Dogfighting Is Still Wrong

It takes a relatively momentous occurrence in the sports world to draw me from my Salinger-like seclusion and offer my sought-after opinions once again. Well, yesterday, such an occurrence happened, as Michael Vick signed with the Philadelphia Eagles. My colleague K.L. has already commented on it, and while he (K.L., not Michael Vick) is a Red Sox-hater who tries to bait me into posting in order to disagree with him, in this case, we are actually in agreement.

But there's one more element to this I want to single out. If I could summarize the argument I hear from those who feel the media and fans have treated Vick unfairly, it would be this:

"People need to lay off Michael Vick. Do you know how many professional athletes are beating their wives, on drugs, neglecting child support, involved in the deaths of actual people, etc.? Why, of all people, did we choose this guy to crucify?"

That's a valid point, but I don't think it means Michael Vick doesn't deserve what he gets from indignant fans. Coincidentally, we have a timely counterpoint to Vick to consider: Donte Stallworth, who, after getting a light sentence for killing a man while driving drunk, has been suspended by th NFL for a year. Vick killed dogs, Stallworth killed an actual human being. Aren't those entirely different levels of immorality?

In some ways, but not in all ways. Ultimately, Stallworth's crime was carelessness, not cruelty. It's possible he thought about the possibility of running somebody over and truly didn't care, but it seems more likely that he was just drunk, and high, and not thinking. That still makes him a terrible person who deserves whatever he gets, and it's absolutely true that killing a person is countless degrees of magnitude worse than killing a dog. However, when Vick killed dogs, it was premediated, deliberate, and even systematic--he oversaw an entire organization whose product was animal torture. Killing humans is worse than dogs, but killing intentionally is worse than killing accidentally. Can we really say that it's time to let Michael Vick move on, when I'm sure we'll never do so for Stallworth?

This also factors into the issue of rehabilitation and ultimate reinstatement to the NFL. When Stallworth says he feels remorse, I have an easier time believing it--he acted without considering the consequences, and maybe, hopefully, he'll never do it again. Vick? He tortured and killed dogs over the course of six years. During that time, he had to think about what he was doing, and decide that it wasn't a problem for him. If he didn't feel remorse over those six years, it's hard not to believe that the only reason he tells us he feels it now is because we made him go to prison, and he'd like to play football again.

In the end, we don't really have to choose--we can direct righteous anger at both, if we'd like, and have enough left over for all of the other reprobates who can sometimes sour our sports leagues. You can say that Michael Vick isn't the worst among them, and I don't think I could argue with you. However, we can't forger that Vick showed an inhuman level of cruelty for an extended period of time--and the fact that it wasn't directed at humans doesn't mean it's time to let him off the hook.