Michael Vick Reinstated (Conditionally) Into The NFL
- Thread starter nasum
- Start date
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
if your role model is an athlete (or if you used to have a role model that was an athlete) i feel sorry for you.
hes been out of the league 2 years, he served his sentence in the eyes of the law, his reinstatement is conditional and no guarantee that hell play a single game this season. the nfl has players that use drugs, beat women, and play with guns. why shouldnt vick get a 2nd chance?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
He was cruel with nonsentient beings.
Won't someone please think of the bitches?
Won't someone please think of the bitches?
doodofdoods
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Why can't Michael Vick be a role model? I find a man who has actually done bad things in the past, has paid the price for them but still managed to find success afterwards to be a more realistic role model than these pretenders that are supposed to be role models to kids.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Second chance or no, I'm very curious if anyone will pick him up.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Ha. Alternately, he'd fit in well on the Bengals.
i think theyre are a lot of teams hed be a good fit for (assuming he hasnt lost a step). the bengals would be good, vikings, dolphins, jets, broncos, bears... im sure theres more. its just a matter of the owners willing to take a risk on him. as far as that goes im 100% positive someone will sign him, maybe a 1 or 2 year contract at a very low salary.
[quote name='nasum']Wonderful to see that the league supports fine and upstanding citizens, providing them the opportunity to be well compensated role models for the troubled youth of today![/QUOTE]
The man paid his due to society. He committed a crime, was punished, and now should have every right to pursue a livelihood if any team will have him.
Continuing to make felons into pariahs after they've done their time is one of the major reasons we have such a high recidivism rate in this country. If society (and the NFL by extension) doesn't provide people with real incentives to clean up their act (ie, a return to normalcy), than we're just as culpable when they fall back on old habits.
The man paid his due to society. He committed a crime, was punished, and now should have every right to pursue a livelihood if any team will have him.
Continuing to make felons into pariahs after they've done their time is one of the major reasons we have such a high recidivism rate in this country. If society (and the NFL by extension) doesn't provide people with real incentives to clean up their act (ie, a return to normalcy), than we're just as culpable when they fall back on old habits.
I have no problem with it.
I never liked the guy, especially after the dog fighting story broke, but he served his time for his crime.
And bvharris is exactly right that this notion of needing to further punish criminals after they've done their time by stigmatizing them and shunning them from jobs etc. is a big part of what's wrong with our correctional system/society at large and a large part of why 2/3rds of offenders end up arrested again with in 3 years of release.
Especially for your average offender who's thrown back into a disadvantaged neighborhood and has a hard time making a legitimate living do to the the ex-con stigma.
I never liked the guy, especially after the dog fighting story broke, but he served his time for his crime.
And bvharris is exactly right that this notion of needing to further punish criminals after they've done their time by stigmatizing them and shunning them from jobs etc. is a big part of what's wrong with our correctional system/society at large and a large part of why 2/3rds of offenders end up arrested again with in 3 years of release.
Especially for your average offender who's thrown back into a disadvantaged neighborhood and has a hard time making a legitimate living do to the the ex-con stigma.
So, a guy (not necessarily Vick, just reading the comments) commits a crime. This crime hurts society - we get to pay for the cops, the courts, the prosecution (and often, the defense), the jailing.... etc.
Then, society is to blame because this individual screwed us all over and now we don't really like him?
Would you tell a rape victim that she should embrace her rapist after he's served his time?
Would you tell a young shop keep who was robbed at gunpoint to forgive the man behind the mask that left him unable to have a good night's sleep for years because he's served his time?
When can we stop blaming the victims of crime for the results of the deeds done by those who committed the crime in the first place?
Then, society is to blame because this individual screwed us all over and now we don't really like him?
Would you tell a rape victim that she should embrace her rapist after he's served his time?
Would you tell a young shop keep who was robbed at gunpoint to forgive the man behind the mask that left him unable to have a good night's sleep for years because he's served his time?
When can we stop blaming the victims of crime for the results of the deeds done by those who committed the crime in the first place?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I think there's a false dichotomy here b/w being "reinstated into the NFL" and "getting a job somewhere else."
The NFL carries with it a great deal of wealth, prestige, honor, and influence to the rest of society. His sentence is up, but I don't think it's that uncommon to restrict where people can work following their sentence. A silly comparison, but it's not many of us would defend Vick if he wanted to work at, say, an animal shelter or day care.
I think the attitude about not liking his reinstatement is "Vick doesn't deserve this position of wealth, he doesn't deserve a position with this kind of honor, and he doesn't deserve to be in a position that has influence." It's not that anyone (of reason) is saying he should never work anywhere ever again. Just not this job.
I think that it's a further false comparison because his quick reinstatement shows that celebrity or wealth means an easier sentence. Vick is not your average adult black male - not prior to his sentence, perhaps during (where was he sentenced?), and he certainly isn't after. He gets reinstated into the NFL, and we champion "second chances" while the millions of black males with felony histories still fall into the "last hired/first fired" category. We'd be patting ourselves on the back for people getting on their feet by worshipping Vick's case as a false idol, when the data and patterns otherwise have not changed in the slightest, and will not, as a result of Vick.
Vick is more along the lines of Michael Milliken than he is any other mundane felon. I don't think it's right to pat ourselves on the back and talk about "second chances" when it turns out that we're just kowtowing to celebrity culture and worshipping a false idol.
If we're going to feel good about second chances, let's see patterns of them, and not just one dude who was already famous before he was incarcerated.
The NFL carries with it a great deal of wealth, prestige, honor, and influence to the rest of society. His sentence is up, but I don't think it's that uncommon to restrict where people can work following their sentence. A silly comparison, but it's not many of us would defend Vick if he wanted to work at, say, an animal shelter or day care.
I think the attitude about not liking his reinstatement is "Vick doesn't deserve this position of wealth, he doesn't deserve a position with this kind of honor, and he doesn't deserve to be in a position that has influence." It's not that anyone (of reason) is saying he should never work anywhere ever again. Just not this job.
I think that it's a further false comparison because his quick reinstatement shows that celebrity or wealth means an easier sentence. Vick is not your average adult black male - not prior to his sentence, perhaps during (where was he sentenced?), and he certainly isn't after. He gets reinstated into the NFL, and we champion "second chances" while the millions of black males with felony histories still fall into the "last hired/first fired" category. We'd be patting ourselves on the back for people getting on their feet by worshipping Vick's case as a false idol, when the data and patterns otherwise have not changed in the slightest, and will not, as a result of Vick.
Vick is more along the lines of Michael Milliken than he is any other mundane felon. I don't think it's right to pat ourselves on the back and talk about "second chances" when it turns out that we're just kowtowing to celebrity culture and worshipping a false idol.
If we're going to feel good about second chances, let's see patterns of them, and not just one dude who was already famous before he was incarcerated.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Pill popping, living being killing, bender-going... gah! I wish George Carlin were here to complain about these atheletes.
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the attitude about not liking his reinstatement is "Vick doesn't deserve this position of wealth, he doesn't deserve a position with this kind of honor, and he doesn't deserve to be in a position that has influence." It's not that anyone (of reason) is saying he should never work anywhere ever again. Just not this job.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much where I stand.
The fact that people are pretty much forgiving him (who cares if he "served" his time? if a child molester or murderer was sentenced to and served a ten year sentence, I doubt any of you would be willing to forgive and forget the things he did so easily) and that this sadistic psychopath is getting a second shot at millions of dollars and fame is disgusting.
That's pretty much where I stand.
The fact that people are pretty much forgiving him (who cares if he "served" his time? if a child molester or murderer was sentenced to and served a ten year sentence, I doubt any of you would be willing to forgive and forget the things he did so easily) and that this sadistic psychopath is getting a second shot at millions of dollars and fame is disgusting.
woodraskam
CAG Veteran
I personally believe that he should be reinstated, but only because the league doesn't have any rules that say, those who have committed a felony are permanently banned from the league. I wouldn't be against them making such a rule, but the fact that it doesn't exist makes it too subjective to who is/isn't allowed back.
JolietJake
Banned
Just because they let him back in, it doesn't mean anyone has to take him. Maybe he should go play in that new league being started.
I wasn't making that dichotomy personally. I think when someone has served their time, then they should be able to go back into society and resume the life they led before. They've done their time and there's not legal reason to further deprive them of their freedoms. Special circumstances aside of course--like not letting child molesters work around children (so they couldn't go back to being a teacher etc.).
Yes, it sucks that Vick gets to go back to his life because he's famous and has athletic talent and other ex-cons can't get their old job (or something comparable back) because of the stigma.
But that's a problem with the way ex-cons are treated across society, and I'm not going to begrudge Vick getting treated the way ex-cons should be. It's a problem with society, not with Vick. Basically since I support ex-cons not being stigmatized in getting the jobs they are qualified for upon release, it would be pretty stupid to be upset about Vick getting his back.
If a person doesn't deserve the freedom to go after and get a position of wealth, honor etc., then they should have had a longer prison sentence. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep punishing someone and limiting there freedom upon serving their time.
Plus, another aspect is that everyone is simply not equal. On top of the ex-con label, the bulk of people coming out of prison have few if any marketable skills or talents to begin with as many are high school drop outs etc. So I don't see any reason for penalizing Vick who is lucky to have a marketable talent which helps him overcome the ex-con stigma. That's just life.
The government just needs to do more to educate and train offenders while in prison and place them in jobs upon release, but that we currently don't do enough in that regard is no reason to frown on Vick and other ex-cons who had educations, marketable skills/talents etc. before release and can make an easier transition back into their former lives upon release.
Yes, it sucks that Vick gets to go back to his life because he's famous and has athletic talent and other ex-cons can't get their old job (or something comparable back) because of the stigma.
But that's a problem with the way ex-cons are treated across society, and I'm not going to begrudge Vick getting treated the way ex-cons should be. It's a problem with society, not with Vick. Basically since I support ex-cons not being stigmatized in getting the jobs they are qualified for upon release, it would be pretty stupid to be upset about Vick getting his back.
If a person doesn't deserve the freedom to go after and get a position of wealth, honor etc., then they should have had a longer prison sentence. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep punishing someone and limiting there freedom upon serving their time.
Plus, another aspect is that everyone is simply not equal. On top of the ex-con label, the bulk of people coming out of prison have few if any marketable skills or talents to begin with as many are high school drop outs etc. So I don't see any reason for penalizing Vick who is lucky to have a marketable talent which helps him overcome the ex-con stigma. That's just life.
The government just needs to do more to educate and train offenders while in prison and place them in jobs upon release, but that we currently don't do enough in that regard is no reason to frown on Vick and other ex-cons who had educations, marketable skills/talents etc. before release and can make an easier transition back into their former lives upon release.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Stallworth reached a financial settlement with the victim's family and they agreed to the plea deal.
2. Stallworth stopped, called the cops himself and cooperated throughout.
3. The person was jaywalking on a highway at night, not like he was in a cross walk at a city intersection or something.
Compared with Vick who lied and didn't co-operate at all etc. until agreeing to plea guilty when the prosecutor had tons of evidence and witness flipped to testify against him.
In a nutshell that's the reason for the different sentences.
2. Stallworth stopped, called the cops himself and cooperated throughout.
3. The person was jaywalking on a highway at night, not like he was in a cross walk at a city intersection or something.
Compared with Vick who lied and didn't co-operate at all etc. until agreeing to plea guilty when the prosecutor had tons of evidence and witness flipped to testify against him.
In a nutshell that's the reason for the different sentences.
woodraskam
CAG Veteran
[quote name='Futbollar']i don't get how micheal vick got 2 years for killing dogs, but daunte stallworth got only 30 days for killing someone while being drunk and driving? someone want to explain. i think killing a person is slighty worse then killing a bunch of dogs[/QUOTE]
The biggest reason I can think of is intent of the crime. Michael Vick meant to kill those dogs, but Donte had no intention of killing someone. Also, the fact that the guy Stallworth killed pretty much caused the accident by jumping into traffic, puts less responsibility on Stallworth.
With that being said, I do believe that Stallworth should've gotten more jail time.
The biggest reason I can think of is intent of the crime. Michael Vick meant to kill those dogs, but Donte had no intention of killing someone. Also, the fact that the guy Stallworth killed pretty much caused the accident by jumping into traffic, puts less responsibility on Stallworth.
With that being said, I do believe that Stallworth should've gotten more jail time.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
NFL is entertainment, and appearances count. It's funny - noone gets bashed for boycotting Tom Cruise over Scientology, but when it comes to Vick we should all clamor to be entertained by this sadistic monster who got his jollies by torturing dogs.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.
[quote name='camoor']NFL is entertainment, and appearances count. It's funny - noone gets bashed for boycotting Tom Cruise over Scientology, but when it comes to Vick we should all clamor to be entertained by this sadistic monster who got his jollies by torturing dogs.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying anyone has to clamor over him or be entertained by him. Just that he should be re-instated as there is no legal reason to bar him from the league.
Teams don't have to hire him if they don't want to. Fans don't have to go to games he appears in or can go and protest him, take negative signs etc. etc.
But in an ideal world, right by law would equal right by society. It's more effective and probably a big part of the reason that places like Japan that have a much more re-integrative way of dealing with criminals have lower crime rates (though just cultural differences across the board have more to do with it). Criminals are less likely to re-offend if they are welcomed back into society after doing their time, vs. being stigmatized and ostracized.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying anyone has to clamor over him or be entertained by him. Just that he should be re-instated as there is no legal reason to bar him from the league.
Teams don't have to hire him if they don't want to. Fans don't have to go to games he appears in or can go and protest him, take negative signs etc. etc.
But in an ideal world, right by law would equal right by society. It's more effective and probably a big part of the reason that places like Japan that have a much more re-integrative way of dealing with criminals have lower crime rates (though just cultural differences across the board have more to do with it). Criminals are less likely to re-offend if they are welcomed back into society after doing their time, vs. being stigmatized and ostracized.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='nasum']Wonderful to see that the league supports fine and upstanding citizens, providing them the opportunity to be well compensated role models for the troubled youth of today![/QUOTE]
This isn't North Korea. Once you pay your debt to society that should be the end of it and if the NFL has no rule that prohibits felons from playing he should have the chance. I don't condone what he did at all, he has a chance to really prove he is a better person for his experience.
[quote name='doodofdoods']Why can't Michael Vick be a role model? I find a man who has actually done bad things in the past, has paid the price for them but still managed to find success afterwards to be a more realistic role model than these pretenders that are supposed to be role models to kids.[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you said.
[quote name='bvharris']The man paid his due to society. He committed a crime, was punished, and now should have every right to pursue a livelihood if any team will have him.
Continuing to make felons into pariahs after they've done their time is one of the major reasons we have such a high recidivism rate in this country. If society (and the NFL by extension) doesn't provide people with real incentives to clean up their act (ie, a return to normalcy), than we're just as culpable when they fall back on old habits.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
[quote name='camoor']NFL is entertainment, and appearances count. It's funny - noone gets bashed for boycotting Tom Cruise over Scientology, but when it comes to Vick we should all clamor to be entertained by this sadistic monster who got his jollies by torturing dogs.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
People can bash Vick. But to deny a man a second chance in life is easy until you are in that postion yourself. People are talking about Cruise in the sense he should never be on-screen again.
That being said, the zeal with which animal lovers and other people have gone after Vick is comical. I have a dog, I wouldn't hurt it for anything, and I can't stand what Vick did, but if his crime is the one that riles you up the most in life considering all the shit athletes have done, then whatever.
Vick has a chance to really show he is sincere by getting back into the league, using that money to help the SPCA, do PSAs, talk to kids. If he isn't sincere it will show.
This isn't North Korea. Once you pay your debt to society that should be the end of it and if the NFL has no rule that prohibits felons from playing he should have the chance. I don't condone what he did at all, he has a chance to really prove he is a better person for his experience.
[quote name='doodofdoods']Why can't Michael Vick be a role model? I find a man who has actually done bad things in the past, has paid the price for them but still managed to find success afterwards to be a more realistic role model than these pretenders that are supposed to be role models to kids.[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you said.
[quote name='bvharris']The man paid his due to society. He committed a crime, was punished, and now should have every right to pursue a livelihood if any team will have him.
Continuing to make felons into pariahs after they've done their time is one of the major reasons we have such a high recidivism rate in this country. If society (and the NFL by extension) doesn't provide people with real incentives to clean up their act (ie, a return to normalcy), than we're just as culpable when they fall back on old habits.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
[quote name='camoor']NFL is entertainment, and appearances count. It's funny - noone gets bashed for boycotting Tom Cruise over Scientology, but when it comes to Vick we should all clamor to be entertained by this sadistic monster who got his jollies by torturing dogs.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
People can bash Vick. But to deny a man a second chance in life is easy until you are in that postion yourself. People are talking about Cruise in the sense he should never be on-screen again.
That being said, the zeal with which animal lovers and other people have gone after Vick is comical. I have a dog, I wouldn't hurt it for anything, and I can't stand what Vick did, but if his crime is the one that riles you up the most in life considering all the shit athletes have done, then whatever.
Vick has a chance to really show he is sincere by getting back into the league, using that money to help the SPCA, do PSAs, talk to kids. If he isn't sincere it will show.
woodraskam
CAG Veteran
[quote name='camoor']NFL is entertainment, and appearances count. It's funny - noone gets bashed for boycotting Tom Cruise over Scientology, but when it comes to Vick we should all clamor to be entertained by this sadistic monster who got his jollies by torturing dogs.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
No one is gonna force you to watch the NFL games just like no one is gonna make you go watch a Tom Cruise movie.
You may think that you are a great moral citizen by not watching him, but what's the correct thing to do to those who break the law? Should we just send all convicted felons off to an island where we will never have to see or hear from them again? I don't understand why we need to ostracize those from society for making bad decisions even after they have taken their punishment.
Getting right by the law does not equal getting right by society.[/QUOTE]
No one is gonna force you to watch the NFL games just like no one is gonna make you go watch a Tom Cruise movie.
You may think that you are a great moral citizen by not watching him, but what's the correct thing to do to those who break the law? Should we just send all convicted felons off to an island where we will never have to see or hear from them again? I don't understand why we need to ostracize those from society for making bad decisions even after they have taken their punishment.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='woodraskam']No one is gonna force you to watch the NFL games just like no one is gonna make you go watch a Tom Cruise movie.
You may think that you are a great moral citizen by not watching him, but what's the correct thing to do to those who break the law? Should we just send all convicted felons off to an island where we will never have to see or hear from them again? I don't understand why we need to ostracize those from society for making bad decisions even after they have taken their punishment.[/QUOTE]
As a football hero you have to do an awful lot before you lose the support of the general public. Stuff that would make an average person unhirable is dealt with as a slap on the wrist and slick press release. I don't think any reasonable person would object to eating a burrito made by Vick, but I would never begrudge anyone for refusing to hold him up as a hero figure in the NFL.
Companies should be able to evaluate employees based on their past work. In every category Vick is a miserable failure. He didn't honor his contract, he let his team down, he negatively impacted their bottom line. Vick was also a PR nightmare and on top of everything he lied to his boss about everything that was going on, essentially sandbagging his management with a host of problems. Think about your job - if you were the boss would you give an employee like that a second chance?
As I said before, I'm not saying the guy can't be trusted with making a burrito or even replacing your oil. If someone wants to gamble and hire him for a more high-profile job that's their choice, but they're not going to win any brownie points with me. Vick may be right with the law, he may even be right with his diety of choice, but he's got a long way to go before he's right with society. Man's gotta eat, but that doesn't mean we have to put him back on a pedestal.
You may think that you are a great moral citizen by not watching him, but what's the correct thing to do to those who break the law? Should we just send all convicted felons off to an island where we will never have to see or hear from them again? I don't understand why we need to ostracize those from society for making bad decisions even after they have taken their punishment.[/QUOTE]
As a football hero you have to do an awful lot before you lose the support of the general public. Stuff that would make an average person unhirable is dealt with as a slap on the wrist and slick press release. I don't think any reasonable person would object to eating a burrito made by Vick, but I would never begrudge anyone for refusing to hold him up as a hero figure in the NFL.
Companies should be able to evaluate employees based on their past work. In every category Vick is a miserable failure. He didn't honor his contract, he let his team down, he negatively impacted their bottom line. Vick was also a PR nightmare and on top of everything he lied to his boss about everything that was going on, essentially sandbagging his management with a host of problems. Think about your job - if you were the boss would you give an employee like that a second chance?
As I said before, I'm not saying the guy can't be trusted with making a burrito or even replacing your oil. If someone wants to gamble and hire him for a more high-profile job that's their choice, but they're not going to win any brownie points with me. Vick may be right with the law, he may even be right with his diety of choice, but he's got a long way to go before he's right with society. Man's gotta eat, but that doesn't mean we have to put him back on a pedestal.
[quote name='camoor']As a football hero you have to do an awful lot before you lose the support of the general public. Stuff that would make an average person unhirable is dealt with as a slap on the wrist and slick press release. I don't think any reasonable person would object to eating a burrito made by Vick, but I would never begrudge anyone for refusing to hold him up as a hero figure in the NFL.[/quote]
But there's no legal reason to bar him from reinstatement. And people are free protest him and feel however they want to about him.
And again, that normal people don't get back to their jobs is something wrong with society, not with Vick. Direct your ire on business owners who won't hire an ex-con to make their burritos, not Vick. That is the problem, not him.
And they still can. The "companies" here are the teams. The league had no legal reason (or reason in their rule book) to ban him. But teams are free to evaluate him and not hire him.
But there's no legal reason to bar him from reinstatement. And people are free protest him and feel however they want to about him.
And again, that normal people don't get back to their jobs is something wrong with society, not with Vick. Direct your ire on business owners who won't hire an ex-con to make their burritos, not Vick. That is the problem, not him.
And they still can. The "companies" here are the teams. The league had no legal reason (or reason in their rule book) to ban him. But teams are free to evaluate him and not hire him.
woodraskam
CAG Veteran
[quote name='camoor'] Stuff that would make an average person unhirable is dealt with as a slap on the wrist and slick press release.[/QUOTE]
like dmaul said, this is what's wrong with the way it works. Ex-Cons aren't given the second chance that they should be getting. It isn't Vick's, or the NFL's fault that they are doing it the right way. Maybe other lines of business should take this route.
And don't confuse this with letting child molesters become elementary teachers. That's not what I'm saying.
like dmaul said, this is what's wrong with the way it works. Ex-Cons aren't given the second chance that they should be getting. It isn't Vick's, or the NFL's fault that they are doing it the right way. Maybe other lines of business should take this route.
And don't confuse this with letting child molesters become elementary teachers. That's not what I'm saying.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I can see that line of thought - the NFL's decision doesn't mean people have to cheer for him, or forgive him, or applaud him.
Though I think some of us are certainly afraid of a domesticated and neutered American populace that will cheer him and forget he did anything bad - or worse, minimize the wrongness of it.
But, again, I'll stand by his celebrity as what is giving him a second chance, and by no means do I think that Vick's reinstatement is a reflection of a society that is, in any substantial or meaningful way, one that forgives felons, let alone minority felons who weren't celebrities beforehand.
The exaltation of those on our TV screens is what it is.
Though I think some of us are certainly afraid of a domesticated and neutered American populace that will cheer him and forget he did anything bad - or worse, minimize the wrongness of it.
But, again, I'll stand by his celebrity as what is giving him a second chance, and by no means do I think that Vick's reinstatement is a reflection of a society that is, in any substantial or meaningful way, one that forgives felons, let alone minority felons who weren't celebrities beforehand.
The exaltation of those on our TV screens is what it is.
I'd agree with that 100%.
But again, it's that problem in society with stigmatizing felons and not giving them second chances that is the problem here, not that Vick gets treated the way felons should because of his celebrity status.
If you're famous and have a marketable skill you're going to re-integrate into society easier than others, and that's not his fault. Society needs to change so that all felons are less stigmatized and ostracized.
And honestly, part of that is more or less forgetting the wrong done after it's been paid for and welcoming the person back to society. That's basically the whole idea behind re integrative shaming/restorative justice.
The past is the past, they paid for their time and as long as they've shown remorse and made changes in their life offenders should be allowed to leave their past mistakes behind for the most part.
But again, it's that problem in society with stigmatizing felons and not giving them second chances that is the problem here, not that Vick gets treated the way felons should because of his celebrity status.
If you're famous and have a marketable skill you're going to re-integrate into society easier than others, and that's not his fault. Society needs to change so that all felons are less stigmatized and ostracized.
And honestly, part of that is more or less forgetting the wrong done after it's been paid for and welcoming the person back to society. That's basically the whole idea behind re integrative shaming/restorative justice.
The past is the past, they paid for their time and as long as they've shown remorse and made changes in their life offenders should be allowed to leave their past mistakes behind for the most part.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Has Vick done so, however? I admit I haven't kept up with the news on him - but has he publicly apologized, or renounced his actions, or shown the proper reaction to the shame that we would expect along the restorative justice paradigm?
(another issue entirely is whether or not reintegrative shaming is relevant here, as its policy application of restorative justice is not how his sentence was carried out.
)
(another issue entirely is whether or not reintegrative shaming is relevant here, as its policy application of restorative justice is not how his sentence was carried out.
)[quote name='mykevermin']Has Vick done so, however? I admit I haven't kept up with the news on him - but has he publicly apologized, or renounced his actions, or shown the proper reaction to the shame that we would expect along the restorative justice paradigm?
(another issue entirely is whether or not reintegrative shaming is relevant here, as its policy application of restorative justice is not how his sentence was carried out.)[/QUOTE]
I'd say so. He apologized at sentencing and upon release I believe. And he's working with the Humane society on PSA's etc.
Semi-fair point on the re-integrative shaming stuff--but you can have that as part of the re-entry process even if the sentencing wasn't done in a restorative justice framework IMO. I don't think a traditional prison sentence precludes having a more re-integrative approach to re-entry after the time has been served.
(another issue entirely is whether or not reintegrative shaming is relevant here, as its policy application of restorative justice is not how his sentence was carried out.
)[/QUOTE]I'd say so. He apologized at sentencing and upon release I believe. And he's working with the Humane society on PSA's etc.
Semi-fair point on the re-integrative shaming stuff--but you can have that as part of the re-entry process even if the sentencing wasn't done in a restorative justice framework IMO. I don't think a traditional prison sentence precludes having a more re-integrative approach to re-entry after the time has been served.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
No shit? Well, good on him for the PSAs.
[quote name='mykevermin']No shit? Well, good on him for the PSAs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they had the Human society president on Sportscenter last week saying he believed Vick truly regretted the actions and was happy to be able to work with him on PSAs etc. against dog fighting going forward.
Though of course, to not be naive, it's not just out of remorse and the goodness of his heart etc., but also a PR move to help rebuild his image.
Yeah, they had the Human society president on Sportscenter last week saying he believed Vick truly regretted the actions and was happy to be able to work with him on PSAs etc. against dog fighting going forward.
Though of course, to not be naive, it's not just out of remorse and the goodness of his heart etc., but also a PR move to help rebuild his image.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I think the NFL league rules are kind of dopey anyway, their elastic morality isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Hence I don't have any issue with their decision either way, since it means little in my book.
I think I'm in agreement with most of you on letting the fans decide Vick's fate.
I think I'm in agreement with most of you on letting the fans decide Vick's fate.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']I think the NFL league rules are kind of dopey anyway, their elastic morality isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Hence I don't have any issue with their decision either way, since it means little in my book.
I think I'm in agreement with most of you on letting the fans decide Vick's fate.[/QUOTE]
I think Roger Goodell being the sole voice in punishment, the fact he really has no guidelines for each offense, and he can't be overruled is too much power for any person in his role. I agree that there should be punishment for some players, but there should be standards set and an automatic appeal of any punishment Goodell hands down even if it is seemingly deserved. People aren't infallible.
I think I'm in agreement with most of you on letting the fans decide Vick's fate.[/QUOTE]
I think Roger Goodell being the sole voice in punishment, the fact he really has no guidelines for each offense, and he can't be overruled is too much power for any person in his role. I agree that there should be punishment for some players, but there should be standards set and an automatic appeal of any punishment Goodell hands down even if it is seemingly deserved. People aren't infallible.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, they had the Human society president on Sportscenter last week saying he believed Vick truly regretted the actions and was happy to be able to work with him on PSAs etc. against dog fighting going forward.
Though of course, to not be naive, it's not just out of remorse and the goodness of his heart etc., but also a PR move to help rebuild his image.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's bullshit.
He's sad he lost most of his money and possibly his career, not remorseful of what he did to those dogs.
Reports were saying that he's been doing the dogfighting things since he was in college and that he was a big player in dogfighting circles.
Though of course, to not be naive, it's not just out of remorse and the goodness of his heart etc., but also a PR move to help rebuild his image.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's bullshit.
He's sad he lost most of his money and possibly his career, not remorseful of what he did to those dogs.
Reports were saying that he's been doing the dogfighting things since he was in college and that he was a big player in dogfighting circles.
Yeah, to be fair to him though he did say that he grew up around dog fights in his Newport News neighborhood etc. so it was just a normal thing to him.
Not that that makes it any less disgusting. Nor do I think he really regrets it as he's not suddenly going to start caring about dogs after being raised on dog fighting etc. He just regrets being caught.
But I'd be shocked if he ever remotely considered getting involved in any thing like that again, so if he's not rehabilitated he's at least deterred. And I don't think he deserves any further penalties beyond this suspension and his probation.
And if he's willing to do PSAs etc., then it's a good thing regardless of his personal feelings as he's a high profile person and the PSAs can have an impact.
Not that that makes it any less disgusting. Nor do I think he really regrets it as he's not suddenly going to start caring about dogs after being raised on dog fighting etc. He just regrets being caught.
But I'd be shocked if he ever remotely considered getting involved in any thing like that again, so if he's not rehabilitated he's at least deterred.
And I don't think he deserves any further penalties beyond this suspension and his probation.And if he's willing to do PSAs etc., then it's a good thing regardless of his personal feelings as he's a high profile person and the PSAs can have an impact.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Not that that makes it any less disgusting. Nor do I think he really regrets it as he's not suddenly going to start caring about dogs after being raised on dog fighting etc. He just regrets being caught.
[/QUOTE]
I think if I did a couple years hard time for something which I had no financial need to be doing since I was already pulling down millions, thus depriving myself of countless other millions, I'd probably find time to fulminate some regrets.
Then again, I'm not Michael Vick, but I find it hard to believe he's so stupid that he doesn't seriously regret what he did, even if a large portion of that is also "getting caught".
Not that that makes it any less disgusting. Nor do I think he really regrets it as he's not suddenly going to start caring about dogs after being raised on dog fighting etc. He just regrets being caught.
[/QUOTE]
I think if I did a couple years hard time for something which I had no financial need to be doing since I was already pulling down millions, thus depriving myself of countless other millions, I'd probably find time to fulminate some regrets.
Then again, I'm not Michael Vick, but I find it hard to believe he's so stupid that he doesn't seriously regret what he did, even if a large portion of that is also "getting caught".
Oh he regrets what he did for sure, but more because of the consequences.
I don't think he now believes that dog fighting is some evil thing. He's been around dog fighting his whole life, he's not going to suddenly change his mind and think it's cruel and shouldn't be done and that it's a good thing that it's illegal etc.
I don't think he now believes that dog fighting is some evil thing. He's been around dog fighting his whole life, he's not going to suddenly change his mind and think it's cruel and shouldn't be done and that it's a good thing that it's illegal etc.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh he regrets what he did for sure, but more because of the consequences.
I don't think he now believes that dog fighting is some evil thing. He's been around dog fighting his whole life, he's not going to suddenly change his mind and think it's cruel and shouldn't be done and that it's a good thing that it's illegal etc.[/QUOTE]
This would seem to be stating the obvious, but you don't have any idea what Michael Vick thinks. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but people DO occasionally see the error of their ways.
I don't think he now believes that dog fighting is some evil thing. He's been around dog fighting his whole life, he's not going to suddenly change his mind and think it's cruel and shouldn't be done and that it's a good thing that it's illegal etc.[/QUOTE]
This would seem to be stating the obvious, but you don't have any idea what Michael Vick thinks. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but people DO occasionally see the error of their ways.
Of course that's true, I was just saying I'm skeptical that someone who never cared about hurting dogs would suddenly start caring, and think he just saw the error of being involved in dog fighting due to everything he's lost because of it.
But that's just my skepticism, and I've always hated his guts since he played for VT and I'm a diehard WVU fan.
But that's just my skepticism, and I've always hated his guts since he played for VT and I'm a diehard WVU fan.
Revolution
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
His actions are inexcusable. He should not ever be allowed to play a game. What message will his fans take away from this? That it is okay to tie up the mouth of a puppy and have your aggressive dogs tear it to shreds to practice fight techniques? Screw him. Who gives a 
if he served out his sentence, the law doesn't care for his victims. Hope he dies.
-anyone that owns a dog would agree.
if he served out his sentence, the law doesn't care for his victims. Hope he dies.-anyone that owns a dog would agree.
bread's done