Michael Vick: Public Servant or PETA Pariah?

Michael Vick's crimes were reprehensible. I don’t say that to mollify the PETA types (in truth, there probably isn’t any mollifying PETA on this issue) or anyone else arguing that he should never be allowed to play football again. The man deserved to be brought low for what he did. Why? Because treating animals in such ways--brutalizing and devaluing their lives--is just one step below treating people that way. Yeah, I know, some will argue that makes me sound like a PETA type. But it’s true.

Think about what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII. Granted, the reasons for the holocaust (and I certainly don’t mean to get into all of them here) were vast and complex, but at it’s most basic level, that historical atrocity succeeded because of the dehumanization of an entire group of human beings. Jews were devalued as rats and dogs and less than human--the reason for all of society’s woes. Similarly, if one can so easily devalue the life of a dog--or almost any other animal--it’s not hard to imagine that person graduating to the devaluation of human life. So yeah, Michael Vick definitely had it coming.

The most frequently stated reason for why he should be given another chance in the NFL (and one with which I agree) is that NFL rosters are fairly rife with men who’ve done worse--manslaughter, domestic abuse, so forth. Make no mistake, though what Vick did was reprehensible, it still does not rise to the level, in my opinion, of taking human life. It’s a close second but still not the same. Critics who don’t want to see Vick play again argue there’s no reason to believe he’s sorry for anything beyond being caught. True enough (there are, however, signs that his remorse is genuine too).

But it doesn’t matter. Regardless of whether Vick is truly remorseful, he should be given one more chance in the NFL. Why? Obviously resuming play in the NFL is the best outcome for Vick. But though I believe in second chances, Vick’s prosperity is not my biggest consideration in forming that opinion. Hardly. The resumption of Vick’s playing career is actually what’s best for the hundreds--thousands maybe--of dogs who are still victimized by illegal fighting and other abuse. Does anyone really think Michael Vick will ever go anywhere near a dog fight again? Ever? Hell, does anyone think he’ll ever go near another dog without heavy supervision and at least one camera rolling? With that being the case, what better spokesman for the plight of these animals than Michael Vick? Who better to raise public awareness, to help get the message out LOUD and CLEAR that this behavior is intolerable, inhumane, reprehensible and illegal?

Of course, there’s also a legitimate argument for making an example of Vick, using him as a deterrent to help end this kind of behavior. But which scenario is likely to leave a more lasting mark on public discourse and thought regarding this issue? Which scenario is more likely to keep the issue in the public arena longer? A washed-up, ostracized Vick will be much more quickly forgotten and disposed of. I argue that the resumption of Vick’s playing career would be the most productive outcome regarding this issue. Obviously, in the remote chance that he were to do anything like this again, he should be covertly shipped in a box to PETA headquarters never to be heard from again.

Otherwise, let’s listen to his upcoming interviews, give the man a second chance, keep his feet to the fire and never forget that, above all other considerations, saving these animals is far more important than punishing Michael Vick.