I have heard opinions given saying that to play in the NFL is a privilege and so therefore he doesn't deserve another chance to play based on his transgressions. Never mind that for his whole life, he has been cultivated for football to be his most likely livelihood. I would contend that the NFL is no more of a privilege to someone that has gone to the highest level of institution to hone his craft in football, than for someone else who has gone to the highest level of institution to hone their skills in say engineering, architecture, or any other generic college degree. It is no guarantee that a degree in anything confirms that you will be able to apply those skills in that specific field. It is a privilege to get a job in that field. Especially in these economic times. How many of us know someone who has a particular talent or skill set, or education, but cannot make a current living with that particular pedigree? He or she has to settle for whatever they can get. So again, I contend that anything NFL or insert corporation, is a privilege to be a part of.
That is just one side of the spectrum. I want to know what it is to pay a debt to society and where does the societal reaction come from in ridiculing the people involved. I have heard on sports radio stations and other media outlets, people all but begging for Vick not to get a second chance. Is it OK for Vick to work at the local grocery store rather than attain a position in the NFL in trying to reestablish himself as a viable member of society? Would that make certain people feel better? I ask where does that kind of sentiment come from against him being given another chance? If people would be truly honest in why they feel what they feel, what factors outside of the crime play a role in the public opinion for or against Vick? I will contend that the obvious element even more than the crimes themselves is the reality of the person that committed the crimes. There has to be a racial perspective when you see another black athlete living up to a negative stereotype. That was the thing that disappointed me the most when this news story first broke. I had to think that another one bit the dust and continued to muddy the waters for the rest of the black athletes both present and future. I say that as a black man. I also know that Vick was not the best citizen on the football field at times. He has experienced some unfriendly fan interactions even when times were supposedly good for him. With some other outside of football negativity tarnishing his image, it is not hard to not feel the need to give him any sort of benefit of the doubt. Still, I am sure there are a lot of elephants in the room that are holding a lot of people on their backs in trying to get to the root of this issue. Connecting Vick to the already at times negative perception that he has acquired just seems to make it too easy for one not to notice what could be other deciding factors in the public perception of Vick. Maybe some people don't think Vick deserves a chance in the NFL simply because of the money that he is still able to earn. There is always a backlash from the knowledge of the money that athletes earn even when you are an athlete in good standing in the community. Regardless of the social, economic or cultural misunderstandings or just lack of understanding, I just wonder if people are totally honest to what else there is in this scenario that people are not willing to see or admit exists in forming their respective opinions as individuals.
With these thoughts in mind, is it ever really possible for Vick to pay his debt? I have to think that no matter what Vick does from these days forward, his debt will never be fully paid. Organizations such as PETA and other animal rights and support groups are going to make their presence felt. At least in the short term anyway. So they are going to continue to punish him well after he has supposedly paid his debt. These groups will always be able to sway a certain percentage of public opinion. So his debt will really be always partially paid to some at best. No matter what he has already paid to the laws that he was convicted by, he will owe society more than that.
I have to say that I think society is part of the problem in what makes the criminal cycle seem so vicious. Not just about Michael Vick, but for the “average” or run of the mill criminal. No matter how long of a time served in jail. No matter how much of a “debt” he or she has paid. They will never be able to break the societal expectations of its right to determine how much of a debt must be paid. For instance, a felon no matter how long after the fact in paying their debt, will always have a hard time in getting a simple thing such as a lease for an apartment. Once the background check is issued and the transgression is revealed, the rules and regulations of whatever the institution might be that is executing the background check supersede the debt that was paid. The expectation of the citizens in the area to be protected from the people and their past circumstances outweighs any debt paid. It is as if, once a criminal, always criminal to be simply stated. If a felon goes to apply for a job, again, once the background of the individual is revealed, the likelihood of them having a chance to get the job is dramatically decreased. More often than not, there is not one person that takes the initiative to even talk to the person with the checkered past to see where their head is in order to gauge if they can be an asset. Many times, a criminal is never given the chance to prove that they are rehabilitated or simply, have just changed the errors of their ways. Then as a society, we wonder why a one time criminal becomes a two time criminal and so and and so forth. Society is a factor as to why some never can fully rehabilitate. It is the proverbial system keeping them down. Except it is not the systematic ways of the law more than it is the systematic ways of the people and what they expect or demand that becomes the oppressor.
Which brings me to this point. I hate to be this guy, but I think it needs to be stated. One of the biggest flaws society has in my humble opinion, is that society's moral outrages and how they accept or reject violators of the law or ethical codes of conduct is consistently inconsistent. We have another NFL player who has been in the public eye in Donte Stallworth. In the same society, the public opinion of his offense is totally different in comparing the details of the two NFL players in Vick and Stallworth. My perspective is not to compare which of the violators is more or less wrong. I contend that the moral outrage should be the same for both. It is as if we tend to only have an opinion about the things that pertain to us directly or that we simply tend to relate to. With that said, it doesn't mean that our opinions are always legit even in the things we do relate to.
In case one is not familiar, Vick was convicted of an illegal gambling operation which involved dog fighting, and also the violent treatment of the dogs. Which led to the neglect and even the death of some of the dogs. Which in turn, led to Vick having to serve a year and a half jail sentence in federal prison as well as a having to pay a severe monetary penalty. That also means that he missed two full years of NFL action and earnings on top of the legal ramifications he inherited. Stallworth on the other hand, was involved in a drunken driving incident in which he was behind the wheel of a car driving under the influence of alcohol and traces of marijuana and ran over a citizen while under that influence which led to that citizen's death. I will say that the citizen that did die was negligent in some of his actions that led to his death as he didn't cross the street in a safe manner. So consequently, the accident was unavoidable regardless of Stallworth's state. That is how it was interpreted by the law anyhow. Which in turn, dramatically changed the perception of Stallworth to some and influenced the debt to society that Stallworth had to pay. Stallworth was given a thirty day jail sentence as well as a long checklist of probationary requirements that still need to be met. He has been suspended without pay from the NFL for one year on top of his legal obligations. The thing that I continue to find the most concerning in what I hear by way of public opinion is still that the moral outrages tend to be inconsistent only because of what people associate with or relate to in their lives. I don't expect Stallworth to receive the same backlash in whatever he encounters after he is through paying his debt because to many, his offense is easier to relate to. So the amount of people standing on their soap box crying for more blood is naturally going to be less versus what Vick will be exposed to just because of the rather unusual nature of his offense in comparison. I don't find the inconsistent nature of the public surprising since the laws and the application of the law tend to be inconsistent at times as well. It adds to the public opinion when you weigh the outcomes of the two separate sentences carried out by the law. The distribution of the law can tend to confirm what people already feel. So can we really expect anything less of the citizens that are guided and protected and directed by these laws? I just contend that the ways that we feel emotionally don't always mean that we feel things in a proper context. A lot of times we get so emotional in instances like these that we don't always see the full picture of what is really there because of what we cling on to personally. The reality of the facts can tend to get blurry when that is the case. So the emotional perspective tends to get in the way of the facts in the realm of public opinion.
For instance, a dog owner might form a harsher opinion against Vick the same way a member of MADD would form an opinion against Stallworth. Even within our own opinions or comprehension of our opinions, we tend to be a bit contradictory or inconsistent in our own right at times. A person who might be a dog owner can hate Vick for his actions. While this same dog owner can relate to Stallworth because he or she at some point of their life might have had one too many to drink. So they can sympathize with Stallworth because in essence, that could be them or anyone that they might associate with. But at the same time, this same person can say to him or herself, that they would never do anything that could lead to the harming of a dog or any animal for that matter. Not realizing that in being intoxicated, one is not exactly in control of their actions. So nothing is certain in what one is capable or not capable of in said state. I am sure Stallworth didn't think he was capable of hitting a pedestrian while intoxicated. But I don't think that should decrease the magnitude of the responsibility of his actions. Nor should it manipulate the perception of his actions. It is as if saying Vick was more deliberate of the actions involved in his crime and that Stallworth wasn't as deliberate in his crime by way of his actions because one could argue that to be intoxicated means to be unaware of the events one might be involved in, in said state. As if he accidentally became intoxicated and got behind the wheel of a car. With all of the education that we have at our disposal as a society about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, we have to come to the reasonable conclusion that there was just as likely of a chance to commit that crime than not commit that crime. Still simply to some, the intoxication makes Stallworth less responsible. Which brings in another factor as to why more can relate to his circumstance. I contend that just as some think anyone can have too much to drink to get to the state of being inebriated by alcohol, I believe anyone can be the citizen that is victimized by such a transgressor. Which should make Stallworth just as deliberate. Still at the end of the day, to do what Vick did and to do what Stallworth did are both against the law. So in my opinion, the moral outrages should be the same because the results of the actions are in essence the same.
I won't be sucked into the debate as to what is more offensive, the illegal gambling and harming and death of dogs all be it violently. Or the death of a man, a father, a husband and a son. Whatever you relate to the most at the core of the issues, I guess that is where your point of view is going to direct you. I just continue to contend that the moral outrages should be consistent. Even to the things that we might not all be able to understand. When we know all of the transgressions to be wrong.
I wish both Vick and Stallworth the best in terms of how they go about living their lives and rejuvenating their respective careers. I hope both learn the lessons from their actions. I hope even more for society though. I hope that some how we as a society learn the most from these examples. Maybe if we think of how our actions can affect others in doing some of the things that we do. Then we will worry more about how our actions affect us as individuals and think about if our actions are always in our best interest. I guess simply, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Then maybe, there would be no need for citizens to pick and choose what to be offended by. Hopefully there would be no citizens to be victimized by as well. Everyone would take each other into consideration within our own actions. Maybe with the same mentality and thought, there would be no future Michael Vicks and Donte Stallworths to have to be offended by. Provided we all gain the foresight to see into the future with thought and determine the outcome of our actions based on the inevitable debt or consequences that follow those actions. It just doesn't seem to be worth it in the end. Unless the failures are the only way for us to learn. Then learning does make it worth it even if we don't understand that part of the process. It sometimes takes to get to the lowest points for the things to be revealed about ourselves that we then learn from. You just hope that in the errors that we all make in living, we never lose sight of the lessons to be learned in failing. Especially in failing each other. But as we all know, hind sight is 20/20.
No comments:
Post a Comment