As former Hokie Mike Vick returns home to Hampton, VA for the final two months of a 23-month dogfighting sentence, the questions concerning his future in the National Football League are out in full force.
It is not a question of if Vick will continue his pro football career in 2009; it is when and where he will continue it.
When he does return to the field this fall, the franchise that takes that gamble on him will have to prepare for the onslaught of attention from the media, and the countless animal rights groups that will be knocking the doors of the stadium down in protest. There are many more reasons why a team should take the chance on the former all-pro quarterback than why they should not.
95% of criminals deserve a second chance, and maybe 5% of criminals deserve a third chance. When Mike Vick is released from home confinement on July 20, he will begin his second chance. He has an opportunity to repair an image that was severely damaged two years ago.
Vick has already reached out to several animal rights groups in an effort to be a spokesperson against dogfighting by urban teens. He has made numerous statements with the same message: "I can change." Most importantly, Vick must change his own image.
Legally, there are people involved in that dogfighting ring that he cannot see again. Beyond those people, he must realize which people are going to bring him down and which ones will be there to help him resurrect his once-enviable life.
Back in 2007, a federal judge ruled that fair punishment for Vick's actions was 23 months in prison. When that comes to an end in July, his punishment is over. Therefore, he should be allowed to attempt to continue his career without any further reprimand. He must cherish the opportunity he has to play football and live a normal life again. If he does not do that, and falls into many of the same lifestyle choices he made before his sentence, then he will find himself back behind bars somewhere down the road, and then he will be out of chances. Until that happens, America needs to allow him that second chance.
Many people argue that Vick's criminal status should not warrant another opportunity to play in the most recognized professional sports league in the world. They argue that if someone in an ordinary profession had committed such a crime, they would never be rehired, yet Vick will earn millions of dollars again. That argument is fundamentally wrong.
Leave a comment 1 Comment Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I agree that anyone can change, and hopefully Michael Vick has. I do not agree that his second chance should include a return to the NFL. Using your analogy, Bill Gates would have to commit a crime (unrelated to his profession, but violating his contract), attempt to cover it up, lie about it when caught, finally admit guilt in a bargain for the mildest punishment, then later plead to get that reduced. I wouldn’t hire a man (or woman) like that to clean a stadium, let alone play in it. Take a look back: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401044.html. This was not a single incident of lapsed judgment. This was not a man alone in the world-he chose to reject the guidance he was offered. He chose to throw away his privileged (not “normalâ€Â) lifestyle. My part of America does not “need†to allow him back on the field. Luckily, Mr. Vick does get another chance. He leaves jail a healthy young man, having been incarcerated for less than two years. Completing his education would be a great way to take advantage of this fresh start. Returning him to a celebrity position should be out of the question. Doing so makes the statement that breaking the law, lying to your teammates, coaches and the public, violating your contract are all ok--if you have the potential to make some franchise a ton of money. It's a sell-out and a bad example.
Reply to this Top