Despite the testosterone charged atmosphere in the NFL, looks like the Commissioner is the only guy who's got a pair. He's suspended Michael Vick.
Blogs and news shows have been repeating a talking point over and over: innocent until proven guilty. Many people are pressing to not impose any consequences until the outcome of his presumed trial in Federal court. Bad idea.
- "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to how we decide to deprive citizens of their physical freedom. Incarcerating someone is the most severe punishment (aside from execution) that can be imposed by our government. So the only place of a jury's judgement is in that context. What if we applied the phrase to other aspects of life? Have you ever been fired or let go from a job based on charges that would result in a criminal conviction? Do you think that was wrong to be fired without a jury trial? What if you were a boss and had to make personnel moves for only those reasons? Don't you keep your children away from a creepy next-door neighbor based on your impressions, rather than solid evidence meeting the test of admissibility? Evaluation of one's actions in a legal light is just that---judgement on a legal basis. It should never be considered in factors aside from locking someone up.
- In solely practical terms, the distraction of these charges is enormous. Can you imagine road games? Opposing fans, cities, morning deejays, PETA, etc. will be merciless. There are a bunch of other guys around him trying to play football and earn endorsements. They don't deserve this kind of distraction any more than you deserve working with a deadbeat who generates bill-collection calls to your workplace. Vick's actions affect everyone in the organization.
- This isn't a small matter, it carries a much longer jail term than say, a DUI. A DUI can be the result of a momentary bad decision in an otherwise (relatively) stable person. These charges are from a long-term offense, like money laundering, where lots of people and intent over an extended period of time is required. And with a conviction rate of 95% or so on Federal charges, it's very likely he will be convicted or serve time.
- At the very least, he's shown extreme negligence. He bought a house and property, knew there were people there who were convicted criminals, and (he says) never set foot on the property or checked on it for five years. Because of his alleged oversight, his money was used to establish and run an illegal and thoroughly disgusting venture. It wouldn't have happened had he not used NFL money. Why give him any more?
- Michael Vick isn't being paid to throw a football, he's being paid to throw a football while being televised and watched by millions. His job isn't just to accomplish a mechanical end, it includes representing the team and the city. The NFL is a legal monopoly for that reason. Ultimately football is like moviemaking. If you're a great actor/actress/director that's great, but you don't get paid unless you can sell your product. Brad Pitt gets paid huge advances for signing a contract based on the fact that people will go because he's in the movie. His appearances on Entertainment Tonight and in other media are part of what drives his appeal. Michael Vick is no different. Image, conduct, and other "soft" factors come into play, and they should be considered in light of his job performance.
