Michael Vick, Sam Smith and the problem with misaligned retribution

This article is dedicated to María Cotto, good friend and fellow animal lover whose link to the Vick Dog Blog piqued my interest in the case of Michael Vick and eventually led to the investigation that resulted in these thoughts.

Recently, I stumbled upon an article while researching the case of football player Michael Vick, he of dogfighting-ring fame. The article, written by one Sam Smith, attempts to rationalize the author’s contempt for Mr. Vick by comparing his admittedly horrible acts against animals to those of serial killers, rapists and child molesters (quite the triumvirate of objectionable peoples, if there ever was one). But, while these comparisons may seem appropriate (especially to those of us who like to think of ourselves of the animal-friendly kind), his rationalization of why the perpetrator in question should not be allowed to play football again is nothing short of idiotic and —I propose herewith— alarmingly familiar.

After reading his article, I can’t help but feel frustrated by his unnecessary use of faux logic to rationalize something as personal and emotional as repudiating animal abuse. Mr. Smith is very clear in stating that allowing Vick to pursue his career in the NFL is comparable to allowing your brother Fred to babysit your five-year-old daughter particularly after said brother Fred was convicted and served time for once having molested said five-year-old daughter, or allowing Ted Bundy to escort your daughter to the school prom. He also goes on to suggest that, in forgiving Vick, the football fans and the NFL alike are actually enabling his wrongdoing. Enabling, as in go ahead and do it some more.

How is allowing a convicted child molester to babysit my five-year-old comparable with allowing a convicted animal abuser to play football? That is faulty logic if I ever saw it. I wouldn’t let the child molester around any kids, but I would —on the other hand— allow said child molester to pursue a career in crocheting. Vick’s abuse towards dogs is utterly unrelated to his athletic career, and the author’s attempt at comparing the well-being of a five-year-old to a stupid game of football is not only retarded, but insulting to his readers’ collective intelligence.

Furthermore, if we were to continue down the slippery slope upon which the author’s twisted faux logic seems to go down, we shouldn’t allow Vick to enjoy a cup of ice cream, nor should we allow him to own a pair of comfortable shoes. Why? Same reason: Because you wouldn’t allow a rapist to spend quality time with your teenage daughter after school, so there is clearly no reason to allow this animal abuser the pleasure of some Cherry García, or a nice, comfortable stroll around the neighborhood. That, my dear readers (all three of you), is insane.

Now, I understand not wanting to forgive. In fact, as an animal lover myself, I relate to it quite profoundly. But no amount of indignation toward what I too consider to be a horrible person can make me subscribe to inane attempts at rationalizing and justification of what is ultimately a very personal opinion based on individual moral convictions. The faulty logic that Mr. Smith is using to justify his opinions as something universally —and impartially— correct diminish the strength of what could otherwise be a very strong —albeit emotional— argument based on a personal conviction toward the mistreatment of animals.

In the end, it is this kind of gun-ho, self-righteous attitude that is chipping away at the values upon which the United States was founded, because when people who are angry about one thing attempt to gain retribution through completely unrelated “fixes”, what you get is a false sense of justice based on a twisted ideal of “universal morality” that bears no relation to logical thinking and effective problem solving whatsoever. And if there is one clear pillar of freedom and justice for all, it is logical thinking and the rectitude to address problems directly, without the need to contamine everything we touch with our personal moral convictions. Instead of being so adamant about “not allowing animal abusers to pursue a career in football”, why don’t we concentrate our efforts on the issues that do affect this problem, like education, correction and an examination of what cultural and social baggage may lead to this abusive behavior? Nah. Let’s just complain about some stupid game of football. It’s certainly easier than addressing the real problem.

It seems to me that, like a lot of people, Mr. Smith isn’t so much concerned with the well-being of these animals as much as with not having that kind of people ruin the image of good, all-American wholesomeness that characterizes American football. He doesn’t really care if Mr. Vick pays for his crimes, or if his sadistic behavior is addressed in any manner that attempts to help him realize the horror in his ways. Mr. Smith simply doesn’t want to have to face that reality when he sits down to watch the game with his friends. He doesn’t want such an unpleasant subject to rear his ugly head during his downtime with friends and family. Which is why he will “not spend a penny on the NFL this year” (although I presume next year it’ll be alright, somehow), because his beef —really— is with the NFL, not Michael Vick. In fact, he goes as far as to state that “it’s a shame that Rae Carruth isn’t up for parole anytime soon”, because “I’d like to see if the league would at least put its foot down when the victims are human.” It’s all about the league, my fellow readers; his precious NFL.

I believe —firmly, mind you— that this is an excellent example of how a lot of people in the United States address society’s problems: that we should saturate everything with our personal moral convictions. Or worse: that we should impose the moral convictions that we believe to be shared by a majority. And that this moral imposition should contamine even the most unrelated aspects of our society. A child molester certainly shouldn’t be allowed to gain a job working with children, but some would have you believe this sick individual shouldn’t be allowed to work at all. How does this exact real justice? How is keeping Vick from playing football going to help reduce animal abuse? How is the NFL allowing Vick to play again an endorsement of his behavior? Last I heard, the NFL is concerned with football players, not good people. And no: Athletes do not have to be good role-models. You may like them to be that but it’s not part of their job description.

In the end, I can only hope that Mr. Smith sees it fit to invest his valuable pennies (those he dare not spend on the NFL this year) in helping to rehabilitate and rebuild the lives of the dogs that have survived Michael Vick’s fighting ring, and others like them. Because, as he stated himself, “It’s not much, I know. I don’t have a lot of money and the NFL doesn’t care what people like me think”, but the people who take care of these animals do appreciate small donations, and do care what people like him and I think.