The New Republic

Vick didn't just serve 21 months in jail, he also lost millions of dollars.

- scrubby

July 25, 2009 at 4:40pm

Frankly, dog fighting is a disgusting, despicable activity.  I don't care if it's legal in other countries or has been condoned throughout the ages - it is cruel, and most importantly, exhibits an utter disregard for the suffering of a living animal.  My hamburger was treated more humanely.

Granted, football and boxing are violent, but they are also VOLUNTARY activities.  In modern times, they RARELY result in death.  Fighting dogs do no fight voluntarily, and their fights often result in death.  Professional athletes are pampered - fighting dogs live a miserable existence.  Enough with the relativism.  

Vick may be one hell of a football player, but as a human being he is a piece of shit.  As a professional athlete, he is a role model to many.  For that reason alone he should be held to a higher moral standard than most.  Of course, his participation in dog fighting doesn't qualify as a higher standard.  It's a pretty low standard he violated, one millions upon millions of Americans manage to hold themselves above every day.  If the NFL is serious about their morality clause, they won't allow Vick to return.

As an aside - you could have made a much more effective case for Vick by focusing on some of the other NFL players who have had questionable actions off the field but were slapped on the wrist.  Pacman Jones?  Ray Lewis?  C'mon Judis, I expect more out of TNR than half-baked arguments like the one you just posted.

- bcbaird

July 25, 2009 at 5:28pm

Vick gets to play under one condition: he's a kick returner, the only position he's suited to play.

- rozenson

July 25, 2009 at 5:50pm

Great ceaser's ghost, mr. judis, you are some piece of work. Didn't vick literally hang one of his dogs, after it was used up?  Hell, i understand he killed them in many different ways, including strangulation, electrocution, etc. As far as football and boxing, think free will. Look it up.

Anyway, i wholeheartedly agree with everything bcbaird said.

- wldctfan142

July 25, 2009 at 8:06pm

Leonard Little drove drunk and killed someone, did he not?  He got to play.  If precedent is going to be your standard it's hard to justify keeping Vick banned, scumbag though he may be.

- cspencef

July 25, 2009 at 8:13pm

It seems to me the more obvious argument is that Vick has "done his time."  By any reasonable standard of social justice, he's paid his debt to society, and ought to be given the opportunity to use his talents to better himself.  That doesn't mean his actions weren't reprehensible - they manifestly were.  But the past tense is important here.  He transgressed, was tried, found guilty and punished.  What better role model than a man who screwed up, took his medicine, and came back to work hard and succeed?

- sdemuth

July 25, 2009 at 8:16pm

I assume this is intended to drag our fevered minds off great affairs of state for a moment.  Sports has become barely distinguishable from other forms of popular entertainment these days.  It seems that if you are going to become a multi-millionaire entertainer, of whatever sort, you are expected to behave badly.  Some, mainly in sports, resist this model; others try their best to fit the model better than any of their peers.  The mis-behaviors of athletes tend to fall on the milder side of the spectrum: how could Terrell Owens hope to compare with Michael Jackson?

The utterly colorless Goodell will make a purely commercial decision.  We, the fans, will undoubtedly be polled and/or focus grouped to death. My guess is that he will play.  I look forward to endless interviews in which he apologizes......................with a swagger.  Is this the final, too-repulsive, outcome that will force me to turn off my TV and skip the NFL season?  Nah!  I'm a wuss.  I'll take out my moral frustrations on baseball and basketball.

- lsernoff

July 25, 2009 at 9:05pm

Disclaimer [of sorts]:

I suspect JJ is being ironic above. The post is written in the sort of hyperbolic, declamatory manner an ironist would employ to skewer those who might write something like this in a literal frame of mind.

To wit:

Rape and slavery on the second tier?  

I just can't believe JJ actually believes this verbatim. For any number of adults and children who have been raped or enslaved, I'm sure it was a fate worse than death. Or how about the thousands girls who were kidnapped and forced to be sex slaves?  Are they in the 1.5 tier?

But, okay, maybe he does actually believe the crap above. Or, if not, for those who do believe it, I say this:

jj:

"I don’t condone breeding dogs to kill each other......"

george:

Uh oh.

This is the sort of preamble you hear a lot in Washington.

Here are some other things not condoned [officially, as it were] in Washington:

shredding the Constitution

corruption

lying

breaking campaign promises

kowtowing to special interests

co-opting the media

selling votes to the highest bidder

nepotism

junkets

revolving doors

As for this:

JJ:

I’m not in favor of cock-fighting either. But these activities are still legal in other countries and have been practiced for centuries, even by such luminaries as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As crimes, I’d put them in a third tier – with acts that are morally reprehensible but that don’t threaten the basic social order.

george:

Don't expect a Christmas card this year from PETA.

Also, the things I noted above are not only condoned in Washington, for many they are often embraced. But embraced or condoned [or a combination of both], they don't "threaten the basic order" of things either, right?

In fact, in many crucial respects, they ARE the basic order of things in Washington. These venal, corrupt bastards should have been in the cell next to Vick.

george walton

- iambiguous

July 25, 2009 at 10:15pm

What sdmeuth said.  The point isn't that animal cruelty's really not that bad (which is sort of what Judis's argument sounded like), but that it *is* that bad and Vick paid a very hefty price for his actions (unlike, say, Leonard Little, who got 90 days for a DUI manslaughter conviction).  I don't hear any complaints about Vick's co-defendants trying to resume their professional lives (if they are trying to do that; I don't know because only the famous one gets talked about).

That said, I probably wouldn't sign Vick if I were an NFL GM, simply because all the he's been out of football for 2 years and was never a good passer to begin with.  The upside's not big enough to deal with the possible negative reactions and media circus.

- AlanSP

July 25, 2009 at 10:17pm

um...where I live such things are pretty common, and considering the mangy curs that roam the streets I am not as sympathetic about them, they ain't a bunch of lassies that is for damn sure. I guess I am with Judis, in large parts of the world people eat dogs, so in the US people go overboard as to dogs. In many parts of the third world children are kidnapped, or bought, have their legs broken and reset as to cripple them and then the children are set out on streets to beg.  Thank God such things like that are not in Mexico, even in the most poor region (where I live). I generally reserve real ire to the people who would do that to children, and frankly do not care about dog fighting or bull fighting, or what have you. I have a feeling if most Americans killed the animals they ate, they would feel they would not get so worked up. I am not knocking bcbaird or wildcatfan, I actually admire your convictions, my life experience has led me to feel indifferent. I can not tell you how many times these mangy disease ridden rat dogs have chased me when I ride my bike, or how many I see by the side of the road after getting splattered.

- blackton

July 25, 2009 at 10:27pm

Well put, Blackton. If some NFL player went to Korea and ate a couple dogs, would we ban him too? Come to think of it could we ban Palin from politics for shooting wolves? The moral distinction between hanging a dog and shooting a wolf escapes me.

- WillPastor

July 25, 2009 at 11:19pm

I also agree that Vick should be allowed the opportunity to resume his career although I find what he did to be as bad or worse than the acts that Little or perhaps Donte Stallworth may have done.  While the latter two's actions were certainly appalling, I doubt they set out with the intent to destroy life before committing their crimes.  Vick, however, displayed quite a particularly sick brand of narcissism by not only engaging in, but spending huge sums of money creating and sustaining an illegal operation that revolved around a premeditated systematic cruelty to animals.  All the millions of dollars this guy made playing football and that was one of his major investments?  It's no wonder the loser is bankrupt financially as well as morally.  

Regardless, he's done his time.  The sad part is there's plenty more highly paid athletes that are every bit as bad as Vick that just haven't been exposed in such a big way.  Nearly every NFL player I've ever encountered has almost always been either a total fraud or a complete jerk.  Most NFL locker rooms already have a dozen or more players as bad or worse than Vick already.  What's one more?  Many team owners will steer clear of the guy simply because they fear any potential backlash from the local community.  But hey, there's always an Al Davis to embrace someone of Vick's character.  Perhaps Clinton Portis might start lobbying Dan Snyder to allow Vick to join the Redskins, seeing how Portis didn't see anything wrong with what Vick had done to begin with.  All the evidence anyone needs to determine the NFL shouldn't stand in Vick's way.  The NFL deserves Vick.  Heck, it probably deserves Rae Carruth as well.  

- fultimr

July 25, 2009 at 11:57pm

"Nearly every NFL player I've ever encountered has almost always been either a total fraud or a complete jerk."

Do you work in a profession where you encounter a lot of NFL players?

- AlanSP

July 26, 2009 at 12:48am

Well, I don't care all that much about dogs.  I like dogs, but I don't fool myself that they are capable of returning the sentiment.  There's an argument that animal cruelty is a crime against the animal -- a fellow creature that has got feelings and so forth perhaps not totally unlike our own.  On the other hand, we tend to anthropomorphize animals, and care mostly about the ones which are adept at simulating affection for us and/or look sad or cute.  (Indeed, some breeds of dogs were designed to look sad and cute.  The secret is big eyes, which is also the secret of Pixar's success.  We humans are pretty easy.)

None of that strikes me as the point.  First of all, it's a crime.  Even if it's a stupid crime -- and it's not, on which more in a minute -- Vick was guilty and went to prison for a period.  One's prison record can be a relevant employment factor.  You could argue that it's not in this case.  He's a football player, so, you might say, the only relevant factor is his ability as such.  But nobody really thinks that.  There are, of course, limits.  Judis's limit is rape, murder, and armed robbery.  Why?  (And why *armed* robbery?)  It's a question of what kind of organization you want to have.  In an age when professional sports seems to be increasingly populated by thugs (football) and cheaters (baseball), the question is a legitimate one, and there's no principle that says that football has got to field thugs because they can play.  Similarly, Warner Bros. has no duty to make a Mel Gibson movie.  (But he can act!  Should his poor life be over because he's an antisemitic shit?)  Making an obscenely lucrative career out of your athletic ability is nobody's right, and if the NFL gods decide that their asshole tolerance is a bit lower than Judis's, that *is* their right, so long as they stick to it for everybody.  Vick isn't an expert widget maker.  Sports, like Hollywood, is entertainment.  It's also, dare I say, entertainment for kids, and there's nothing wrong in those circumstances with trying to run a moderately wholesome outfit.  A presumption against ex-cons is hardly outrageous.

So, what is so wrong with dog fighting?  It's uncivilized and depraved.  The crime isn't killing and eating an animal, of course.  The crime is *cruelty* and *getting off on it*.  A man who enjoys that, well, his moral compass isn't pointing north.  It does not, I think it's fair to say, reflect well upon his character.  Oh, Thomas Jefferson enjoyed dog fights, you say?  He also enjoyed slaves.  I like Jefferson, but we don't judge one another by 240-year-old standards, just as we don't judge historical figures by the standards of today.

As for all this claptrap about how football is also uncivilized, gimme a break.  It may be possible to imagine a society more civilized than our own that did not tolerate football, but we don't live in that society.  We judge social transgressions according to the standards of the society we live in and not a made-up future society that would find men in helmets and protective gear tackling each other to be a morally grotesque spectacle.  It's not as though Vick didn't know better.  We list some of the more icky social transgressions in our penal codes.  Yes, football is somewhat more dangerous than sharing the road with professional athletes, but many jobs entail risk of life and limb.  Most don't pay spectacularly well.

And here's where I really get riled.  Vick is not a freakin' "serf"!  I have no idea what notion of social justice compels Judis to take up the cause of an absurdly overpaid child who likes to watch things die, but whatever notion that might be, it strikes me as perverse.

- jhildner

July 26, 2009 at 1:07am

jhildner,

you're certainly right about people being suckers for big, cartoonish eyes; the population of white tailed deer is burgeoning without their natural predators, but most Americans have no stomach for letting the herds be culled in their neighborhoods where deer cause car accidents, spread Lyme disease (indirectly),destroy regenerative forest growth, and occasionally attack people.

willpastor,

you fail to see the moral distinction between shooting a wolf and hanging a dog-----after torturing it and forcing it to fight?  I'm not wild about the recreational shooting of wolves (from a helicopter!) either, but the rationale exists that wolves are dangerous predators.  Thinning the wolf population makes economic sense for farmers whose animals are attacked.  Clearing an area of wolves also makes it safer for hikers, campers,  hunters, and tourists who visit Alaska to enjoy the outdoors.  These reasons have kept wolf hunting legal.  You'll notice that dog fighting is illegal and has NO justification.  The spectators are enjoying cruelty for it's own sake.  Another crucial difference:  the amount of pain involved.  For those who would argue that we don't really know how painful these two experiences are relative to each other I propose the following thought experiment.  You get to choose your form of execution, being shot, or being thrown to angry, hungry dogs. So, what will it be?

- kerFuFFler

July 26, 2009 at 9:38am

So Judis doesn't "condone" dog fighting or animal cruelty; he's just not against it. Similarly, I don't condone mobs ransacking the offices of magazines they disagree with; I just recognize that mob ransacking is a third-tier crime, not at all like murder, rape, or slavery -- and besides, mob ransacking of the press has long roots in American history and is still practiced with some regularity elsewhere in the world.

I tend to take an opposing course to reach much the same practical conclusion as Judis; the important difference being that my reasoning does not require me to apologize for brutality, cruelty, criminality, cowardice, and barbarism. I treat all crime as a black box, or very nearly. The only question I believe is legitimate to ask about the nature of a crime committed by a person who has served his sentence is whether the crime is directly applicable to the job he is seeking to do. So a person convicted of fraud may legitimately be excluded from, say, the accounting profession for the rest of his life. Does animal cruelty directly related to an NFL career? I'd say no, except as far as the illegal gambling aspect of it goes.

That question having been resolved, it ceases to be legitimate to care what crime a person committed. The only remaining legitimate question is whether the person has served his sentence. If his crime does not directly compromise his ability to perform the tasks of his job, and if he has served his sentence, then his criminal record should not prevent his employment. So if Vick had been convicted of armed robbery or sexual assault and had served his sentence, then I'd still say the NFL has no business preventing his return to employment as a player.

As a practical matter, I can't believe that there is any NFL team that is both desperate enough to hire Vick but also good enough that hiring Vick will make the difference between going to the playoffs or not. Much better for all involved for Vick to put in a season or two in the CFL and prove that he can still play and can also manage to avoid committing organized conspiracies of felony crime in his personal time.

- rhubarbs

July 26, 2009 at 10:24am

  Has TNR refused to hire a qualified applicant because of a previous criminal conviction when the prospective employee had served the sentence? Sure, a day care center would have more than reasonable cause to refuse a convicted child abuser a job. But, what are the grounds that would justify a magazine, a car dealer or sports team for refusing to employ an ex-con? It's clear to most people why professions ban, suspend or limit a person based on criminal or moral grounds. Yes, it's different for physicians, truck drivers or teachers.

  Historically, sport has been more disturbed by athletes who gamble than by those who enhanced their performance with illegal substances. But if Vick's case becomes precedent by the league rather than owners who don't want the wrath of their fans? In the future, any non-sport related criminal conviction would slam the door on any athlete who did time.

  Little of the debate on this topic speaks to Vick's crime as it relates to his profession. I don't think the NFL should have lower standards than the AMA but the league will establish a new standard if they ban Vick. I doubt his harshest critics can cite how The Vick Rule will be used in the future but it will be broader than abusing animals, at least when the next ex-con is also not popular.

.

- michael

July 26, 2009 at 1:00pm

Good discussion on this thread, solid arguments, pro and con. I'm wondering though--assuming you're a fan and have a team you follow: How will you react if your team signs Vick? I follow two: the ‘Skins, my home team, and the Broncos, in exile out here on the far western edge of the greatamericandesert.

Here’s how I will react: If they sign Vick, I will shun them. I have two dogs and two cats, and what Vick did touched a nerve, regardless of the magnitude of his crimes in comparison to others. And I’m not a moral guardian, Mr.Judis.

I suspect I’m not alone. Rational or not, fair or unfair, I will shun them.

- cvillekid

July 26, 2009 at 2:59pm

Good question, cville. I don't have a football team I care enough about anymore that this is an issue. (Personally, I hope the Redskins sign Vick if he is allowed to play. Because I already hate the Redskins with the burning heat of a thousand suns, and also because I'm convinced that Vick will hurt the performance of any team that signs him.) But the Nats have signed a couple of reclamation-project players not too far removed from Vick -- the one thing that pisses me off more than animal cruelty is a man who strikes a woman, and the Nats have signed two accused domestic abusers -- and rather than shunning the Nats, my reaction has been to cheer on the players seeking the good ol' redemptive second chance. Not so much cheering them on the field, but hoping that they straighten their lives out and put their bad behavior behind them. That's probably how I'd react if a team I cared for signed Vick.

- rhubarbs

July 26, 2009 at 4:03pm

After having slept on the issue (literally in that i posted my first response last night) i take blacton's point about different cultures. I'll also concede to some other opinions that vick has already been punished in money and time served.

I came at this from the point of view of a life-long dog lover. I, as i'm sure others here, have had to put down and bury several of my dogs in my lifetime, and i can tell you without exception, its a very painful time. No, its not the same as losing a family member or close human friend, but for me there are similarities. It hurts like hell.

Anyway, since i think that everyone deserves a second chance, then OK let him play if any team will sign him. It would comfort me to know there was some kind of clause in the contract, sure to be enforced if vick steps out of line again.

- wldctfan142

July 26, 2009 at 6:10pm

AlanSP

I've met only one NFL player in my current occupation due to the fact that the Milwaukee metropolitan area only has MLB and NBA teams.  The lone NFL player I've met on this job had once made it very public that he would refuse to meet then-President Clinton due to his disapproval of Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky affair.  A year later, the guy gets caught in the bathroom of a nearby neighbor's house with a 17 year old girl in the midst of a high school party.  I'd encountered the guy, and many other NFL players prior to 1994 before the Packers stopped playing any games here, previous to that while working as a bouncer in various establishments, so I wasn't as surprised as others that he was a complete fraud.  I have met several MLB and NBA players the last few years and while not all of them are perfect role models by any stretch, an overwhelming majority of them have the common decency to be civil at the very least in their dealings with me and ask nothing more than to be treated the same.

I can't say the same for the NFL players that I've met.  Some might think Judas may have gone over the top with his comments on the brutal nature of football, but I don't think he's all that far off after witnessing how so many NFL players conducted themselves in seemingly perpetual fits of confrontational, thuggish mannerisms.  It could be "roid rage", resentment that their contracts aren't guaranteed like those in the NBA or MLB, or perhaps a combination of both and other factors mixed in.  But after extensive experience with all three, I trust the NFL player the least in situations that call for cooler heads to prevail.  I've seen some literally throw tantrums upon hearing that they have to follow the the same rules as everyone else.  I suspect it's because they don't feel they should have to respect everyone else, or anyone else for that matter.  

That's why I say Vick shouldn't be banned from having the opportunity to play.  There's plenty of players with just as little or less character than him in that league.      

- fultimr

July 26, 2009 at 9:58pm

People don't hunt because they want to protect hikers or prevent Lyme disease. People hunt becaues they want the pleasure of stalking and killing wildlife (or if they don't get a good shot off, wounding or crippling wildlife). Sometimes hunting has positive effects, but those have to be weighed against people getting gunned down in their backyards by careless hunters. At any rate, we consider it a good thing when our politicians engage in The Preferred Blood Sport of White People, but we jail people for engaging in dog fighting. Yes, dog fighting is somewhat worse, I'd certainly rather be shot than ripped apart, but it's just not that different. Vick has been punished more than enough.

And for the record, Leonard LIttle was arrested a second time for drunk driving in 2004. He beat the charge but was probably guilty. What sort of person continues to drive intoxicated, hell, continues to drink at all, after killing someone in a drunk driving accident? This guy is far worse than Vick.

- WillPastor

July 26, 2009 at 11:40pm

Gee, Rhubs, you hate the 'skins? Do you hate mom and apple pie, too? That's the worst thing you've ever said, and worse even than dog fighting itself.

Now, if you hated the cowboys or whatever it is they call that band of brigands out of big D, that would be rational.

- scrubby

July 27, 2009 at 5:57am

This business of putting violent and coercive crimes in tiers is ridiculous, and I'm very disappointed that Mr. Judis's need for professional football to have another quarterback has made it do easy for him to be so callous when it comes to this subject.  I wonder if Mr. Judis would find it so easy to make tiers for crimes if he had direct experience working with rape victims or victims of child slavery.  

And that he would make up these tiers in defense of a man who makes millions of dollars doing NOTHING of any social value is more than a little appalling. And now matter how much we romanticize and mythologize professional sports, they really don't contribute anything anymore to our society.  Not even regional or national morale.  Those days are long gone.

Mr. Judis, why would you even waste a passionate defense on professional sports?

I totally agree with those who mention that getting your brains beaten in on the gridiron is a personal choice.  Those dogs that Michael Vick sent to their grisly deaths had absolutely no choice.  I'm usually not into making statements through jurisprudence, but I would love to see Vick banned from professional sports to send a message that profiting from the misery of creatures who cannot say "no" is unacceptable.

Allowing cock-fighting and dog-fighting sends a message that it's okay to make creatures who cannot inherently give consent  perform injurious acts .  And let's examine the countries that allow cock-fighting then examine how women are treated in those countries.  Perhaps Mr. Judis would ike to do a study on that topic and see how easy it is then to work with his tiers.

But lets stretch this point a little... What about people?  

So what's wrong, then, with making children to whatever you want?   What about women?  These demographics have been victimized because, like the dogs or cocks, they cannot effectively fight back or have been coerced.  So what's wrong with making children fight each other?  What tier would that crime be in?

And to argue that cock-fighting is not a comparative outrage because the founding fathers did it?  

Michael Vick needs to be made an example of in the good old-fashioned Puritan tradition.  And Mr. Judis needs to take a breath and ask himself why he would write an impassioned defense of someone who's not contributing anything to society of lasting value.  Perhaps he needs to passionately defend something of inherent social worth.

- shaw-man

July 27, 2009 at 1:31pm

blackton, et al:  Maybe if people took care of these dogs they would not be so "mangy" and they would not chase you.  Again, dogs cannot give consent, so to make them fight is indefensible, no matter where in the world it happens.  And when it comes to agriculture animals raised and killed for meat is not the same as animals fighting each other, so the argument that if Americans killed what they ate they'd not "get as worked up" is a little disingenuous.

The annoyance of "rat dogs" does not justify their torture, not matter how much tread you've worn out outrunning them.  Maybe if they were properly cared for and not allowed to breed there wouldn't be that problem.  Again, it's a human failing that you're chased by rat dogs.

And to Mr. Judis and his adherents on this issue: Cultural norms do not make something morally right.  Eugenics was perfectly normative (and legal)  in the early twentieth century, does it make it right?  

Even the Supreme Court has ruled that cultural norms do not justify immoral, harmful, or disruptive behavior, and I would agree.  

Be very careful using the cultural norm argument to make something defensible.  Because you can use that argument to condone what even Mr. Judis would consider a first-tier crime.  Because a culture has practiced it for a long time does not make it morally defensible.

- shaw-man

July 27, 2009 at 1:43pm

Judas writes:

"If Vick had committed murder or rape, I would certainly ban him from the NFL, but then it wouldn’t be necessary because he would be in jail for the duration of his professional life."

How naive to think that if Vick had raped someone he would serve a lengthy sentence.  The truth is that most people who commit rape are never jailed.  And when they are, the sentences may not be that long at all.  Perhaps this is because rape is considered by many to be a "second tier" crime?  

- kelleyjean

July 27, 2009 at 4:50pm