In today's Washington Post sports section, columnist Sally Jenkins has the best column I've seen so far on Michael Vick. Jenkins asks some important questions:
...How could an athlete so bedazzling also be so brutal? Why would Vick, the fortune-kissed, hundred-million-dollar quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, wallow in the gore of illegal dogfighting by choice? Why would anyone ruin animals except out of sheer, dumb meanness? How could Vick, a man with quite glaring weaknesses and a competitor who has himself struggled, punish dogs with death for their failures?
Jenkins argues that rage against Michael Vick is "not misplaced," that people are furious "because they sense that dogfighting isn't a petty crime, but an underworld pursuit." Also, "People are angry at Vick because he's a squanderer who criminally abused his opportunities and turned his talents to sleaze."
Finally, the crime itself: fighting dogs to the death, either by the other dog or by the enraged dog owner: "people are angry with Vick because they understand that dogfighting is a gratuitous form of cruelty...Sixty-six tortured and battered dogs were found on his property." Disgusting, but it gets worse:
If an animal didn't perform well enough, if it wasn't champion enough, if it was in Vick's judgment flawed, he strangled it, drowned it, electrocuted it or beat it to death on the ground. Vick and his pals deliberately enslaved and tormented weaker creatures, and killed those they considered inferior. The dogs had faces and voices that would have eloquently expressed their agony, and Vick hurt them anyway, repeatedly. The crimes may have been committed against canines, but at issue is basic humanity. Commit those crimes against people, and the words we'd use for it are fascism, and genocide. Don't kid yourself: The people who are so angry at Vick are angry for all the right reasons.
In contrast to Sally Jenkins, today's Post has one of the worst, nastiest, stupidest, most heartless columns I've ever seen in that newspaper. According to Courtland Milloy, dog fighting is apparently not that bad because, well, people eat steaks, animals kill each other in the wild, and humans practice "blood sports" in many other ways as well. That's freakin' brilliant, huh? What next, an argument that we should return to the gladiator games, where people and lions were pitted against each other in fights to the death? Hey, how about publicly televised torture sessions, LIVE from Gitmo! How about the "Throw the Family Pet to the Pit Bulls Hour" TV show? Why not just give up trying to make the world a better, more humane place - shut down the ASPCA...and Amnesty International while you're at it. Why not just start beating any animal you don't like to death, right on the street in front of everyone else?
Yeah, what Courtland Molloy's apologia to dog fighting -- not to mention gratuitous brutality and cruelty -- represents is the absolute worst in human nature. But hey, at least Molloy has "come back to his senses" and no longer is forced to "imagin[e] that a charbroiled piece of pit bull would not have looked much different from the gristle of beef on my fork." Aw, ain't that precious?
How could an athlete so bedazzling also be so brutal? Why would Vick, the fortune-kissed, hundred-million-dollar quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, wallow in the gore of illegal dogfighting by choice? Why would anyone ruin animals except out of sheer, dumb meanness? How could Vick, a man with quite glaring weaknesses and a competitor who has himself struggled, punish dogs with death for their failures?
Maybe because he stars in a sport that is brutal, debilitating, that rewards failure with dismissal, loss of income and lingering injury. Football is about ruining the day, and possibly the kneecaps of your opponent. Mike Vick is one the best football players that ever played the game. He looks down on a sea of lessers. And he fought hard to get there.
I often wonder what Mike Vick would have become if his roots were not in the mean end of Newport News, where the way up for a strong kid is through the glorified violence of professional sports. Where higher education is offered, but the opportunity is really just about gladiator potential.
Is it really such a leap for a disadvantaged kid that got pumped to the top by our favorite blood sport, rightfully, and full of talent to find his own venue for promotion of violence. Mike Vick likes to play football, he excells; Dogs like to fight.
Maybe we feel such indignation because we feel powerless to compell an end to the butchery our country ignited in Iraq. Maybe its just the limbless bodies and lost lives that bear our imprature that we need to wail so about this new metastasis of violence.
Violence begets violence. Yet no Federal prosecutor sits with evidence of war crimes and a list of conspirators in the death of tens of thousands in a war of choice. Sudan receives American aid because they are 'allies' in the GWOT, and exterminates the gentle non-moslems of Darfur while we wail about Mike Vick.
And little miss Jenkins wants my ire over the ghetto kid from tidewater and his crooked path to a cancer of violence. Sorry.
In both cases, an animal is being killed to satisfy someone's pleasure. You're right, it's really not all that complicated. (It's just that some like to pretend it's complicated, so they can avoid the essence of the matter.)
(Where we do differ, though, is how we characterize eating meat. Yes, of course it's essential for the survival of some. But it certainly isn't for almost everyone in the US. Meat is consumed as a pleasure, here, and the killing involved in that often isn't all that far off from what went on at Vick's place. People still want to eat meat? Fine, have at it. But they should at least acknowledge the price of it.)
I used to love thoroughbred racing, but I will never again watch or attend a race at any track. Twice I have seen horses break down in the middle of races and be put down. If that were all, it still would not be the "bad" part.
Don't like how Michael Vick allowed "under-performing" dogs to be killed? At least they were killed quickly. Thoroughbreds that are deemed "useless" are sold for slaughter, taken to slaughter houses where the animals can smell the blood of those who die ahead of them, then sometimes strung up and throats slit while still alive. One winner of the Kentucky Derby was killed that way in Japan and became food for the table because he wasn't producing offspring who were "winners."
People should check, too, the horrible way greyhounds are treated, abused, misused.
Michae Vick's vicious sport is illegal, as is cock-fighting. However, when someone enjoys horse racing or dog racing - especially at small tracks - rest assured that cruelty to anumals is also going on. I understand the difference. But, not being an upfront blood sport does not excuse how we treat other animals just so we can be entertained.
However, what is also indefensible is the reckless prosecutor who fed a constant stream of prejudicial material to the media.
Also indefensible was every single news or cable news channel. What if he had been innocent? The convict-first-ask-questions-later mentality is a menace to our judicial system, such as it is.
Has anyone also asked why Michael Vick is the only one (along with his co-defendants) in America who is in the news about this disgraceful "undertaking." Do you seriously believe that he is the only individual involved in this horrible activity. Could race be involved? Ya think?
Now comes Taliban Bob getting into the act. Michale Vick is going to prison, but Taliban Bob also needs to get a whack at him. Good grief. Everyone one of those involved in this whole thing makes me sick. But you have to wonder who is worse, a depraved dog fight backer? Or, the the disgustingly opportunistic lynch mob prosecutor, Taliban Bob, and the Media.
Personally, though I think its essential that we confront violence of any kind, and reinforce to children how wrong such behavior is, beyond that, I think its media distraction.
Every minute covering Vick is a minute they don't have to tell us what Dick and George are up to.
These were, after all, dogs -- probably dogs bred for fighting. Dogs that -- let's admit it -- you or I wouldn't want to see the neighbors walking as pets. I'm not saying it is ok to mistreat these dogs, but let's remember that dogs are put down every day in the animal shelters, that dogs are used for medical research purposes. I've read that the Army had war dogs in Vietnam, and when we pulled out of Vietnam they had to be put down.
I think Molloy said something that had to be said, to counter-balance the hysteria this case seems to have generated.
This is a sad case. I think that dogfighting is wrong, but I'm really against having dogfighting be a felony. I think felony dogfighting implies prison sentences that are too long, especially for someone with an otherwise clean criminal record.
I think the Michael Vick case has really exposed a divide between White and minority progressives on criminal justice issues. Minorities see the way Michael Vick has been portrayed by the media and by the average American and feel that many people care more about the suffering of dogs than their suffering. Minorities (Blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans) are disproportionately the victims of crime (especially homicide) and (I think) have the highest incarceration rates of any ethnic groups in the ENTIRE WORLD. It's not right, and when minorities complain about these issues, they are often not joined by Whites, progressive or not. We need to do better.
Beagles for bait
Also reportedly rescued from Vick's house were beagles used for bait in training fighting dogs, along with guns, ammunition clips and suspected marijuana. If he did not have any knowledge of it, he at least should be suspended for stupidity and/or ignorance.The words in Goodell's letter to Jones after his series of misdeeds should fit Vick's behavior every bit as much as they did Jones'.
"Your conduct has brought embarrassment and ridicule upon yourself, your club and the NFL and has damaged the reputation of players throughout the league," Goodell wrote.
Vick has spent a significant amount of time at the house, according to neighbors. If he is found to have condoned or funded the enterprise, we should never see him in an NFL uniform again no matter what sentence comes after pleas are made.
I'm sure there's a TON more out there. The question is, why are there people who keep minimizing the horrors of animal abuse and keep trying to defend Michael Vick? It really makes me wonder...
I'm also asking you to stick to the facts of the case. I don't know whether or not Vick stole pets, but YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. It's an important point, because stealing pets to use as dogfighting bait raises the case to a another level of seriousness by both state and federal law.
Lastly, I think that most people, especially minorities, that get prosecuted for crimes get hit with sentences that are much too long. We concentrate too much on punishment instead of thinking about what sentences will deter future crimes (and keep possible offenders off the street). Virginia's incarceration rate is insanely high (although typical of the South). It's so high that we are building a new prison to hold all the inmates we are putting behind bars. It's a big waste of money and of lives.
This all is a good discussion, though - long overdue, I guess.
Ok, I know that's not what you're saying but it does express my feelings on your "not a felony" approach to such a despicable and violent crime.
For people who merely watch and gamble I'd agree with you. Misdemeanor is fine - at least for the first offense.
For people who are involved in operations a felony is certainly warranted. As well as a few years in jail.
For some of your other points (jury leaks, overzealous media, racial inequalities in sentencing) I agree that we'd be much better off if we could stop that. However, that doesn't change anything about this particular case - Vick most certainly is guilty of a hideous crime and deserves a big punishment.
But, I think as a society that we should have VERY high threshholds for what deserves jail time. A lot of things are wrong, but don't deserve jail time. I know that makes me a bit of a libertarian on criminal justice issues, but I think we really need to concentrate on what will make people and the public safer, and not on punitive criminal justice policies.
I've visited several jails and even the relatively nice ones are awful places. I wouldn't want anyone to go there unless I thought that putting them behind bars increases public safety. I don't really consider animals part of the public. I don't think a 12-24 month (or longer) prison term for dogfighters contributes to public safety at all - I think it's too long. Someone got a 30 year prison term for dogfighting in South Carolina, and I think that's what we're heading for in the future with much of the rhetoric we've heard in the Vick case.
Even though I know my views on this case aren't popular; I think it's important for me to argue them precisely because they're not popular - people need to see another point of view.
I think this is a good discussion, though. I (and many of Vick's "defenders" as you label us) am very concerned about inconsistencies about how we treat different animals and how those inconsistencies affect minorities and the criminal justice system. Your arguments here would logically lead to either vegetarianism or VERY strict regulations for how livestock would be treated and killed. I don't agree with that, but I'm open to changing my mind. You're consistent, though, I give you that. I'm just wary of the repercussions of giving animals legal rights similar to those of humans.
Animal rights has been enshrined in the German Constitution after a vote in the upper house of parliament.Legislators voted with the necessary two-thirds majority to add the words "and animals" to the constitutional clause obliging the state to respect and protect the dignity of humans.
Germany becomes the first country in the European Union to enshrine animal rights in its constitution.
For more, see here.
Plus, what planet are you living on if you think that two years out of the NFL will hurt him financially? He's a multimillionaire - the only thing a two year cut in pay means is that he can't buy an extra mansion. If he pissed away his money ala Mike Tyson you might be right that it would hurt - but that's his problem and he can get a regular job like the rest of us.
I don't think the sentence I proposed was a slap on the wrist. That conspiracy charge carries a maximum fine of something like $250,000. And I did say 30-60 days in jail, the rest suspended, and a couple thousand hours of community service.
By your reasoning, then for any wealthy defendant, the only meaningful sentence for any felony would be years of time in prison, because anything else would not be effective punishment. And there is some truth to that, if your only purpose in sentencing is to inflict pain.
The jail time is the same for everyone - assuming Vick values his freedom as much as you and I do. And this is where I most disagree with you. I strongly believe that 30 days for a crime of this nature is far too little, hence my "slap on the wrist" label because I feel it should be measured in multiple years. A 30 day sentence compared to 30 months is a slap on the wrist.
I'm not saying a multi-year sentence is deserved because he's a celeb - although I'd be willing to believe that some people would be that foolish. No, I feel this is an outrageous and cruel crime, even if it is only dogs, and deserves serious jail time accordingly. And, as you point out, if he used to celebrity to encourage even more people to participate in such behavior he should be punished even more. Same goes for his co-defendants and anyone else caught participating in an operation of this magnitude.
Celebrity or not, I'm having trouble seeing where you think a mere 30 days fits this horrible crime that went on for 5 years.
Note the discussion of whether violence against dogs will equate to crimes of violence, or whether dogs are considered property.
The Supreme Court has held that the guidelines aren't mandatory any more.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson told some of the other co-defendants who pled guilty that he would not necessarily be bound by the terms of the plea bargain.
http://www.usatoday....
The same will be true for Vick.
Judge Hudson was a tough, highly experienced prosecutor. I don't think you need to worry that he will be as lenient a sentencing judge as I would be.
If Vick had accidentally done some of this or dabbled just in watching/betting on fights I'd agree with you. He knowingly and intentionally was a key player for years and committed outrageous acts of cruelty. He very much does deserve a long time in the slammer and does deserve to lose his NFL career. His talent is a gift and his NFL career a privilege - not a right. Someone said if he was a plumber he could continue his career. Fine, Vick can seek employment as a plumber when he gets out. But saying he deserves a second chance with the NFL after what he did... he deserves no such chance. [Although I'm guessing that the NFL is going to give him a second chance because they value their industry more than good social behavior].
Now, if others are getting lesser sentences for similar crimes because they're nobodies, then the justice system needs to get it's shit together and start handing them serious sentences as well. I hope Vick's co-defendants all get similar sentences as they were part of the same crime.
Sometimes it takes a celeb and the media circus to wake people up. There may be some "hysteria" but that's a good thing because at least a few more people are paying attention to a hideous behavior that should not be tolerated at all.
How many of the dog kissers object to Vic having his associates kill poorly performing fighting dogs? All of them, I'd guess.
Yet, human beings who kiss dogs don't have much greater moral standing to object to human beings like Vic who kill dogs. One kind of behavior is obscene and the other kind is cruelty.
Both kinds of people are disgusting, as far as I'm concerned.
Unless you believe a dog desires your kisses.