Michael Vick Contract Exposes Rift Between Sports Fans

When Michael Vick's contract was announced early Monday evening, the reaction was swift and varied across most of the nation.

Vick has his defenders. There are those who feel passionately that Vick has served his time, learned from his mistakes and should be allowed to go about his life.

Vick has his most extreme critics as well. Those that feel his crimes were so egregious that, in addition to being treated too leniently by the legal system, his post-jail time should probably not include $100 million contracts even if his athletic skill may in fact be worthy of such a deal (which is another debate altogether).

Finally there's the middle road. The in-between. It's hard to take a circumstance such as the torture and abuse of dogs and place it in a non-passionate space. Dog lovers and dog owners can barely comprehend the abandonment of dogs, never mind something as stomach churning as the crimes that Vick was involved in. Is it possible to hate the crime without hating the criminal?

It's a very tough way to see things. Vick, to his credit, has done a fair amount of good since his release from prison. He recently undid some of his own good deeds by sounding off in an interview with Will Leitch in GQ Magazine.

Nonetheless, Vick has walked the straight and narrow from a legal standpoint since his release from prison in May of 2009.

The question being asked by his most ardent critics seems to be: "Does someone convicted of the types of crimes that Michael Vick has been convicted of deserve to make $100 million dollars playing football?"

It's a valid question. We live in an age when people lose their jobs over sending naked pictures over the Internet to another consenting adult. Michael Vick sold and tortured innocent defenseless animals for both entertainment and profit. That's likely a more disturbing crime even for those who would count themselves among Vick's most passionate defenders.

The real issue here is an emotional one. At the end of the day, even if you hate Vick with every bone in your body, that's not, from a legal standpoint, a valid reason to hold him to a higher standard than anyone else. Vick is simply being re-hired at his old job.

There are those that might claim: "I'd never get my job back if I did what Vick did." I'm tempted to agree with them—but is that right? If the goal of a legal system and prison system is rehabilitation, then perhaps the hatred of Vick is not so much because he's earning this new and lucrative contract, it's because there are many people who are upset with a system that once again just seems tilted in favor of athletes and other famous people.

Yet within that social class, there are others who seem to skate by for transgressions potentially more heinous than Vick's. Ben Roethlisberger, the quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, has a history of being accused for sex crimes. He's had two different criminal complaints levied against him but has never been prosecuted for either one. The total cost of those crimes has been a six-game suspension that was then lowered to a four game suspension.

It is worth noting that Roethlisberger has never been convicted of any sex-crime. Is this a product of race? Of social class? Is Roethlisberger innocent or guilty of these crimes? We won't ever really know. If Vick has received some sort of favorable treatment due to his social standing as a professional athlete, he's not the first to receive such treatment and likely won't be the last.

Consider the alternative. Let's say hypothetically that Vick goes through everything he went through legally and then is told "you're not allowed to play football every again."  That may or may not satisfy the most angry of his critics, but what does that mean for Vick?

He only got to college because of his football skills. I'm not implying Vick is dumb, but he was at Virginia Tech on an athletic scholarship.  He left Virginia Tech early because he felt that as the number one overall pick in the NFL Draft, there was no compelling reason for him to remain in college.

Now Vick is convicted felon, his only way to pay back the legal debts he accumulated is to earn a large salary, and the only path for him to do that is to play football. That's not me asking for anyone to feel sympathy for Vick, that's just a fair assessment of reality.

Take away the NFL—take away football. It would leave Vick is a desperate situation. Debt, poverty, these are all too often the types of circumstances that lead to criminal activity. If the system's goal is to transform criminals into law-abiding citizens, then taking away their livelihood may not be a very good way of going about that. There are times when it would seem appropriate. It would make sense for someone who was entrusted with the care of children and who's crime violated that trust to not be allowed back in that line of work. Michael Vick can't own a dog—a very appropriate extended punishment given the types of crimes he committed.

No football though? Wouldn't that be yet another special type of treatment for athletes? The same type of special circumstances that when it cuts the other way (in their favor) seems to enrage people. Should that type of treatment extend to other's who live lives of fame and fortune? Should an actor or actress no longer be allowed to make a movie? Should a musician no longer receive record deals? No more iTunes access? What's the cutoff on "fame and fortune?" $1 million dollars? $10 million dollars? $100 million dollars?

It's important to remember that Vick did serve time in a federal prison for his crimes. For those who feel like perhaps the sentences are too light for animal abuse—I agree. I think there are crimes such as Vick's for which there are no excuses.

That being said, you can't base your feelings on crime and punishment on one case. Vick's criminal behavior probably shed more light on the abhorrent practice of dog-fighting than every magazine article, PETA advertising campaign, and humane society expose combined. That's a massive benefit of his either deserved or undeserved place in our society.

We are living in a time of unprecedented outrage. When the Casey Anthony verdict was announced recently, I was struck by the amount of outrage it produced. It seems as though people wanted her to be found guilty of a crime that was being prosecuted with a death sentence in its sights because ultimately they didn't like her.

I didn't like her either. She doesn't come across as very likable. That doesn't mean she killed her daughter though, especially when the evidence was largely circumstantial. The system clearly states "beyond a reasonable doubt" to determine guilt. It's not because someone really thinks that so-and-so did it. It's not because he or she is a liar. All of that can play a role, but in the end, there needs to be evidence to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." That evidence wasn't there, so she was found not-guilty.

Was I happy with that verdict? Not particularly, but in the end, it doesn't matter what I'm "happy" with. The legal system isn't built to promote or satisfy the emotional needs of the public. It's supposed to be blind.

Those that hate Michael Vick can root against the Eagles and work to change the laws regarding sentencing for crimes similar to what Vick committed. We're supposed to actually hope that convicted criminals can be rehabilitated. It's not an easy task for anyone, but in the end, transforming people from criminals to upstanding members of society is a worthy task. Michael Vick deserves that chance not just as an athlete but as a human being.