The Vick debate has re-ignited following Vick’s lucrative contract offer from the Eagles. Folks essentially fall neatly into two categories: (1) Vick did his time, let him play and (2) Despite his sentence, Vick has not paid for his sins. I fall into the final category, and I hope this article will illuminate why, as an attorney, rescuer, and lover of pit bulls, I am committed to this opinion.
The Dogs
Michael Vick established Bad Newz Kennel in 2001. For six years he and his cronies committed unspeakable acts of animal cruelty upon the dogs in their care. In 2007, Fifty-four dogs were confiscated from Vick’s property. One dog had to be euthanized because she suffered from serious medical conditions – conditions that Vick did not treat despite the millions of dollars he raked in from his NFL job and the thousands he earned in fighting prizes.
Vicks dogs were beaten, abused, and riddled with issues from dog aggression, to intense fears of humans and new situations, to (in only a single case) human aggression. Mel, for example, used as a bait dog in Vick’s operation, is so terrified of new humans that he convulses in tremors and cowers in fear when strangers approach him. But even Mel has made remarkable progress and he and almost all the other Vick dogs have been adopted into loving families where they live with children, dogs, and cats. They have inspired their caretakers to start dog rescues, foundations that fund rescues, and become breed champions.
Michael Vick’s tale has been called “the ultimate redemption story.” But this is inaccurate. The Vicktory dogs are the ultimate redemption story.
So, I’d like to take a moment up front to say: Vicktory dogs and caretakers, I honor you.
Let’s move on to a more technical discussion.
The Cases:
Michael Vick and his dogs were involved in three separate cases: a federal criminal case, United States v. Peace, Phillips, Taylor & Vick; a state criminal case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Vick; and a civil case concerning the disposition of the dogs, United States v. Approximately 53 Pit Bull Dogs.
Michael Vick was charged with several federal offenses for trafficking dogs for illegal purposes, gambling, and other serious crimes. Vick could have spent decades in prison. Instead, he accepted a plea deal at the federal level, and plead guilty to a single count: Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture. The charge carried a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines, and/or full restitution. Michael Vick received 23 months in prison and served 20 of those months; he currently is on probation.
Michael Vick also was indicted at the state level for violating state animal cruelty and dog fighting laws – all felonies. Vick was charged with four felony animal cruelty charges and faced a maximum of 10 years in prison. He again accepted a plea deal, and plead guilty to dog fighting charges; the state dropped the animal cruelty charges. Vick received a three-year suspended sentence and a $2,500 fine that was also suspended conditioned on his behavior.
Vick’s civil case resulted in an order that he pay for the care of the dogs he abused, with each dog assessed a lifetime fee of $5,000 to $20,000. These fees were used to build suitable living areas for the dogs heading to rescues, and to pay for their medical bills and other care. These fees did not cover all the costs that rescues accumulated – and continue to accumulate – to care for these dogs.
So, Vick, facing a total of 15 years in prison, received two, and escaped charges for the issues that incited outrage in animal lovers around the country: in the eyes of the law, he is not an animal abuser. I have a problem with that.
There were, of course, people who thought Vick’s sentence was too harsh:
Vick is a first time offender. He expressed remorse, publicly apologized, shelled out nearly a million bucks for the upkeep of the impounded animals, and likely won't play another down in the NFL. Vick's life and career is wrecked. The feds and the public have more than gouged their pound of flesh out of him. - Earl Ofari Hutchinson, 2007
It looks like Mr. Hutchinson should eat some (most) of his words. Assuming Mr. Hutchinson’s conclusions are an aggregate of his assumptions concerning Vick’s career and mentality toward his dogs as well as his legal sanctions, if seems Vick has escaped much of the harshness of which the critics speak.
The NFL
This past week, football fans and pit bull fans alike learned that Michael Vick has accepted a $100,000,000 contract to play for the Eagles -- $38,000,000 of which is guaranteed. It may seem unfair that Vick is receiving a tidy paycheck, his past crimes largely forgotten. But it also seems contrary to NFL policy and procedure.
Back when Vick was arrested, the NFL had this to say about his conduct: "The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal … Michael Vick's guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts. The matter will be reviewed." Well now that Vick has been convicted, perhaps the NFL has reviewed the matter and appropriately sanctioned him; it has not.
Perhaps there are no NFL conduct policies that apply to Vick’s personal conduct. But there are.
Under its personal conduct policy, the league can fine or suspend players for criminal activity. In particular,
All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League.
There you go: everyone privileged to work in the NFL. Multi-million dollar athlete salaries are not legal rights, they are privileges. They must be earned and can be taken away. I support second chances – I run a dog rescue after all – and I am liberal enough to support a system that allows convicted criminals to integrate back into society and become contributing members of society. If Vick got out of prison and got a regular job doing something like scrubbing toilets or waiting table I’d be ok with that. But he didn’t. Instead, he’s living a dream millions of talented young men would die to live, and he’s being lauded as a hero for climbing to this position not once, but twice.
But, why? Or better yet, how? I have the questions, but not the answers.
The NFL is generous enough to forego discipline for first-time offenders; however this leniency does not apply where the charges involve “significant bodily harm.” Vick was personally involved in the killing of at least 6-8 pit bulls – how could this not qualify as “significant bodily harm”?
Vick isn’t exactly a first-time offender, either. In 2004 he was lectured by the coach after two men driving his truck were arrested on drug charges. In 2006 he was fined $10,000 – and paid an additional $10,000 to charity – because he flipped off fans after a loss to the Saints. Said Vick of the sanction: “I broke the rules and I have to pay the price.” So if $10,000 is the appropriate price for flipping someone the bird in the NFL, the price for fighting and killing dogs as well as breaking federal gambling and interstate commerce laws is….$0?
NFL policy itself comments on the necessity of appropriately sanctioning players, stating that
For many years, it has been well understood that rules promoting lawful, ethical, and responsible conduct serve the interests of the League, its players, and fans. Illegal or irresponsible conduct does more than simply tarnish the offender. It puts innocent people at risk, sullies the reputation of others involved in the game, and undermines public respect and support for the NFL.
Vick started organizing his kennel in 2001 – the same year he was signed to the NFL. He operated that kennel for 6 years and stopped only because he was caught. Perhaps Vick will not return to the fighting ring now that he’s been caught, but why isn’t 6 years of violent, federal and state violations enough to warrant ejectment from the NFL? Perhaps the NFL thought Vick’s legal sanctions were enough. I disagree. And I say: NFL, I have lost respect for your organization. For an institution that has retained the power to cull players not suitable to represent the league, it seems these powers are rusty from disuse.
Greg Aiello, the NFL’s VP of public relations, added that NFL sanctions and programs to deal with offenders target not only public opinion but also seek to eliminate recidivism. That is, non-legal consequences for bad acts should deter future bad acts.
Most NFL players are good citizens, and some are outstanding citizens, It's a small percentage of the 2,000 players in our league that becomes involved in incidents that do not reflect well on the NFL. We have policies and programs to deal aggressively with those issues, and we will continue to do so. The goal is to eliminate all such negative conduct. That may not be realistic, but that is the goal.
.
I suppose I can’t fault Vick for not resigning and turning down millions of dollars – he is an opportunist for sure. But I can fault to NFL for failing to act on any of its stated policies regarding player personal conduct.
Forgiving Vick
Vick’s partnership with the Humane Society of the United States received much publicity. Perhaps Vick has learned his lesson and is being sincere when he speaks out against dog fighting. But I can’t help noticing the irreconcilable conflicts that exist between his message and his lifestyle: fight dogs and retain public figure status, and millions of dollars in endorsements and contract payments. And I, for one, would not want Vick as the spokesperson for my organization – it’s all just too fishy for me.
I also find it hard to believe that anyone has to be taught that killing dogs and watching dogs tear each other to shreds is wrong, sick, and cruel. I find it shameful and insulting that he tried to blame “black culture” for his descent into immorality. A role model who blames his culture for his own decisions is not a good role model for youngsters from the same culture – giving off the impression that personal decisions are trumped by social inclinations gives off a sense of powerlessness not empowerment.
I find his remorse harder to swallow when I found this quote from him: "It's almost as if everyone wanted to hate me. But what have I done to anybody? It was something that happened, and it was people trying to make some money." I cannot understand why someone making millions would need to further augment his cash flow by fighting dogs. Michael Vick may be black, but he was not living in poverty when he founded Bad Newz Kennels.
I find his remorse harder to swallow when I found this quote from him: "It's almost as if everyone wanted to hate me. But what have I done to anybody? It was something that happened, and it was people trying to make some money." I cannot understand why someone making millions would need to further augment his cash flow by fighting dogs. Michael Vick may be black, but he was not living in poverty when he founded Bad Newz Kennels.
I am a forgiving person. I do not believe that carrying hate in my heart will inflict damage upon anyone but myself. So, Michael Vick, if you are truly remorseful and a changed man, then I forgive you. But I do not forget. In fact, in a country where the legal system treats pets like property and assigns minimal sanctions for the cruelest cases of abuse, I see no reason why I should forget.
The Vick case is a complicated collection of legal red tape, institutional policy, and social norms. It raises several very serious questions the inevitable interactions between these entities.
But what I think is this: social ostracism is part of the sanction for bad acts. And I think it can be useful in the right contexts. Ostracism is established part of our legal systems and is used as a consequence and a deterrent on a national and international level. We register sex offenders. We expect public apologies from high-profile criminals. Global treaties often are “soft laws,” that is, enforceable only by pressure and views expressed by citizens or other nations.
In a case like Vick’s, where the system failed and the dogs did not see justice, I think it is singularly valuable. That is, if the courts didn’t give Vick a strong enough sentence, we can hardly expect Vick to complain or courts to go back and impose a harsher one (they can’t) but we have no obligation to use our resources to fund his lifestyle. And neither do institutions like the NFL. And since the NFL sees fit to fund his lifestyle, it is up to individuals to continue to sanction Vick for his conduct. Because Vick is not a regular Joe working a blue collar job – he is a public figure. He is ours. He reflects our values and represents who we are as individuals and a collective society. And we have a right to take issue with that.
And in the words of Richard Hunter, who owns Mel, "Some people wonder, are we ever going to let Michael Vick get beyond all this? … “I tell them, let's let Mel decide that. When he stops shaking, maybe then we can talk."
