Is Michael Vick Getting what he Deserves?

[Ther]

According to ESPN.com, Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick may get a jail term of less than a year for his involvement in illegal felony dogfighting. Yet Michael Silver writes (http://http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AmSbS7S8pOE6AU.W6PMw7AlDubYF?slug=ms-morningrush081307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns) that the penalty Vick receives may be unfair and extreme when compared to what other NFL players have gotten when committing "worse" crimes.

So what are your thoughts about this Michael Vick controversy? Is he getting what he deserves, or is the media making a big deal out of this (and if so, why?)?

[Christoph]

My thoughts consist of reminding myself of why I don't pay attention to sports. >.>

[The Architect]

I think the NFL is serving Vick his just desserts, but they need to be willing to retract them if he's found innocent. There's always Arena Football. Maybe they should've been tougher or softer in other cases, but this time I think they're doing the right thing.

[Thoracis]

This is a lot more tricky then the Barry Bonds debate. There are many more aspects to this considering that Vick is basically being tried on three fronts: U.S. Federal Court, the NFL, and "the court of public opinion".

The most important of these, clearly, are the actual criminal charges against him. So far I think the FBI has handled this case as well as they could. Only now that the case has actually reached court, hearings have been held, and pleas have been entered, do I think the case is going south, for all sides. Not knowing many of the facts of the case beyond what was in the indictment, I think Vick is getting hung out to dry. From the outset of the case I think it's been fairly obvious that Vick had little personal interaction with many of the alleged crimes in this case. The two charges against him involve conspiracy to committ illegal activity over state lines and for being involved with the dog-fighting ring. So far I've heard different reports on some of the facts, but many have reached the conclusion that while Vick certainly funded the operation and legally, by his dog breeding liscense and ownership over the "kennel", he is responsible for what took place at the Virginia home, he had little to do with the actual slaying of the dogs (he may have been present, but again, did little of it personally), which is what most people are so up in arms about. That's not to say he had no knowledge of what was going on and even if he really didn't there is no doubt that he's still responsible. However, I would argue that his involvement, if truly limited to ownership and funding of the operation, is mitgated by the fact that he didn't personally slay any of the animals.

The unfolding of the case is leading me to believe this more and more every day. I think it was fairly clear that the other three defendants in the case had a much more serious involvement with the day-to-day operation of the case and with the actual mistreatment of the animals, hence their striking deals with the prosecution. All three if them will get reduced charges and sentences for their cooperation. From my point of view their risk of facing stiffer penalties for their increased involvement is what lead each of them to turn on Vick. This also opens up a wide array of other possible scenarios. For example, if the case against Vick was as much a slam dunk as it's been lead on to be, why did the prosecution need to turn all three? In these situations a prosecutor generally need turn only one defendant, especially one with such involvement, and that testimony alone is damning enough to the others to get a conviction. But three? I simply fail to believe that the prosecutor in this case needed that much evidence and testimony just to get to Vick. I don't know... the evidence in the indictment is pretty stiff. I just can't fathom why they needed three of the defendants to turn and why they would even let Vick cop a plea now. How much further can they go up the chain? I don't think they'd be getting anything from Vick or the others about a bigger dog-fighting ring like they do in drug cases. It just doesn't make a lot of sense from a legal aspect.

As for the NFL... I fear for my favorite sport under the watch of Roger Goodell. While I agree with his thinking in needing to clean up a lot of the bad attention the NFL and it's players get, I'm not sure he's going about it the right way. Adam "Pacman" Jones and Vick are both right to make the argument that they are being treated unfairly in lieu of similar transgressions by players past. I didn't read the Silver article but I'm sure it makes mention of Ray Lewis and his homicide trial. No action was taken against Lewis by the NFL and his crime was the epitome of a player being in trouble with the law. The NFL is motivated by business only, the dollars and cents of it. It could be sad because a man could lose his livelihood for something where other people have been given second and third chances for far worse.

Public opinion has been about what you could expect, if not a little over-hyped simply by the celebrity of Vick. PETA should rot in hell for making money off anti-Vick merchandise though. I know they've said that all the proceeds are going to other charity organization or towards awareness or whatever... But that shit is just unexcusable to me. Simply having Vick bring their cause to the forefront and giving them someone to rally against should have been enough. I bet the situation itself brought in a flood of new donations and money. They didn't need to market it and turn a few more bucks. Irreprehensible.