It's a pretty horrible thing to do. But on the other hand, he's served his time, so I suppose he might deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Has he appeared in interviews saying how he regrets what he did, and has turned his back on that stuff, or does he appear publicly unrepentant?

He has appeared in interviews and unlike many public figures convicted of crimes, he has NOT read prepared statements. He spoke freely without notes and has answered all questions.

Let me rephrase the question: the rate of recidivism for certain crimes is higher than others. If you have this kind of evil in your heart, can it be removed?

Depends on your age, the older you get the more ingrained your habits and thought patterns become.

Unless you are a successful mind-streamer and habitual habit breaker lol ^_^

I view the Vick story that he had a god complex. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he actually led this up or that it was his idea. He bankrolled a house for some family/friends, and they started this, and brought him in. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Even though Vick was the king of the NFL, he did still have peer pressure. Especially pressure to live up to the hype. He definately was in the wrong crowd, and I think that crowd intensified his horrible behavior to do that.

Simply put, I don't think he would ever have been capable to do those horrible things if he was not involved with those people. A bad crowd dulls senses, mires reality, and can make someone do things they don't want or think they are capable of.

This is what I chose to believe anyhow. If it's true or not, I'm not certain. He has been pretty open and honest and sorrowful (as compared to Pacman Jones, Plaxico Burress, or the others who just are trying to return to a large paycheck)

If the question is, CAN one be rehabilitated, then I'm sure that the answer is yes. If the question is, HAS Michael Vick been rehabilitated, then I have no idea. It seems to me that, if you're torn between despising Vick and cheering for the Eagles, the second question is really what matters.

I find the man despicable and am glad the Bengals didn't try for him on moral grounds. That being said, he has admitted he was guilty and shown contrition for his actions. However, his continuing in the NFL is wrong as football players are roll models for our younger generation(s) and he is no longer a suitable roll model. He should have to do like Icky Woods and go sell Omaha Steaks out of the back of a freezer truck.

The Lady and the Tramp.... and Michael Vick :P

Most criminals without the fame are returned to the same conditutions with little chance of getting a job. Is it fair that he is given such a high paying job when most people who have been convicted of less horrific crimes must get by on minimal wage at best.

I would assume he is getting no where near as big a paycheck as he got before. I read that a condition of his contract with the Eagles is that he has to be very proactive in fighting animal abuse. So he is being given a chance to redeem himself which is more than many get, but he is also in a position to do some real good if he has it in him. And if he doesn't, then supposedly they'll dump him.

"I would assume he is getting no where near as big a paycheck as he got before"

Well, thats not because of his criminal past, but because he's been out of football 2 years and no one knows whether he is in shape or still has the skills.

And he is still getting alot more than minium wage.

I don't know anything about the case besides what's being said here, and I don't know anything about american football, but I really don't get how it is that his current wage is a part of this discussion.

If a person served his time for his crime, and is released, why shouldn't be able to take any job that is offered to him?

And why can't any team hire him, as long as they think he will not repeat his actions?

Things that are understandable to discuss are the lenght of his conviction, and wheather he's rehabilitated or not.

But his paycheck? What does that have to do with anything?

The fact is most people would not get such nice secand chance at life. Most anybody else would be living in one room flat trying to earn enoff to eat. Perhaps if more people would be given such chance there would less people returning to crime. But because of fame and the nature of the sports industry he all but forgiven by football league.

Then the problem is in how any other ex-con is treated.

his paycheck is 1.6 mil this year, even though he'll be suspended for the first 6 games with a club option for a second year at 5.6 mil including incentives.

what i am curious about, also as a life long eagles fan, is why is was so important to so many other people involved with the league to get vick signed to a team. i think it has to do with the players union. precedents are always being set for suspensions and pay, so vick, and other players that find themselves in his place have to try to get back as soon as possible so that a precedent can be set. its the same with salaries. the union doesn't want players to take hometown discounts because it affects the pay scale.

I don't think anyone thought it was important to get him signed. But I think everyone thought it was an eventuality that someone would take a chance on him.

Well before he screwed his life up he was one of the NFL's premier quarterbacks, so clearly somebody would go for him at some point. What I'm curious about, is why the Eagles went for him. They already have McNabb, who has been there forever, (I believe its 11 years, but correct me if I'm wrong) so I wonder why they wanted a second quarterback.

Most likely he won't be the backup QB, but will be a receiver and a running back. Part of the reason Vick signed with the Eagles is because his agent advised him to pick a team that already has an entrenched starter.

Someone said part of the reason Vick did this was peer pressure. I completely agree. Michael Vick grew up in the ghetto, and dog-fighting was a part of his daily life, he likely saw nothing wrong with it. Likely many star athletes from poor neighborhoods, he likely felt compelled to bring his childhood friends along with him and these associations brought him down.

However, he does seem contrite and he has some very good people in his corner(like Tony Dungy).

Vick was never a premier quarterback. He was one of the most exciting players to watch on a field, but his passing game was average at best. He was a very good runner though.

Xapi, regarding how ex-cons are treated, in the U.S., if you have been convicted of a felony, that sticks with you the rest of your life, no matter that you've served your time. You can't get a job without your employer knowing. They can't ask if you are married or have kids or your religion or lots of other things, but every job application is going to ask if you have been convicted of a felony. (You also can't vote in most states or own a weapon and probably other things.)

Keep in mind that felonies tend to be for violent crimes but can also be for other crimes that the government (i.e. the people) want treated harsher than otherwise. Misdemeanors might send you to jail but won't hang around your neck the rest of your life.

So if you commit a violent crime, you can serve the time but still be affected for the rest of your life. One of the disincentives for doing such. You make that choice and are caught and you are now a second class citizen of your own doing.

And criminal background checks are GOOD things. I don't care if you did your time, if you abused a little kid, I don't want you working in a school, even as a janitor mopping floors. If you robbed a bank, I don't want you working security at the local mall. If you swindled a bunch of people out of their savings, I don't want you working in the mail room at my stock broker.

Can't vote?

That doesn't even make sense in a retarded way!

So, seriously, you need to start treating your ex-cons better.

They have proven that they can't be trusted to follow the laws and you want to give tem a right to steer the course of our country? They forfeit all rights when they commit such a heinous crime as to be convicted of a felony.

Oh, and they aren't ex-cons. They are convicts. Ex implies they aren't any more. But once convicted, unless they have their conviction overturned, they are convicts.

A democracy is a democracy when it is for everyone. If people are required to act in a certain way to be able to vote, you've lost the right to call yourself a democracy.

We aren't a true democracy. We are a republic.

Ok, I can agree with that.

Civilization has rules. If you choose to not abide by those rules, you have set your self apart from the civilization. Why then should you still reap the benefits of that civilization.

If you beat someone up and steal their wallet or hold someone at gunpoint or beat your wife and kids or run over your neighbors dog with your car or take a bat out of your trunk and beat the crap out of someone who you had a fender bender with; you have chosen to set your self outside the rules of our civilization. Why should we not then chose to limit the benefits you receive in the future?

how about if someone buys a large quantity of pot for himself and a bunch of friends and gets caught and charged with a felony, alderian? it's essentially a victemless crime. all the people that person was buying for WANTED the drugs. should that make the person arrested an untouchable for the rest of their life?

To answer the OP: it stinks that Vick will get a million plus dollars, but only because he committed a crime and gets to return to his life. A person who is caught possessing drugs is not allowed to return to their former life (unless they make it themselves) so I understand your dilemma. We elect people who smoke pot, cheat on their wives (adultery is still a crime in some states), have DUIs, take bribes, etc. So until we hold our elected officials to higher standards then we can't really expect "entertainers" to act any better.

I am curious about the convict voting. I actually believe that a convict who has served their time and is off probation should be allowed to vote. Society has deemed them guilty and punished them already to continue to punish them while technically double jeopardy, means you are punished twice.

They pay taxes, they live in cities and communities that provide services that effect their lives. They should have a high say in such matters.

I am curious for those that believe convicts should not vote, does this mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes or if a crime is committed against them should they not be allowed to receive police protection, fire protection, health care at the ER, public schooling. I mean if you are going to deny one civil liberty, can we deny others?

"Civilization has rules. If you choose to not abide by those rules, you have set your self apart from the civilization. Why then should you still reap the benefits of that civilization."

You don't, for the duration of your conviction. My question is for how long should this conviction follow you?

I understand particular things, like not allowing a molester to work around children, or people convicted of fraud to work in banks, but I don't see how society benefits from any felony following you around all your life, and denying you basic freedoms and rights.

If the felon is reformed, he should be a regular citizen. If he's not, he should remain in jail or some sort of parole.

@reynoldism - Do you know what double jeopardy means? It means you can't be TRIED for the same crime twice. And they aren't being punished twice. Their sentence includes the restrictions presented and, on certain crimes, may include further restrictions like registering as a sex offender for life. This is not double jeopardy. Now, if you make them do something to fulfill a law that was not on the books when they were convicted, that is an unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law, but most of the laws of which we speak have been around long enough that it only applies in some VERY rare cases.

As far as taxes go, most don't pay any taxes because they don't make enough anyhow, many of them ending up on welfare and eventually returning to the system because they never were rehabilitated or they have become so institutionalized they want to return and so commit another felonius act.

@trip - Who says dealing pot is a victimless crime (and having pot on you for you and your friends is dealing). Who even says smoking it is victimless. Follow the money trail. You'll find it ends with some seriously hardcore criminals who kidnap and murder innocents, women, and children to get their way and silence any witnesses. Tell them they aren't victims.

Legalize pot and that goes away, which is a strong argument for legalization. But until that happens (and I hope it does, although I do not partake), there are victims. They just are a few layers of the cake removed.

"As far as taxes go, most don't pay any taxes because they don't make enough anyhow, many of them ending up on welfare and eventually returning to the system because they never were rehabilitated or they have become so institutionalized they want to return and so commit another felonius act."

Should Michael Vick pay taxes on his 1Mill+ if he's not allowed to vote for the representatives that will be deciding what to spend his money on?

>You also can't vote in most states

That's not quite right. In most U.S. States, you can vote after the entire sentence (including parole) has been served. In a few States, it's true you lose the franchise forever; but then, in a few States, you can already vote while on parole.

>the government (i.e. the people)

These are NOT the same thing! The government represents the people (or at least it is supposed to). It may or may not do what a majority of the people want it to do; it always does what SOME of the people want it to do, and never does what ALL of the people want it to do.

>Their sentence includes the restrictions presented and, on certain crimes, may include further restrictions like registering as a sex offender for life.

Actually, this is NOT part of the sentence; it is done under civil law. If you committed a felony back when your State said that you could vote once your parole was over and then (afterwards!) the State changed the law and said that you could never vote again, then you can never vote again. If you raped a child (or got caught peeing by a park ranger — it's all the same to the laws of some States) before the sex offender registry was conceived, then you must still register (and live so much distance from schools and parks, etc) if your State has one now. If you were fined for smoking cannabis back in the early '70s (when it was already illegal but before the War on Drugs got started) and now you want to get a college degree, then you can't get federal financial aid (at least not without going through a hearing) even though that law is from the '80s.

This is not ‘double jeopardy’, as reynoldsm called it; instead, this is ‘ex post facto’, and it is also unconstitutional. But the courts have ruled that it's OK since these are not criminal penalties but instead civil restrictions on exercising priveleges. (Actually, there aren't clear rulings yet about some of the more draconian sex offender laws; housing restrictions seem to me to be obviously a restriction of right rather than privelege, but the rulings so far are mixed.)

>Follow the money trail. You'll find it ends with some seriously hardcore criminals …

OK, so take trip's example to be somebody who grows it locally.

Long-time 49ers fan and football afficianado here: and Vick's a tricky case.

It's not that I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to play again. What he did was heinous and inexcusable, but then again he did do his time. He broke the law- what makes Vick tricky is he didn't just break a legal law- he broke a moral one.

(Granted, I'm somewhat of a Hobbesian, and I don't really believe in innate moral laws and human anture, but that's being left by the wayside here.)

So he did his time, and, legally, he's clear. Morally (supposing, again, for the moment there is a moral law at all) he is still guilty. However, our legal system is based on what is lawful, and not always what is moral, and that is for the best; if we had a fixed moral standard, then... you know what, I'm really not going to get into this philosophical debate.

So Vick legally is clear, morally is irrelevant- and I think he should be allowed to retry his career path.

And THAT I think is what sticks in folks' craws a bit (mine included, to an extent.)

If Vick were a bricklayer by trade, and wanted to come back to his job, this would not be an issue. But he's a football player, which is a profession that garners millions; what's more he's a quarterback, and quaterbacks are both symbols of their team (so what does it say when your QB is a convicted felon?) and paid even more than most other players.

Again, if Vick were a bricklayer, no problem. But he's a QB, a figurehead of a franchise and a multi-million-dollar man, and folks don't think he should get all that again.

Me?

Vick should be allowed to play; morality aside, again, if he were a bricklayer he'd be allowed back, and the public would think little of it. He's an entertainer, and qualified for his position (you can debate his merits in different areas, but overall it's agreed he was an exciting player.) It's the fact that he's being allowed that money again that bothers me. The fame and notoriety- again, I don't think morals should be the subject here, especially as Vick's an entertainer, and not a world leader; a poor role model yes, but entertainers don't have to be good ones.

It's the money that bothers me- money is power, after all, and the notion of giving a convicted felon that power "back" seems logically irrational, it's essentially supplying him with the means to commit his crime again, should he choose to.

Vick should be allowed to play, but I think that his wage should be somewhat garnished and given to humane societies as further payment for his prior actions, and obviously he should be under close watch and supervision in his on and (to an exent) off the field actions by the NFL

@draugnar... my error, was supposed to be "while technically NOT double jeopardy means you are punished twice." Your argument about taxes doesn't hold up as everything they pay for has sales tax and if they own a home they pay property taxes. They pay fees for the licenses, car titles, if they want a hot dog stand they have to get a permit. All of these are fees that are done by local/state governments that convicts have no ability to have a voice in. If they have children, they can't elect school board members/superintendents who have an influence over their children.

Your argument also pretty much dismisses all white collar crime that exists, see Martha Stewart.

As is noted above, child predator laws treat a person who is a pedophile the same as a person who is urinating in public. In Miami, the laws are so restrictive that "sex offenders" can only live under a bridge by law.

A convict served their time let them be or we need to change the punishment system to be life sentences with no possibility of parole or death penalty. No middle ground. Perhaps we can have an Escape from NY/LA kinda of place created.

Quick note:
>child predator laws treat a person who is a pedophile the same as a person who is urinating in public

This varies between States; some lump everybody together, while some have different levels or even don't count indecent exposure as a sex offence. (And it's ‘sex offender’, not ‘child predator’.)

Obiwon,
I agreed with most of what you said. Legally I agree, he should absolutely be allowed to play. However because of the moral laws he broke, I don't want him on my Eagles. I was actually explaining this to my wife like this: If he robbed someone, or even if he beat his wife, I can comprehend that. I understand crimes of passion. I'd never do it, but I get it, at least enough that its in the realm of possibility. The moral law he broke to me was not running the ring, but with his own two hands hanging, ELECTROCUTING dogs, etc. If a dog doesn't perform, if your morals are so whacked out, shoot it. Again, as heinous as it is, it makes a sick twisted sense. But electrocuting it, hooking it up to car jumper cables? That's reveling in the torture of an animal.

@reynoldism - as has been pointed out, the voting issue (and the sex-offender registry/laws) vary from state to state. You typical felon who gets out doesn't own nor ever will own a house, so that is a moot point. As far as schools go, school funding varies from state to state as well and in Ohio, tax funded schools where schools in bigger tax districts get more money has been foudn to violate the state constitution. They still haven't found the new system to replace it yet, but that is going away. And sales tax... Don't even get me started. When I lived in Ohio, I lived in Butler County. Butler and Warren and to an extent, Clermont are the counties with most of the wealth of SW Ohio, but cearly all the malls are in Hamilton county which put a sales tax on to build a new stadium for the Bungles. The taxpayers who paid for that stadium never got to vote on it because the sales tax was just in Hamilton County and Hamilton County is predominitely inner city as most of the County is within Cincinnati City limits. So the argument of sales tax is bullshit.

"You typical felon who gets out doesn't own nor ever will own a house, so that is a moot point. "

What about Michael Vick? Can he buy a house with his 1 Mill +? What's left after the taxes he pays to be handled by people he can't elect, I mean...

We already said that varies from state to state, but to keep you happy...

This is the voting rights in PA.

Pennsylvania
Automatically restored upon release from confinement; felon must register to vote; however, if a felon was not registered to vote at the time of his or her conviction, the felon may need to wait 5 years from the date of release from incarceration in order to vote.

So, Michael Vick will get to vote. He just has to reregister.

Here is a link to all the states felon's right to vote.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16529

Good thing he signed for the Eagles.

And even more important, he didn't sign for the Dolphins.

Thanks Toby for the clarifications on some of the things I said.

And thanks Dragnar for that website. Looks like most felons get the right to vote back once they have served their sentence with some variations. But also most do not get to vote while serving their sentence.

I still stand by my statement that if you chose to break the rules of society then I've no problem with your benefits of society being limited.