything out of line. In fact, given the coordinated and broad deceptions involved and the brutal nature of his actions towards animals in his care, or the care of those operating in partnership with him, I think that a maximun of six years is low.
If you believe penalties for "selling drugs" should be stiffer and require a minimum jail time in all cases, feel free to lobby for such a change. Many will agree with you.
Many will also agree with me that the abusive nature of dogfighting warrants MUCH stiffer penalties than the minimal jail time involved for extremely abusive behavior (Dogfighting is a bloodsport that requires its participants to attack and maim or kill their opponent and is done for the pleasure or profit of those who care for the participants. To me requiring living beings in your care to subject themselves to injury and/or death for your personal fun and profit is abusive).
Thus, while you may not see dogfighting as inately abusive, I would suggest that a majority of Americans would consider it worse then small time drug dealing.
Well thought out Joe, couldn't agree any more! Nice Post.
Each crime (dogfighting v. selling drugs) has various degrees. What Vick did appears to be at the most eggregious end of the dogfighting crimes. If you were the financier of a drug ring, you would probably walk away from the situation with more than "a citation". On the other hand, if you were fought your dog one time at an illegal dog fighting event, you probably would not do jail time.
Why jail time for one and not the other? Penalties are set out by statutes and within them certain ranges are given. Sentencing guidelines are developed and then followed by the Judges - subject to review by the appellate courts. Any time courts develop guidelines that offend the public or seem improper, the laws can be modified to address them. Based on the sentencing range, prosecutors develop guidelines as to appropriate settlement offers. Courts are not bound by the prosecutors recommendation reached after a plea agreement (Regardless of the offer by the prosecutors, the court could reject it and substitute a longer, or shorter, as long as it is within the courts sentencing guidelines).
Thus, the laws set out the penalties and a certain level of judicial/prosecutorial discretion comes into play depending on the severity of the crime w/in its general category. (first degree murder > second degree murder > manslaughter).
The bottom line is that, if the public doesn't like the categories, then the public can change the penalties.
If the most time Vick could have done for the indictment, as I read it, was 6 years, I am not seeing anything out of line. In fact, given the coordinated and broad deceptions involved and the brutal nature of his actions towards animals in his care, or the care of those operating in partnership with him, I think that a maximun of six years is low.
If you believe penalties for "selling drugs" should be stiffer and require a minimum jail time in all cases, feel free to lobby for such a change. Many will agree with you.
Many will also agree with me that the abusive nature of dogfighting warrants MUCH stiffer penalties than the minimal jail time involved for extremely abusive behavior (Dogfighting is a bloodsport that requires its participants to attack and maim or kill their opponent and is done for the pleasure or profit of those who care for the participants. To me requiring living beings in your care to subject themselves to injury and/or death for your personal fun and profit is abusive).
Thus, while you may not see dogfighting as inately abusive, I would suggest that a majority of Americans would consider it worse then small time drug dealing.
Well thought out Joe, couldn't agree any more! Nice Post.