[suebee]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Tell you what I will answer your question when you answer ours..

What would be an a good enough punishment for Vick?

You seem to have skipped over that particular question as well, as for ignoring this I am not advocating his heinous crimes, but I sure damn well am not gonna sit here quietly and watch the grossness that has happened in this thread and if you say that grossness has not happened I will point each and everyone out.

Originally Posted by suebee

I've never spoken to the criminal punishment for several reasons: I don't believe it works, and for crimes such as animal abuse I don't think it comes close to changing something. There has to be a change in attitude - in core belief systems, before somebody gets it. I'm not judge or jury. I'd hate to be involved in the process because it's a system that is so far out of date, and continues because we as a society feel that we have to see something DONE. It's almost a moot point in my opinion, except some people actually NEED to be locked up for the protection of others.

Of course Vick was in prison for bankrolling dog fights, NOT animal abuse. But the fact that he never admitted to animal abuse during the trial process - and I read that the judge was actually harder on him because of his lack of apparent remorse - is easy to understand in that he grew up in that culture, and hadn't yet come to terms with the absolute horror of his actions.

I read the blog, and that's EXACTLY what *I* needed to hear from him. I asked several times if anybody had seen him apologize - thanks for finally posting it.

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

So how long should he be reminded over and over and over and over of what he did? Cause what he's trying to do now and being honest about it isn't good enough, what would be a good way to solve this for you sue? What would be a proper punishment that would make you feel the victims were *vindicated*?


I am fully aware of what the charges were and that he got lesser charges, I am going to assume he was offered that if he cooperated with authorities that's how it tends to work in our system, so should he spend more time in jail because some people feel he should? Should he not entered a plea bargain if it was given to him?

How much more do you want him to pay? You seem to avoid that question..

Originally Posted by suebee

QUOTE=suebee;425403]I just wanted to repeat what has already been said earlier in the thread, just for precisions sake: Vick did time for bankrolling a dogfighting operation. He entered into a plea bargain to avoid having to plea on animal cruelty charges. In so doing, the evidence in regards to what actually happened to those animals was never entered into the public record.

Sue

My point was really simple Toughy. It was in answer to Snowy's comment that "he's done his time". He agreed to plead guilty to bankrolling a dog fighting operation to AVOID being tried for the animal abuse charge. You and I may know what happen to those dogs. But I doubt that everybody does. That was the point of avoiding a trial. The violence and cruelty that was shown by Vick and others is horrendous. It was strategic on his part to plead guilty to a crime that would seem less offensive.

Here's what I agree with: Others are guilty of equally horrendous cries or worse and get away with it. They may not be stigmatized as much as Vick, may even go free - and yes, race has always got to be considered a mitigating factor.

Here's what I'm feeling in this thread: As laudible as his anti-dog fighting efforts may be, he inflicted horrendous suffering on those animals. Neither his community service nor the racial aspect of unequal justice for people of colour changes that. I'm involved in animal rescue on a regular basis, and when I hear Vick's name there are some pretty fucking awful images that come into my mind. That probably isn't the case for everyone, but is is for me and most of the people I spend time with. I just feel that the victims of this case are being pretty much forgotten. I don't want to hear that they're "just dogs", or that they're not equal to humans. I don't think that mattered a damn to them when they were suffering.

I'm not really interested in starting a big conversation on the topic. I seem to be one of the few that has participated on this thread that is of this mindset. I'm just responding to Toughy's question.

Sue[/QUOTE]

I haven't avoided anything Snowy. As a matter of fact we had this EXACT conversation months ago, when the thread first came up. Your question at the top of this post. My answer in red. Again you ask the question (in blue) MY point is in pink. Snowy. I answered you once on the question of sentencing. I'll answer again in a different way. YOU are concerned with the sentencing and all of the issues around that. MY point - and if you want you can read through all of my old posts to verify - has ALWAYS been about the dogs. I could give a shit about the sentencing. It's not my country. It's not my judicial system. The dogs however..... there is an international animal rights movement of which I consider myself a part of. That's what I am talking about. The animals. If you want to ask me a question about that - an honest question - I'll try to answer. If you want to talk about sentencing, there are plenty of folks here who are interested in talking about that aspect.

No disrespect - no pissiness on my part. Just an honest answer to your question.

Respectfully,
Sue