The Mike Vick case... am I a life nit?

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't poach deer or commit violent acts against people, so I think I'm in the clear, but thanks for the heads-up.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't just accept things because "it's the law." Your example makes no sense, so I don't just blindly accept it. I think violent people should get more jail time than deer poachers, and if the law is set up that way, it's stupid and should be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

No...what you are saying is that since you disagree with the law he shouldn't be punished at all because crimes that YOU think are more heinous weren't punished as severely.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you on whether or not YOU think the crime he committed is worse than any other crime on the planet. He is being sentenced according to the guidelines laid down for the laws he broke, period. Get over it. These are things he should have considered when he decided to act like a gigantic piece of [censored]. You ARE in the minority. This is a democracy and our laws tend to reflect the overall values of the voting population, which this law most assuredly does. He's lucky i'm not the judge because I'd throw the book at him.

As for your comment on the bank thing. It's quite common for the feds to only charge you with one crime and try you on that one. I'm not a lawyer but I believe other items can be brought in at sentencing that can swing sentencing from the minimum to the maximum. Extenuating circumstances, aggravation, etc. Kind of the reason that sometimes they try a known serial killer with one crime and get the death penalty for that one crime and never try him for the others. See how that works?

[dibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
He is being sentenced according to the guidelines laid down for the laws he broke, period. Get over it. These are things he should have considered when he decided to act like a gigantic piece of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, and yea lots of NFL players get off easy, but is it really so hard to grasp/terrible that a very high profile player is made an example of?

Yea, many players do some terrible things, but Vick organized and funded an ongoing animal torture ring and seemed to be so cocky to think he was going to get away with it. You really don't think the NFL should use him as an example that their players can't get away with whatever the hell they want?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
No...you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] you.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

I just remembered something I heard once, which is that dogs dont feel any pain when they are fighting because their adrenaline is so high.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
I just remembered something I heard once, which is that dogs dont feel any pain when they are fighting because their adrenaline is so high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't watched ANY of the dog-fighting footage, but just from reading about some of it in this thread was sickened. Thank you for adding this. I think I'll sleep better believing it's a true fact.
Drew's arguments make sense in this thread. I think it's a good thing to ask questions about what we value as a civilized society, but it's very, very difficult to find common ground on qualitative, subjective matters that involve emotions. Sometimes legal guidelines are a good thing.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not suggesting life sentence. something like 2-3 years and maybe ban from NFL for 7-8 years.

does anyone think this is unreasonable ??

[/ QUOTE ]

The federal sentence of between 1-3 years sounds about right.

An NFL ban of 7-8 years would be absurd. The commish will either sit by with no ban during the jailtime and evaluate afterwards, and then ban for a year....or possibly ban for the length of sentence + year.

Just my guess.

And for those folks thinking Vick will have it rough in prison, keep in mind that Federal prisons, while no cakewalk, are much, much different than State Pens.

And you don't get max treatment for a 18 month stint for interstate violations. He'll probably do his time in a minimum Federal lockup, most likely one without even a chain link fence around it, with a bunch of old men in on white collar clips. His options for exercise will include golf, and SI will probably write a huge expose on it decrying it as ridiculous.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't poach deer or commit violent acts against people, so I think I'm in the clear, but thanks for the heads-up.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't just accept things because "it's the law." Your example makes no sense, so I don't just blindly accept it. I think violent people should get more jail time than deer poachers, and if the law is set up that way, it's stupid and should be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

No...what you are saying is that since you disagree with the law he shouldn't be punished at all because crimes that YOU think are more heinous weren't punished as severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he should get jail time for two reasons:

1. He killed dogs, not people, and IMO, dogs <<< people.

2. People who commit crimes against people are not being punished as severely.

As far as "getting over it," I'm not losing any sleep over it. This is a discussion for which I have no emotional investment.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your comment on the bank thing. It's quite common for the feds to only charge you with one crime and try you on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, so good.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a lawyer but I believe other items can be brought in at sentencing that can swing sentencing from the minimum to the maximum. Extenuating circumstances, aggravation, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're changing the argument. At sentencing, yes, evidence of other bad acts is admissible at relevant. Not at trial.

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of the reason that sometimes they try a known serial killer with one crime and get the death penalty for that one crime and never try him for the others. See how that works?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason they don't need to try a serial killer for more than one murder is that you only need one murder for the death penalty. Evidence of the other murders is not admissible at trial as evidence of the charged murder.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and disagree with a lot of points here. what baffles me...I mean REALLY CONFUSES me,

is that what would be a good argument that Vick shouldnt get prison. we can reopen arguments whether we punish people who kill animals same way as humans or whatever.

But what could be the argument in favor of vick not even going to prison. I am not suggesting life sentence. something like 2-3 years and maybe ban from NFL for 7-8 years.

does anyone think this is unreasonable ?? ban for life is too harsh. i am more in favor of 5-8 years. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument against sending Vick to jail is that he's being charged with running a gambling house, which I don't believe should be illegal, and for killing dogs, which I don't believe should carry jail time. They are just dogs, after all. Cuddly and cute, yes, but dogs all the same.

And the fact that human abusers often skate with so little jail time makes it seem additionally silly to jail someone for animal abuse.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. Debated by whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/Zoology/fa...%20article.pdf

http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfar...0pain/Pain.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Fish have pain nerves.

[/ QUOTE ]

if by "pain nerves" you mean nociceptors, perhaps. But, as stated in a link "this means only that these animals are capable of sensing noxious stimuli; it provides no evidence for the psychological experience of pain"

[ QUOTE ]
Animals need them to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Anyway, from wiki on pain:

From these lines of questioning the following groups have been identified;

Most invertebrates — including lobsters, crabs, worms, snails, slugs and clams- reaction to noxious stimulus does occur but no reports of longer term learning from pain — probably don't have the capacity to feel pain.[18]

Insects; possibly don't experience pain. Sometimes no response to noxious stimulus. No sign of longer term avoidance. Possibly do not feel pain.[17]

Cephalopods (octopus, squid); long term withdrawal from possibly painful stimuli observed - possibly do experience pain.[17]

Fish; respond to noxious stimuli - reports of long term learning from noxious stimulus - possibly do experience pain.[19]

Other non-human vertebrates (mammals, birds and reptiles); vocalizations and physiological responses (e.g. the release of stress hormones) are similar to our own when we are in pain, learned long term avoidance from noxious stimulus observed - suggesting these animals do experience pain

[iambusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not suggesting life sentence. something like 2-3 years and maybe ban from NFL for 7-8 years.

does anyone think this is unreasonable ??

[/ QUOTE ]

The federal sentence of between 1-3 years sounds about right.

An NFL ban of 7-8 years would be absurd. The commish will either sit by with no ban during the jailtime and evaluate afterwards, and then ban for a year....or possibly ban for the length of sentence + year.

Just my guess.

And for those folks thinking Vick will have it rough in prison, keep in mind that Federal prisons, while no cakewalk, are much, much different than State Pens.

And you don't get max treatment for a 18 month stint for interstate violations. He'll probably do his time in a minimum Federal lockup, most likely one without even a chain link fence around it, with a bunch of old men in on white collar clips. His options for exercise will include golf, and SI will probably write a huge expose on it decrying it as ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes you are right. a federal prison for 3 years seems appropriate. and federal prisons are WAY better than state prisons. So you michael vick supporters need to chill out.

How can anyone in their right mind think that 2-3 years jailtime for Michael Vick is "unfair" or "unjust". they should have their head examined. !! Vick bought the property with full knowledge what was going to be happening in there. Even if you consider dogs as something below the food chain than humans, you still have to agree that it was a heinous crime !! so like i said, 2-3 years in prison CANT be unjust can it ??

its not like he would be giving up much. he will be out in 3 years and can live out the rest of his life (unlike the dogs that were drowned and electrocuted in his property). so what really is the problem ?