Is Michael Vick the Devil?

I'm not quite certain that I understand, so maybe you can help me out.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but it was my understanding that the point of incarceration was to remove a criminal from society, thus providing the opportunity for one to reflect on the crimes perpetrated (and as punishment for said actions).

Again, correct me if I'm wrong -- but this is what happened with Michael Vick. He committed an admittedly HEINOUS crime and served 2 years as punishment, in addition to the hundreds of millions in lost salary & endorsements. He had to file for bankruptcy protection as his liquid assets were quickly wiped out. He missed valuable time with his young children, even missing the birth of his youngest daughter. He must live daily with the fact that he allowed something unconscionable to happen on his watch, nearly losing everything that he had in the process. So why was this not enough?

The man hasn't played in the NFL in 3 years but there are some who feel that this is not punishment enough. When the Eagles announced yesterday that they'd signed him, the reaction was so mixed... some immediately sold their season tix online, while some were frothing at the mouth just thinking about the offensive nightmare the Birds could become.

There are some that will never give him a chance to prove that he's learned from his mistakes and that he can become an example for others. The man isn't even 30 years old -- he has PLENTY of time to make things right. Speaking of making things right, I'm further confused by the fact that Donte Stallworth did not generate a fraction of the outrage expressed toward Michael Vick. Let's look at the "tale of the tape" shall we?

Michael Vick
Crime: Financing a vicious dogfighting ring, conducted at a residence that he owned.

Punishment: Two year jail sentence & concurrent NFL suspension, expected to extend into October. Not allowed to own dogs anymore.

Public Reaction: Extreme outrage, to the extent that some would have him killed in the same manner as the dogs.

Donte Stallworth
Crime: Got high & drunk while out partying one night. Drove his luxury car down a busy street and plowed into a motorist, killing him.

Punishment: Thirty day jail sentence & 1 year NFL suspension. Never allowed to drive again. Also made settlement with family as part of his plea.

Public Reaction: Has there been any? This got nowhere near the airtime & scrutiny that Vick got the day the Eagles signed him, let alone since the incident first happened.

And don't even get me started on Rick Pitino...

Sure, the public reacted to Stallworth -- but can anyone in their right mind say that it even compares to Vick? Vick's actions led to the deaths of scores of dogs, while Stallworth got high/drunk and killed a human being. Unless we're giving Stallworth a pass for being inebriated, I just don't get it. Human beings will always come before dogs on my hierarchy, no matter how you slice it. Who would you rather your daughter bring home: a dogfighter or a serial rapist? Again, I'm not saying that it's okay, but I feel like it needs to be put into perspective a bit. Dogfighting is cruel, but deer hunting for sport is even worse in my opinion. Killing those innocent animals just to put a new head on your wall? I guess killing is perfectly moral when you have a license for it.

I'm not saying that Vick is an angel -- I know he screwed up BIG TIME and committed a DEPLORABLE act... but much like a man who has cheated on his wife, he is asking for a second chance. He has paid his debt to society and is looking to become a productive member again. I just ask that we give the man a chance to make good on his promise. Now if he pulls an Adam "Pacman" Jones and relapses by even so much LOOKING at a dog twice, we can revisit this topic... At that point, I can assure you that my post would be short & sweet:

THROW THE FUCKING BOOK AT HIM.

Guilty Until Proven Guilty

Why is it that someone can be found not guilty of a serious crime, but can never remove the stigma associated with the accusation? Michael got off -- not once, but twice -- on criminal child molestation charges. Charges against Kobe were quickly dismissed. R. Kelly has yet to be convicted of statuatory rape. Our legal system seems to work just fine... but our collective brain seems to be stuck on stupid.

Michael Jackson is guilty of only one thing: loving people too much and putting himself in a silly predicament more than once. Some argue that he must have been guilty, since he settled out of court -- which would be the wrong train of thought.

What people fail to realize is that the boy's family initially suggested settlement. They said that they would cease the pursuit of their civil suit if he would fork over the money. Not wanting to be subjected to continued ridicule and scrutiny, MJ decided to pay up. He negotiated the family down and settled out of court -- but not before the multitude of reports that he had been accused (or in our society, found guilty) of inappropriate behavior. Little do folks know, it was later found that there was not enough evidence to go forward with the criminal case and it was dropped.

The second time around, MJ decided to fight the charges in court -- and the jury found him not guilty. Now, I'm not sure if it was because he'd already been in trouble for it once (and didn't learn his lesson about letting the children be around him in that setting), but folks just couldn't seem to understand that a verdict of NOT GUILTY means that there wasn't suffficient evidence to suggest that the charges brought against the man were valid... so why is it that he was referred to constantly as a child molester? Because we don't know how to separate accusations from the truth.

At one point, Kobe Bryant's lawyer argued that "using the word 'victim' constitutes a kind of prejudicial communication that could taint the process" (ed. note: SO true). Makes sense when you consider that although the charges were dropped, that didn't stop people from calling Kobe a rapist & despising his very existence. You don't have to like him, but why are so many still holding something against him that was not proven to be true?

R. Kelly may never get a fair shake, on account of the type of music that he normally performs. He has proven himself as a singer-songwriter, responsible for many huge hits -- including "Fortunate" (Maxwell) and "You Are Not Alone" (Michael Jackson). Neverthelesss, he also had a penchant for freakier fare -- which is why it was so feasible that he might have committed statuatory rape. At one point, there was a video floating around that was purported to feature him bathing the young lady in a "golden shower." As of yet, he has not been convicted... but will that stop folks from calling him a rapist until proven otherwise? Highly doubtful.

When does it stop? What happened to the presumption of innocence? I was pretty sure that it was how we did things here in the US. For example: An Idaho man named Charles Fain was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting & murdering a 9 year-old. After spending 18 years on Death Row, DNA evidence was tested -- proving that he was in fact not the perpetrator. This man was incorrectly placed on DEATH ROW, but proven to be innocent. Are there those that will think twice about walking near this man or having him around their children? You bet. Wanna know why? Because we're allergic to the facts.

Maybe one day we'll get over this prevailing mentality... but I have a feeling that the healing won't begin until the media stops plastering biased information everywhere. Tupac & Roman Polanski were actually CONVICTED of violent crimes -- but they still sold plenty of records & won an Oscar, respectively. Backwards, huh?

If we went back to the days when the media served only the purpose of disseminating information (rather than spreading one-sided opinion pieces), then maybe -- just MAYBE -- people would have a decent chance of shaking accusations... especially AFTER being found NOT GUILTY.

< /rant >