Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Does the Fine Fit the Crime?

I was reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on EPSN and I'm baffled at the lack of overall quality in this article and will probably never read TMQ again. Besides the fact that the article was close to unreadable, I couldn't believe what Greg Easterbrook wrote about the whole Vick situation, comparing killing dogs to what happens in the food service industry. I won't quibble about methods of killing. Killing is not a good outcome and there is no "nice" way to do it. It comes down to WHY are you doing it. Vick killed the dogs because he wanted to. Because he could.

But I must address Easterbrook's STUPID positions on the extent of Vick's punishment. So Vick is a "first-time offender"? He's been doing this for years. At least 7 years and reports, even from his Dad, say it dates back to his early teenage years. This may be the first time he was caught, but not the first time he committed the offense.

Secondly, I am not crying for Vick's loss of $75M in salary, bonuses and endorsement income. He only lost so much because he was MAKING so much. The deal is, if you go to jail, you lose your income during that time. I'm quite sure that Arthur Blank, Nike or anyone else who gave Vick boatloads of money would have done so if they knew about these criminal and utterly reprehensible activities. The whole thing about the dollars involved is relative. If Vick was an "average joe" making $50K a year, he wouldn't have lost so much in raw dollars -- although it might have had a greater impact on his life. And there are other white-collar criminals who have "lost" much more than Vick in potential income because they made more. Thats' how it goes. That's why money isn't factored into sentencing.

No comments: