I was driving around Dallas listening to The Michael Irvin Show on 103.3 ESPN Radio. For those who do not listen to sports talk radio or follow the NFL, Michael Irvin is a former wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys and a member of the NFL Hall of Fame. They were discussing the Michael Vick case.
The subject of the show segment focused on Vick’s transfer to Atlanta from Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in preparation for his release to home confinement and eventual freedom.(In reality it was a temporary stop and he is back at Leavenworth). They covered the usual hot buttons such as his pending bankruptcy case and of course whether he will be reinstated to play in the NFL. Vick’s civil attorney Peter Ginsburg was a guest, discussing Vick’s testimony in the bankruptcy case.
The discussion turned to whether they thought Michael Vick’s sentence was fair. Michael Irvin and his co-host thought Vick was treated unfairly as compared to sentences other defendants had received in similar circumstances. Ginsburg chose his words carefully, simply agreeing that Vick received a harsher sentence then anyone else sentenced on similar charges. (I don’t know that to be true but will take his word for it) Was it fair and appropriate that Vick be treated differently than others similarly situated? I believe it was. My rational is as follows.
When looking at crime and sentencing , our justice systems sets two distinctly different types of deterrent values. One is the range of sentencing and discretion given juries and judges for classes of crimes that set social policy in the long term. There is no need to set specific sentencing examples for these crimes as a means of social deterrence. Such examples in themselves, taken alone, would have little or no effect on crime deterrence moving forward. Such crimes are so woven into society and occur with such frequency that unless we change our entire sentencing structure and philosophy to make everyone an example , singling one person out for a harsher sentence would have no social detterrent effect . The sentence for these types of crimes send a societal message but not a message directed at any one individual. The example is made is in the consistency of prosecution and sentencing.
As an example, Jim Leyritz is on trial for vehicular manslaughter. He was allegedly driving drunk, ran red light and killed a women. If Jim were to be convicted there will be a range of sentencing. Whether he gets the minimum or the maximum it will have no deterrent effect on the the next person to drink and get behind the wheel. It is a sentence of social policy against drunk driving and and not individual deterrence. No one is going to think about the Jim Leyritz case before they drink and drive.(except maybe Jim Leyritz)
There is also the class of crimes in which the range of sentencing allows for a direct message to be sent to a narrow class of people. Crimes that may not occur on a repetitive level to a degree that it is a societal issue versus a regional or even local issue. Crimes we do not hear about and are not de-sensitized to on a societal level. Crimes such as dogfighting. For these crimes, when the opportunity presents itself, sentencing ranges speak to a specific opportunity to send a targeted message to the narrow class that may be engaging in such conduct. The message that such conduct will not be tolerated with the opportunity for the message to actually be heard and heeded. Without the opportunity to make an example and send such a message in high profile cases such as Michael Vick there would be no deterrent value at all beyond the person sentenced in prosecution of individual cases. No one would take notice.
We are not talking about Vick or others like him receiving a sentence so harsh/disproportionate as to the crime committed to be considered unconstitutional and “cruel and unusual” as in the case of Genarlow Wilson or Marcus Dixon. For our justice system to work properly these constitutional types of “example” sentences such as Vick received must be made when the opportunity presents itself.
For these reasons Michael Vick’s sentence was appropriate and “fair”.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I disagree in principle. I don’t think you can set up our justice system to treat one individual different than others. If the act of dog fighting is so abhorrent then all convicted of the crime should get the same justice. I believe his sentence is fair but others have been treated lightly when they should get the full merit of the law. Those who are likely to commit the act are the ones who got away lightly in the first place. If I am in an environment where “dog fighting” is the norm and my friend is convicted for it and doesn’t receive jail time, it’s going to play a more important determinant in my future actions than what happened to a pro athlete who is no longer part of that community. I don’t think people should say “they made an example out of Mike Vick” but they should say “Mike Vick didn’t receive any special sentencing”.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
In my opinion there should be two classifications of incarceration. The first is those who will be rejoining society. These prisoners need to detained grouped in with those who committed the same crime and daily working on actually correcting the behavior which is not acceptable and the establishing a skill set which allows the prisoner to immediately cope with society upon release. The second class is those we deem a risk to society and not to be released. They should be housed as humanely as possible structured around a restrictive internal society. Each class is now intermingled and prisoners are housed by the severity of behavior. There is little treatment going on and very little done to make the prisoner ready to be reintroduced to society.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
High profile individuals have accepted, either consciously or not, their role as role models when they stepped into the spotlight. This heightened status and visibility make their actions templates for many people to emmulate. With this comes more responsibility, not less. It is unfortunate that less responsibility is often the actual reality with high profile individuals often receiving "get out of jail free" cards or much more favorable treatment than the average citizen could hope to receive. Vick is the one responsible for his actions and there consequences.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I think few people will complain when a celebrity is actually treated more harshly because of their celebrity, given the long history in this country of the privileged getting more lenient treatment, whether for political reasons or access to better lawyers. Add Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton to the examples; the former was not even charged with a crime for her initial conduct but served time for a cover-up of a non-crime; the latter was sent home after two days of a 30 day sentence due to jail crowding, but then brought back so it wouldn't look like she was getting special treatment.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I believe Michael Vick’s sentence was not only too harsh, it was uncalled for. NFL, NHL, NBA, law enforcement, etc. high profile people present themselves PLENTY for crimes that go unpunished. Domestic Violence is a big one. Chris Brown is still strolling the streets after assaulting Rhianna, Michael Jackson is still a creepy child molester, and the list goes on and on. Don’t get me wrong, I love animals, but until we can protect the humans we should be aiming our sites at criminals and laws that should be changed and strengthened to make the world a better place. As a mother, every time I see people get upset over a lost puppy and then turn their head to the child being abused next door it makes me want to vomit! What Vick did was irresponsible, but he didn’t do anything like what is going on out there from a human perspective. Hell, the laws aren’t really protecting the humans that dogs attack and maul! If Vick had killed his wife, beat his child, and then drove drunk to a hospital he would be at home right now raking in more money from the NFL and fans who would still love him! In my opinion, he either didn’t pay his attorney enough, or his attorney sucked!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:56 am
There is another element you are not considering – the different circumstances of the defendants. A $1,000 fine might be a true punishment to an impoverished person, but for Vick it would be meaningless. Incidentally, anyone who feels Vick was harshly treated should consider both his conduct: he personally tortured and killed dogs and he financed the operation, provided the place for it, etc., and also consider that he could easily have been charged and convicted of a criminal count for each dog that was fought, or died. The last is the way prosecutors typically charge drug dealers or criminals involved in an ongoing conspiracy. I personally know a man who bought a cemetary and improperly made use of the "perpetual" funds. He was charged and convicted of a single 12-month misdemeanor count for every cemetary site for which funds had been looted. He was sentenced to approximately 100 years of time. Vick got off easily.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:43 am
ok, I'll try to keep this short,but I've got a lot to say.
1] Vick was made into the EXAMPLE, not justice by example. To the best of my knowledge, he is the highest profiled, most well known "dog fighter" who was caught. The judge and the jury sent a message to ghettos across the nation.
2] about what Rich and Marc said…it appears that things are different when you look aggressive like vick and not sweet and innocent like hilton and stewart. I guess, you could say…that women are given special treatment and I'll refrain from turning to this into a color issue. To me, Vick could never escape how he grew up…
3] I completely agree with Tara!— OJ got off easy, until he started playing stupid, for a point of reference! Alas, Chris Brown hasn't been proven guilty yet and OJ never was, but we all know better…
April 17th, 2009 at 4:43 am
4] and terry…I don't think wages should be taken into account when imposing a fine, but that's just me! To me, that's a violation of civil rights…FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT…albeit, I guess each judge decides what is fair and equal in each case…
Yet and still, I understand that I could be wrong about the points I just made
April 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Go to Google and look up operation snowplow and then tell me that the color of his skin got him put in jail. Hell the people in the above mention was killing and selling Big Cat, Tigers, ect…… right here in the USA and only got 4 years and they are white! Now you do the math.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I am new to this blog so forgive the lateness. The vast majority of the public do not understand the federal sentencing system. A large number of lawyers who do not practice criminal law also do not understand it. In order address the issues discussed in this column, the United States Sentencing commission was created to equalize federal sentencing. Every federal offense has a point value and then there are various small adjustments, usually not more than two or three points up or down. When someone is sentenced, their point value determined, and based upon their criminal history, a final number determined. That number gives a range of imprisonment of about 6 – 8 months. At sentencing, the judge has the discretion to go anywhere in that range and to go up or down in a limited amount. Some of you may have heard of the Booker case which gave the federal judges discretion in sentencing, Unfortunately, many federal appeals courts have held that the guidelines are reasonable and a judge must give specific reasons for deviating from the guidelines. As a general rule, probation is not available as a sentence in the federal system except for a very small number of petty misdemeanors.