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”.