Chelsea Clinton hedge fund job

H

highparkcfa

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
The guy is guilty as hell. I think that 23 months is pretty light in this case. The people who are the dog owners on this forum will understand.
 
Yes, and the stinger was that part of the plea agreement was that he could not appeal sentencing.

I have an inherent defense attorney's POV, but I just think that:

1. he has probably learned his lesson.
2. he is young, and deserves a second chance
3. this is dog fighting, not people fighting,
4. marijuana infractions are best dealt by NFL punishment/suspension,
5. other more serious crimes get far less severe sentencing,
6. the judge ordered a sentence above what the prosecution recommended. again, the NFL would probably impose a 2 year ban anyways.
7. Finally, this sentence will probabaly make him worse-off as a member of society. Therefore, we are all worse off.

Not making excuses for his actions. He should be held accoutnable. But does the punishment fit the crime?

Edit: PS - I'm a dogowner. I love dogs. I hate dog fighting. But I know that at the end of the day, they are still animals. If this were cow fighting, would this be a different trial? Probably.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 12:19PM by BosyBillups.
 
Bosy,
No one is saying or even trying to equate dogs to people here. I think this forum is pretty much devoid of the whacked-out liberals. I just think that the nature of this particular crime is pretty egregious. For crying out loud, if you�re a public figure, have at least some sense of decency.
P.S. If Vick had been involved in cow fighting, they would probably dismember and then burn the guy in places like India.
 
agree with the above, but when manslaughter, the killing of another human being, can get a one year sentence, the issue is not whether what Vick did was egregious or not, but it's whether the sentence is egregious or not!

There is no right or wrong answer, but I think for the points above that the sentence is too harsh (not that he should be off the hook). Use analysis, not just emotion
 
Me thinks he would have gotten a lighter sentence in exchange for "anger management" if he had beat his wife. I do not know all the details but I hope the time he serves is for the gambling etc and not the acutal dog fighting becasue true insanity would be putting a dogs life ahead of assulting a person. This not to say that dog fighting is right but if you let someone off on assult charge then it is hard to give jail time to someone else for fighting(assulting) dogs.
 
One of the biggest problems in this country is with the legal system's inability to render swift punishments that are consistent across similar and different crimes. For example, how can M Vick get 23 months for dog fighting when a rapist gets six months and one year of probation? How can one drug dealer get no jail time and another get 5 years? I know that no two cases are alike. Each case has its own circumstances which must be taken into consideration. But is justice served when a crime that causes physical harm to another human is punished with no jail time but a crime against animals lands someone in jail for nearly two years? I love my dog and am not complaining about Vick's sentence. I think he should pay for what he did. I am just saying that we should make sentencing less arbitrary and give judges less leeway in determining them. This distorts justice in my opinion.
 
I can flat-out change a thread...

I'm taking the rest of the day off.
 
Turkish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can flat-out change a thread...
>
> I'm taking the rest of the day off.


Don't leave, we need you in case a thread as stupid as the Hillary thread comes up again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top