Should Michael Vick be allowed to return to the NFL?
Should Michael Vick be allowed back into the NFL?
Absolutely!
The man is paying his debt to society (boy is he). He is not only paying for his poor judgment but is being made an example. Vick is picking up the tab for the sins of an entire dog fighting 'culture'. The message was broadcast loud and clear. If a NFL superstar could be so severely punished for cruelty to animals (dog fighting in specific), the average law breaking citizen best beware.
Michael Vick lost it all. His freedom. His reputation. His fortune. His happiness. His career. So why take his future? Hasn't he paid enough?
Think not?
Let's compare the dissimilar consequences for 2 very similar people (not their crimes... though both were convicted of serious felonies), Michael Vick with whom you are already familiar and disgraced, now former-US Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens.
Ted Stevens has recently been convicted of 7 felonies related to his (dis)service as a US Senator. Not only was he allowed to run for re-election (a race which he very nearly won) but he loses none of the significant benefits (insurance, pension etc...) that reward his many years of civil (dis)service.
Let's be fair.
If convicted felon Ted Stevens (who has not yet paid his debt to society) is not prohibited to attempt a return to the US Senate, why should Michael Vick (who is currently paying his debt to society) be denied an opportunity to return to the NFL?
Does Mr Vick Belong back in the NFL? Under no set of circumstances does he belong in the NFL. Mr Vick participated in a Vile and illegal form of Sports Betting. This man profited off of the death of animals he forced to kill each other.
While I also believe that Former Senator Stevens does not belong back in Washington. I do believe that the comparison is both ridiculous and without base.
Dr Benjamin, you are literally comparing apples to hand grenades here. You could just as easily compare Mr Vick to Ted Bundy, again a completely ridiculous and baseless comparison, but it is about the same as the one you made.
The underlying issue here is morals, should we allow as a society the veneration of people who violate the most basic of our moral values? Is there any action less detestable than torturing and killing for pleasure? I would think not, perhaps the only thing that comes close is a baseless defense of a person who would do such things.
Reply to this