I'm an animal lover. I would have given Michael Vick a sentence that would have kept him in prison for a lot longer than 18 months. However, the court sentenced Vick and Vick has served his sentence to the satisfaction of the Justice System. Why then are so many people debating whether Vick has the right to return to his career in sports?
Although Vick has apologized, which is not a legal requirement, many people are not accepting it and feel that Vick has not adequately paid for his crime. They never want Vick to play professional football, again.
Martha Stewart, the perfect everything, in spite of her amazing wealth sold to innocent investors $160,000 of stock in a company that illegally warned her that the value of its stock was going to tank. Martha did her time and, although Martha never apologized for her greed and crime, she has resumed her career that is likely more lucrative since she violated the law than it was before. Who has demanded that Stewart forfeit her career because of her crime of greed?
Vick has served his time for his crime. He doesn't owe us anything else. Society must allow him to resume his life. That's how the system is supposed to work.
4 comments:
Great thoughts and astute comparison Joe! The indictment against Vick from the animal rights groups seem to more on the magnitude of Bernie Madoff than Martha Stewart.
I think its hard to compare shooting dogs, electrocuting dogs and fighting dogs to the death to stealing money. One is greed the other is cruelty. I much rather hang out with a greedy person than a cruel one.
But you are right, he served his time and should be able to resume his life just like anyone else. As for his apology I don't believe he's sorry for what he did, he's just sorry he got caught doing it. That's just my gut instinct from watching him say his speeches and do interviews.
Personally I will always associate him his choice to make money from torturing dogs for sport. I never even heard of him before that. He may have done his time but there are a lot of people that just can't shake those horrific images from our mind.
I didn't mean to equate animal cruelty to greed. My point, poorly put, was that he has served his time whether he apologizes or not, and he should be allowed to resume his career if he's still qualified. Vick, unlike Stewart, admits his guilt and apologizes for his acts. We can choose to accept his apology or refuse to forgive.
Great analogy, Joe. Barbara (aka Layla), I disagree with your point. Stealing money from a person is just as (if not more) cruel than what Vick did to dogs. Sometimes I think society splits crimes into to groups, things me and my friends are likely to do, and things me and my friends are unlikely to do. If you ask me, a crime's a crime, and Vick paid his due to society. As a NY Giants fan, this whole Vick signing us just one more reason to hate the Eagles.
Post a Comment