Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69
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.