Vick: A new dog could help my rehabilitation

[Patler]

It was pretty well established that he electrocuted and strangled the dogs for amusement. AMUSEMENT not for food - for AMUSEMENT - that's the goddamn intent. WAKE THE ---- UP.

Even if he chose the form of killing for his personal entertainment or amusement, is that any different than, for example, the wild boar hunting conducted down south where the boar is cornered by dogs, and the "hunter" has many choices for the kill, including the use of various guns, spears, swords, hatchets and knives?

http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/

The form of killing is clearly for the entertainment of the hunter, and certainly not quick and easy for the boar when getting jabbed with a spear, stabbed with a knife or hacked with a hatchet. I suspect some suffer severe and painful injuries before the final kill is delivered.

As for killing for entertainment and not food, many animals are killed for the thrill of the hunt or the bagging of a trophy and not for the procurement of food. Others are killed as nuisances, not unlike an animal no longer serving its purpose to its owner.

I do not like or respect what Vick has done, but I am amazed at the unusual distinctions we make in acceptance for the treatment of different animals, seemingly depending on their perceived "cuddliness".

[Iron Mike]

Want to see what is likely the most in-humane treatment of animals by people? Look into egg-laying operations.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know about that, Patler. I don't think mice are cuddly at all, and though while I believe that every now and again, one needs to be removed, I don't kill them for sport. I trap them and release them in the park 1/2 mile away. The cat is another story. He amuses himself to their death...for this reason, I do not let my cat keep mice as pets.

I also don't find pit bulls to be particularly cuddly, but they are conscious creatures and I don't think he should be allowed to own one after what he's done to them. It's a logical extension of his sentence. Don't agree with the wild boar hunting or the old game hunts where they'd put large game on a small plot of land and allow people to "hunt" them. I think for food production, animals should be killed as humanely as possible and quite frankly, think that there should be better controls on poultry farms because I can't always get to the farmer's market to get local ones. (if you want a new adventure in smell, just drive past a chicken farm at night. Ewww...

[Patler]

I don't know about that, Patler. I don't think mice are cuddly at all, and though while I believe that every now and again, one needs to be removed, I don't kill them for sport. I trap them and release them in the park 1/2 mile away. The cat is another story. He amuses himself to their death...for this reason, I do not let my cat keep mice as pets.

I also don't find pit bulls to be particularly cuddly, but they are conscious creatures and I don't think he should be allowed to own one after what he's done to them. It's a logical extension of his sentence. Don't agree with the wild boar hunting or the old game hunts where they'd put large game on a small plot of land and allow people to "hunt" them. I think for food production, animals should be killed as humanely as possible and quite frankly, think that there should be better controls on poultry farms because I can't always get to the farmer's market to get local ones. (if you want a new adventure in smell, just drive past a chicken farm at night. Ewww...

But that's my point, many if not most people don't feel like you about mice (although they ARE sort of cute) rats, woodchucks, skunks, porcupines, etc.

As for chickens, always had about 100 on the farm. I know the smell well!

[bobblehead]

Actually, I have, running private mortgage brokerages. There was a big to-do about it a year or so ago. I don't know that it was embezzlers specifically, may have been fraud or con schemes of some sort; but I know they had been convicted of money handling shenanigans. Yet, in one or more states, their convictions did not prevent them from running or even owning private mortgage businesses.

Are paroled murderers allowed to be around people?
Are paroled or released con artists allowed around people?
Can paroled or released rapists be around women, or work with them?
Can paroled or released arsonists own matches or cigarette lighters? Buy gasoline and other flamables?

Special treatment of child molesters is provided because children are a specially protected class. That is why the child molester never really pays his debt to society in full until he dies. I am more than OK with that. Animals do not have the same protected status.

I don't know Vick from the man in the moon. I don't know if he is a conniver and schemer, or if he is a straight up guy. However, I don't think it is impossible that he really has changed his outlook on the value of dogs in people lives. I have no problem with him asking a judge to reconsider that part of his sentence. I also have no problem with the judge looking into it and deciding either way.

Not being around people is only possible through continued incarceration therefore its never a condition for release. Some murderers are never allowed to be around people except in prison. Paroled ones, obviously not. Paroled rapists have conditions they must meet as well. Registering as a sex offender and all. They are allowed around women, but with conditions. Arsonists in some cases are restricted from owning certain items as well, depends on the judge and state.

Specifically though, a judge ruled that Michael Vick can't own a dog. Even if we accept that this is a mere theoretical argument and no one actually thinks he should be allowed out of his penalty, I still think its reasonable that he not be allowed to own a dog. You said it yourself. He views them as livestock, its the reason he treated them as he did. For him to now claim that he values the companionship, or can view them differently is kinda ridiculous.

[bobblehead]

Using 1 and 2 to help make a point is simply throwing a rhetorical bomb into an argument. To do so to compare only the logic of the penalties is simply an invitation to make the argument emotional beyond all reason. It doesn't help anyone to see anything, except that you are liable to say anything to help make your point and carry the day through emotional triumphalism.

I never claimed #3, but a dog fighter later having a dog is not the same as a child molester being allowed to watch children. The crimes are not the same and the punishments should not be the same. Just because you see a logic between method of crime (matricide by gun), object of obsession (child molestation) and animal brutality (dog fighting and extermination of failed fighters) doesn't make them equivalent.

Number 4 I do not claim to have evidence for, which is why I said likely. But child predators are among the worst recidivists in the penal system. They would be hard to top. And Vick has many advantages not available to others who may leave prison. His odds will be better no matter.

5 and 7 I have no argument with. But my point was never that he MUST or SHOULD be allowed to own a dog. Only that I have no inherent objection and I do not believe he is as likely to commit the same crime as the molester of your example.

Number 6 makes no sense. If you were to assert that, you would be asserting equal punishment, not equivalent crime.

Again, without me using the child molester argument, many people would never get past their preconceived notions. I needed the bomb to make some on this site understand there was a reason/precedent/logic behind him not owning a dog. At present the argument was already emotional beyond reason for some....just in the wrong direction (siding with Vick). I needed to break through that emotion the other way....a way that they wouldn't sluff off.

You didn't claim 3, I think brando did, but it was central to my point.

As to 4, child molestation may be tops on the recidivism list, but recidivism is always more likely than someone committing a crime the first time....especially crimes of violence, which this was. Police often speak of the "escalation of violence". Occassionally you get a person who reforms....usually they don't go ask the judge to overturn the conditions of their parole quite so fast.

as to 5 and 7, I do believe he is likely to commit SOME crimes. Maybe not the same ones, but he obviously viewed dogs differently than most. Has he changed? No idea yet for any of us. Should we err on the side of caution, or the side of "testing" his resolve? What happens when the dog really gets under his skin. Does he lose his cool and kick it breaking its ribs? Does he decide he doesn't want it anymore? Is he more likely to bring it to a shelter, or kill and bury it and claim it ran away? I think his history makes these questions fair.

Number 6 makes perfect sense. Some are claiming I am trying to compare the crimes of molestation and dog fighting. I am merely pointing out that certain crimes (for good reason) have certain punishments. I can't really be any clearer on that. I am comparing the punishment with the adjacent crime, not the crimes themselves, or the punishments themselves. You are 0 for 2 on getting my point so it could be my explanation, but I'm at a loss to make it clearer.

[Fritz]

I believe it was Richard Gere that Fritz meant...otherwise I'm missing it too.

Richard Gere, Alec Baldwin...isn't that the same guy?

[Patler]

Not being around people is only possible through continued incarceration therefore its never a condition for release. Some murderers are never allowed to be around people except in prison. Paroled ones, obviously not. Paroled rapists have conditions they must meet as well. Registering as a sex offender and all. They are allowed around women, but with conditions. Arsonists in some cases are restricted from owning certain items as well, depends on the judge and state.

Specifically though, a judge ruled that Michael Vick can't own a dog. Even if we accept that this is a mere theoretical argument and no one actually thinks he should be allowed out of his penalty, I still think its reasonable that he not be allowed to own a dog. You said it yourself. He views them as livestock, its the reason he treated them as he did. For him to now claim that he values the companionship, or can view them differently is kinda ridiculous.

Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it anyway , you are actually making my point for me. Sure, some felons have stricter sentences and severe restrictions, but not all of them. Other felons have sentences changed and modified upon proving their rehabilitation. As I said, I see nothing inherently wrong with Vick asking for a change in his, and I see nothing wrong with a judge agreeing or disagreeing with Vick.

Vick may have treated his dogs like livestock, because to him in the culture of dog fighting they were livestock. I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that he has changed. After all, a goal of the penal system is rehabilitation. If a thief can learn that it is not right to steal, why can't Vick have learned that dogs provide companionship and can provide more than he thought previously?

[bobblehead]

Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it anyway , you are actually making my point for me. Sure, some felons have stricter sentences and severe restrictions, but not all of them. Other felons have sentences changed and modified upon proving their rehabilitation. As I said, I see nothing inherently wrong with Vick asking for a change in his, and I see nothing wrong with a judge agreeing or disagreeing with Vick.

Vick may have treated his dogs like livestock, because to him in the culture of dog fighting they were livestock. I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that he has changed. After all, a goal of the penal system is rehabilitation. If a thief can learn that it is not right to steal, why can't Vick have learned that dogs provide companionship and can provide more than he thought previously?

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

[Patler]

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

Sitting here with little or no first hand information, we can make a better determination that a judge hearing the request?

I happen to agree that Vick's timing is poor. I think he could have done a lot more things in an upcoming off season or two to demonstrate that he has changed, then filed a request.

Prisons are primarily to incarcerate and punish, as you said, as well as to protect society by removing the wrongdoer. However, a criminal sentence often includes much more than time in prison, such as counseling, restitution, community service and other activities having as a significant goal the rehabilitation of the person. It does not work as intended nearly often enough, but once in a while people do change. I agree that you can not make them change, but you can give them the opportunity and support to make that change. How do we know that Vick has not changed without letting him present his case that he has?

[MJZiggy]

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

Not to make this a political discussion, but the liberal left didn't decided that, science did. But in context you're right. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want the rehab. On the other hand, you can't rehabilitate anyone by dumping them in a cell with no opportunities for rehabilitation. In Vick's case, he claims to have been rehabilitated to the point that he can own a dog. Based on what I know about behavior and owning animals, I just don't happen to believe him. Addiction is an interesting example, though I don't know that I'd go so far as to equate an addiction to someone who gets his kicks kicking pit bulls. In one the person loses control to the addiction, I don't think Vick ever lost control.

[th87]

Not to make this a political discussion, but the liberal left didn't decided that, science did. But in context you're right. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want the rehab. On the other hand, you can't rehabilitate anyone by dumping them in a cell with no opportunities for rehabilitation. In Vick's case, he claims to have been rehabilitated to the point that he can own a dog. Based on what I know about behavior and owning animals, I just don't happen to believe him. Addiction is an interesting example, though I don't know that I'd go so far as to equate an addiction to someone who gets his kicks kicking pit bulls. In one the person loses control to the addiction, I don't think Vick ever lost control.

Again, it is an assumption that Vick got his kicks from the actual hurting of animals. All we know is that he was attempting to run a business. He may have gotten his kicks from the efficient and successful operation of his enterprise. Killing dogs was probably just an unpleasant necessity to the success of his business.

[MJZiggy]

Again, it is an assumption that Vick got his kicks from the actual hurting of animals. All we know is that he was attempting to run a business. He may have gotten his kicks from the efficient and successful operation of his enterprise. Killing dogs was probably just an unpleasant necessity to the success of his business.

He was killing dogs that were worth money. I don't buy your argument.

[th87]

Again, the main question to ask then is if Vick had pet dogs other than the fight dogs, and whether they were treated differently.

[Patler]

He was killing dogs that were worth money. I don't buy your argument.

I don't think he was. It was written that they killed the dogs that did poorly or did not show the willingness to fight in training. These dogs had no value in his operation. They were like the male chicks on an egg farm.