 |
|||||||||||||||
Survey name: Sentencing of Michael Vick - Fair or not fair? Mixed reviews for this weeks poll Responses:
Some of the responses to why the responsers chose the answer they did includes: Fare. Considering we have professional athletes who are convicted drug-traffickers, murderer's and rapist's,,, I think what he got was fare Well Michael Vick's sentence was right in line with the co defendants. Because he of all people should know better. As aprofessional athlete, your life is always under the microscope and any little misstep will be captured and replayed on the grand stage of life. I only wished that he had the nerves to tell ALL of the names involved in the fight game. If he did, he probably would not live long. Any regular person (non-celebrity) would have gotten worse... Human abusers get less time, save the space in prison for a violent criminal He should have been given the maximum sentence. Millions of dollars and he chose to kill animals for his own enjoyment. That is sick. Maximum sentence. I don't believe this should have ever been a federal issue. This should have been a state issue only. There is no reason in the world why the federal government should have a dog fghting law on the books. Now he has to also face the possiblity of state charges. What he did was wrong, but COME ON!!! Murders get less jail time then what Michael Vick will end up with. It appears to be the same that anyone else would have received. else He should have received the full 5 years he was eligible for since he shows no remorse for his offenses. Showing a lack of remorse demonstrates lack of understanding, which also shows the individual is not convinced he broke sociey's laws. He may never take full responsibility if he isn't convinced he did something wrong. He should have received a lesser sentence because for one, it was a first time offense and he's being made an example of; and secondly, there are child molesters and wife beaters out there who get less time for what Vick did to dogs. I'm not condoning what he did, but the punishment does not fit the crime. Animals are property and no one should be incarcerated for what he did. Treating the incidents as "Civil Matters) with a fine would have been more appropriate. Incarcerating a first time offender for two years is overkill. This Justice Dept has engaged in celebrity prosecutions to the detriment of their integrity. I think that the judge took all facts into consideration before setting the sentence. This is a problem that is still not He is definitely not innocent but he could have done with a 12 or month sentence. Give this man a chance to straighten up not destroy him for life. As the old saying goes, everyone deserves another chance so does michael vick. have drug dealers and murders who have gotten about the same
Quick Links |
|||||||||||||||
