Vick Offered Minimum One Year Prison Sentence as Part of Plea Deal

[Longtimefan]

I said in the last M. Vick thread that he would change his plea before No. 26th, it would apear he's now getting the kind of advice that may enable him to reestablish himself in the NFL if at all possible.

I know of no other player in the history of the league who has been convicted of a felony, and come back to play. Maybe Vick will be a first, we'll just have to wait and see.

[saden1]

5+ years vs 1 year? This is an easy choice even if he believes he is innocent. You would be pretty f'ing stupid to fight it and risk going to the shitter for 5+ years.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

5+ years vs 1 year? This is an easy choice even if he believes he is innocent. You would be pretty f'ing stupid to fight it and risk going to the shitter for 5+ years.

I doubt he would go for 5, more like 3 if convicted.

[dmek25]

can someone explain to me why i can go out on the street and sell drugs, and walk away with a citation. but if i fight dogs, i do jail time? something doesnt seem quite right with that picture

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by dmek25

can someone explain to me why i can go out on the street and sell drugs, and walk away with a citation. but if i fight dogs, i do jail time? something doesnt seem quite right with that picture

No doubt but the argument to that is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because our punishment of one crime is woefully undervalued doesn't make it ok to not go after violators of other laws. That's kind of a slippery slope.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by dmek25

can someone explain to me why i can go out on the street and sell drugs, and walk away with a citation. but if i fight dogs, i do jail time? something doesnt seem quite right with that picture

Well, your average pinhead small time dealer walking the streets selling dimebags of marijuana doesn't compare to the savage cruelty of being the ring leader of an illegal dog fighting organization. It is a federal offense...

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by dmek25

can someone explain to me why i can go out on the street and sell drugs, and walk away with a citation. but if i fight dogs, i do jail time? something doesnt seem quite right with that picture

Thats what I dont understand. I guess its that we're more excepting of people selling drugs then people fighting dogs. Maybe becuase there are no big interest groups that put up huge legal fights to make their views of illegal drug dealing forced on society. But groups like peta have the backing and little opposition to enforce their views (in forms of laws) on us.
As someone said above America is a dog loving society (myself very included), so i guess its easier to get people to go along with laws that are anti-dog fighitng even though the laws may be extreme (prison time for a first time offender).

Redskins Rule!!!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

can someone explain to me why i can go out on the street and sell drugs, and walk away with a citation. but if i fight dogs, i do jail time? something doesnt seem quite right with that picture

The generalities of your comparison make it hard to compare and contrast the two situtations.

Each crime (dogfighting v. selling drugs) has various degrees. What Vick did appears to be at the most eggregious end of the dogfighting crimes. If you were the financier of a drug ring, you would probably walk away from the situation with more than "a citation". On the other hand, if you were fought your dog one time at an illegal dog fighting event, you probably would not do jail time.

Why jail time for one and not the other? Penalties are set out by statutes and within them certain ranges are given. Sentencing guidelines are developed and then followed by the Judges - subject to review by the appellate courts. Any time courts develop guidelines that offend the public or seem improper, the laws can be modified to address them. Based on the sentencing range, prosecutors develop guidelines as to appropriate settlement offers. Courts are not bound by the prosecutors recommendation reached after a plea agreement (Regardless of the offer by the prosecutors, the court could reject it and substitute a longer, or shorter, as long as it is within the courts sentencing guidelines).

Thus, the laws set out the penalties and a certain level of judicial/prosecutorial discretion comes into play depending on the severity of the crime w/in its general category. (first degree murder > second degree murder > manslaughter).

The bottom line is that, if the public doesn't like the categories, then the public can change the penalties.

If the most time Vick could have done for the indictment, as I read it, was 6 years, I am not seeing anything out of line. In fact, given the coordinated and broad deceptions involved and the brutal nature of his actions towards animals in his care, or the care of those operating in partnership with him, I think that a maximun of six years is low.

If you believe penalties for "selling drugs" should be stiffer and require a minimum jail time in all cases, feel free to lobby for such a change. Many will agree with you.

Many will also agree with me that the abusive nature of dogfighting warrants MUCH stiffer penalties than the minimal jail time involved for extremely abusive behavior (Dogfighting is a bloodsport that requires its participants to attack and maim or kill their opponent and is done for the pleasure or profit of those who care for the participants. To me requiring living beings in your care to subject themselves to injury and/or death for your personal fun and profit is abusive).

Thus, while you may not see dogfighting as inately abusive, I would suggest that a majority of Americans would consider it worse then small time drug dealing.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The generalities of your comparison make it hard to compare and contrast the two situtations.

Each crime (dogfighting v. selling drugs) has various degrees. What Vick did appears to be at the most eggregious end of the dogfighting crimes. If you were the financier of a drug ring, you would probably walk away from the situation with more than "a citation". On the other hand, if you were fought your dog one time at an illegal dog fighting event, you probably would not do jail time.

Why jail time for one and not the other? Penalties are set out by statutes and within them certain ranges are given. Sentencing guidelines are developed and then followed by the Judges - subject to review by the appellate courts. Any time courts develop guidelines that offend the public or seem improper, the laws can be modified to address them. Based on the sentencing range, prosecutors develop guidelines as to appropriate settlement offers. Courts are not bound by the prosecutors recommendation reached after a plea agreement (Regardless of the offer by the prosecutors, the court could reject it and substitute a longer, or shorter, as long as it is within the courts sentencing guidelines).

Thus, the laws set out the penalties and a certain level of judicial/prosecutorial discretion comes into play depending on the severity of the crime w/in its general category. (first degree murder > second degree murder > manslaughter).

The bottom line is that, if the public doesn't like the categories, then the public can change the penalties.

If the most time Vick could have done for the indictment, as I read it, was 6 years, I am not seeing anything out of line. In fact, given the coordinated and broad deceptions involved and the brutal nature of his actions towards animals in his care, or the care of those operating in partnership with him, I think that a maximun of six years is low.

If you believe penalties for "selling drugs" should be stiffer and require a minimum jail time in all cases, feel free to lobby for such a change. Many will agree with you.

Many will also agree with me that the abusive nature of dogfighting warrants MUCH stiffer penalties than the minimal jail time involved for extremely abusive behavior (Dogfighting is a bloodsport that requires its participants to attack and maim or kill their opponent and is done for the pleasure or profit of those who care for the participants. To me requiring living beings in your care to subject themselves to injury and/or death for your personal fun and profit is abusive).

Thus, while you may not see dogfighting as inately abusive, I would suggest that a majority of Americans would consider it worse then small time drug dealing.

Well thought out Joe, couldn't agree any more! Nice Post.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Thus, while you may not see dogfighting as inately abusive, I would suggest that a majority of Americans would consider it worse then small time drug dealing.

I see it as murder! I treat my dogs as family members. I will spend major $$$ on surgeries or whatever they need to have a healthy life. It is an inhumane act that should never be tolerated or taken lightly.

People will turn their backs on you, but a dog will love you no matter how bad you treat him. All he/she asks for is food, water, and shelter....and you have a friend for life.

[Darrell_Green_28]

well either way he more than likely will not play anymore with the Falcons if at all in the NFL

Falcons owner says Vick's day with Falcons likely over - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

[jgalecpa]

What will the status of any signing bonuses be if he gets suspended for one year, two years, etc?

[Cowell]

He won't get paid.

[jgalecpa]

All for bets that were reported in the 1,500 - 5,000 range.

Bad math!

[Bushead]

As a PR major... WHERE THE HELL IS HIS AGENT? There has been no news conference or proactive action to help with all the speculation or atmosphere that is tearing Vick apart. By all means I think its deserved, but I just don't understand why no one is at least giving him some help.