Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Well, the principle that no person is above the law dates back to Magna Carta. A celebrity should receive whatever sentence a non-celebrity would receive under the same circumstance. From my perspective, I do not believe that this should rise to the level of federal offense, and three years behind bars is excessive. Fines would be a better alternative to prison time, IMO.


Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

I don't think so...I don't know enough about sports to understand what sorts of things result in banning, but it doesn't seem to me to be a punishment proportional to the offense.


We actually had a thread a long while back on the issue of libertarianism and animal rights. It's worth a read, I think. Many of Bikerdad's points are good ones, overall. It is a fact that we legislate "morality" all of the time (I mean legislation based on feelings, not exclusive to religion) and that legislation is not only limited to the big topics that usually come to mind like abortion, or homosexual marriage. Seatbelt laws, drug control laws, pornography, other types of obscenity, even littering laws, ect.

It could be argued that Jim Bob next door to me should be able to place a functioning toilet in his front lawn and cop a permanent squat there...after all, it's his property and his backside. Heck, he should (theoretically), be able to proudly and nakedly fling his own poo anywhere within the bounderies of his property line. It's even biodegradable and doesn't effect anyone! But it does of course. Property values would be effected by Jim Bob's toilet, and (less directly but true nonetheless) neighbors would probably fear and detest Jim Bob and have to limit their freedom outdoors in their own yards and sidewalks due to his public displays. (sorry for the graphic example)

Eventually, I'm quite certain that folks would be tired of Jim Bob's provocative antics and do something about it. That's why we actually have legal concepts like "fighting words". Humans react when they see suffering. It isn't realistic to expect US citizens en masse to accept the torture or egregious abuse of animals...unless our society changes quite a bit, and frankly I don't want to live in a society that condones that sort of thing, as they are generally societies in decline.

At any rate, it does come fundamentally down to a decision of what society is going to tolerate and where that nebulous line is drawn. Of course there is also the issue of competing interests....does "homie's" (sp?) or Hilton's "right" to abuse animals usurp the rights of society to tolerate the abuse? Depends on the extent of abuse, and the reason for it. In the case of meat, if the animal is killed humanely, we feel better and permit it (because we like to eat meat), or even if it's more cruel, for instance animal lab testing (we need medicine). But in the case of dog fighting, which is cruel only for the sake of entertainment and gambling purposes, we don't.

Of course, to finish my thoughts, what we are willing to tolerate can change over time too, depending on the nature of society. What we tolerated in the 1950s is not the same as what we tolerate today. And different societies tolerate different things (see my signature). Japan, for instance, might have legal dogfighting but it also has vending machines selling used small schoolgirl underpanties in some of its big city subway systems. I don't think we'd tolerate either of those things.

It kind of varies from league to league since each one has it's own policies on player conduct. In the NFL most often a player will get banned for repeated illegal drug use and that doesn't happen very often. It takes some pretty blatant behavior. More often than not, some individual teams will impose a stricter standard on the behavior of their players than the league does in general and that standard varies broadly across the league. For example, my favorite team, the Denver Broncos, comes down pretty hard on a player if he gets involved in repeated domestic violence offenses. They've been known to cut a player loose for that and let him seek employment with another team. Other teams have other standards that theoretically reflect the standards of acceptable behavior of the community in which they play. Professional football is after all in the business of entertaining the public and if the public doesn't like the way your players behave, you aren't going to stay in business very long.

Aquilla

No I'm not kidding. Does Jim Bob "the feces thrower" (see upthread) personally perpetrate violence on Terry "the pitbull" during the fight? No. Xerxes "the vicious golden retreiver" does. So anything you're attaching to dog fighting aside this is still dog on dog action not human on dog action.

At the end of the day DG. It's a dog. A dog. Not a human. We're hgher on the food chain. Doesn't mean we should engage in such activities...

I have no problem with state laws regarding dog fighting. I do not find the regulation of dogfighting as a power designated to the federal government under our constitution unless interstate commerce is involved.

BA you are quoting Daffy, but arguing Mrs. P’s post.

We are beginning to get redundant with this “It's a dog. A dog. Not a human.” Ok, we get that from you, BD and others. You've scored from the three point zone. That said, dogs and other animals are different from inanimate property. A dog isn’t a broken chair we kick to the curb for someone in a "pickemup" truck (forgive this bit of illiteracy, I'm from Texas ) to come by and collect. It isn’t an obsolete compute than we might donate to Goodwill.

There are two arguments nobody has bothered to counter. Unlike inanimate “property,” animals...

1. Feel pain,

2. Experience emotions, fear being one of them.

All this stuff about "property" sounds like business school, B.Ba., M.Ba. babble. (No pun intended concerning BA's screen name, although... ) It's about what I see as college school of business mentality.

Oh and BTW: BA it is human on dog violence, because a human put the dogs in the ring.

I see. Xerxes the golden retriever got together with Terry and they built up a nice large fenced-in area to fight in with their doggie tools. Then, they agreed to get together and kill each other. "And people can watch us! It'll be just like an episode of extreme animals on Animal Planet!" said Xerxes to Terry.

Not sure how Jim Bob comes into this. He's simply minding his own business, doing what he wants to do with his own property.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that we treat perpetrators of animal abuse on the same level as we treat perpetrators of human abuse. But you are mistaken if you think animal abuse doesn't evoke an emotional reaction from many, many people. Take a look at this thread. They use dogs in therapy, with great success in fact, for this reason.

These animals do not fight each other to the death out of sheer instinct. They are trained to kill, and abused routinely so that they will become mean enough to kill most effectively. That dog fighting=animal abuse is rather beyond question.

From what I have read, it appears that the toughened federal laws do require a 3 year sentence. I do believe that it is enough. I love animals, but anything more than that is overkill and could possibly be attacked as being excessive or unusual punishment. My opinion is backed by Harlowe vs. Georgia where three convicted men convicted men wanted their case thrown out on the grounds that it was excessive. While the court found that a $5,000 fine and an optional one year imprisonment was not excessive for being convicted of dog fighting, I think anything more than three years would be more likely to be overturned on the grounds of being excessive. I agree that the legislation does need to be passed. I found it surprising that dog fighting was a felony in 48 states, but that at the federal level, it was a midemeanor.Source.



there is an interesting list of professional felons. I even found an amusing Daily Princetonian article about the National Felons' League(NFL!) I do believe that any athlete convicted of any felony should not be allowed to play. I'm not certain as to how that should be carried out. I would hope that the professional sports organizations would do that themselves, though it appears that they need more bad publicity before any system wide ban would be instituted. For that reason, it looks as if congress should get the ball rolling and scare them into doing it, or do it themselves. If not, it won't get done.

The first step in determining if a law should be enacted is its' constitutionality.

That step is met by the interstate commerce clause.

Interstate commerce is a weak vessel, to put it lightly. In truth, the IC clause has been so overstretched as to have become meaningless.

Deng nailed it. There is no authority within the federal Constitution for these prohibitions on the federal level, including the transportation. Read this and this. Whether an individual state has the authority depends, in truth, upon the state's constitution. Perhaps somebody could point to the clause within Atlanta's Constitution that may, or may not, allow these prohibitions.

However, the forgoing are all matters of Constitutional law. For the libertarian, these restrictions are highly problematic as they amount to the government interfering with his property rights. For the progressive, these restrictions are highly problematic because they interfere with individual liberty based upon someone else's value system, a problem shared with the radical individualist. For the socialist, well, no problem at all, just claim that "its bad for society" and lower the hammer. For the traditionalist, there is likewise no problem in principle, depending, of course, on the traditions involved. This, of course, is where the dedicated multi-culturalist is going to have fits. What if dog fighting is a tradition within the perpetrator's culture?

How does the multiculturalist balance his abhorrence for dog fighting with his "respect for other cultures".

The nature of the commerce clause has changed, no doubt about it. However, case after case has tested the court's opinion which has solidly been for the constitutionality of dog fighting laws. Arguing about whether or not it should be covered is a moot point since the courts have weighed in so decisively.


hearing testimony

True, but this statement applies to so many outlawed activities and the litigation to enforce the laws (including property restrictions) that the declaration is as nebulous as the commerce clause, and we're back to passing judgment on philosophies that encourage people to "impose their morality" through litigation and laws.


That's hardly better than imposed morality at the national level. Being a libertarian/progressive sucks no matter what.


I wonder what your idea of a multicultarlist is. According to you, the dedicated multiculturalist can't reconcile his desire for a nice steak with the fact that Hindus revere cows.


So? We have bureaus dedicated to fighting illegal drug use and I'm not impressed. Yeah I can imagine PETA et al. lobbying against the prez and members of Congress who dared vote against protecting man's best friend. "Prez Bush to Lazzie: Your up next, girl!" Honestly I don't know why the feds felt it necessary to pass the law with 48 states outlawing it. Assuming the charges brought against dog-fighting owners is not identical to one of the state laws on the books, it's unfortunate the concept of seperate sovereigns is at work here.

I haven't reaad the legislatioin, but I wonder if part of the idea behind it is to make it easier for prosecutors to go after dog-fighting rings using RICO statutes.

I do agree that they might be moving in that direction. As an obvious regulator of trade, the feds have an interest and are concerned about the movement of money that otherwise wouldn't change hands across state lines. While that is a wrong, I think they also want to tackle the associated drug trafficking and gambling that is also a part of it.

After reading over this very interesting thread, I offer a few more general thoughts.

Beings capable of suffering should not be considered only as property. What "rights" they should have is a matter of debate that reasonable people can disagree about, just as they can disagree about what "rights" human beings should have. (And the cold, hard fact is that, for all practical purposes, your "rights" are nothing more or less than what the people who have power tell you they are.)

The extremist "animals are only property" position is unacceptable to me because it leads to direct harm to beings who are capable of suffering. The fact that it may not cause any harm to human beings is irrelevant.

Apply the law to the persons involved in this case fairly. Let the employers of these persons decide if their crime makes them ineligable for employment.

An interesting twist to this whole thing has emerged that makes things potentially even more serious for Michael Vick. ESPN is reporting that they have spoken with a government informant about the dog-fighting thing and he informed them that not only did Vick know about the fights, but he actively participated in them and gambled large sums of money on the out-come.

From this article on the NFL's own website.....



Earlier in this thread, Mrs P asked about the kinds of things that could get a player banned from the NFL and one of them is gambling and/or being associated with gambling operations and interests. They might look the other way on the dog-fighting issue, but they won't on this one. Most, if not all American professional sports leagues are the same way.

As I said earlier, I'm willing to let justice take its course with regards to Michael Vick, but if what this informant told ESPN is indeed true, Vick is toast in the NFL.


Aquilla

To me, the concern is this-is the crime proportional to the offense? If we do as you say, will people serve time in jail for accidentally hitting animals with their car? Would I get probation for running over fluffy? I mean, no offense, I'm sure she's a great dog and all...but she's a dog.



Isn't the idea that they are lawfully protected beings also an extreme? As property and being a lower life form incapable of higher intellectual thought, doesn't up to 3 years in prison suffice? Heck, you could kill a person(i.e.-manslaughter) by accident and get equal or less time.

Obviously the key word here is "accident" as opposed to an "on purpose". There is nothing accidental about dog-fighting. That's a most definite "on purpose" activity which inevitably results in the death of one or both of the dogs. To me, it is morally repugnant, but who am I to say? To others, it is "sport". Oh well, to each his own I suppose, and in an amoral society dog-fighting would considered perfectly fine and I guess protected under the Constitution as "freedom of expression" or some such thing. I don't think I would like to live in such a society, but that's just me.

If we go back to Victoria's point about animals being "only property", an irony jumps out. Under that concept, which is pretty close to the current legal concept as I understand it, one of Michael Vick's fighting dogs, one which he is willing to subject to death for "sport" and cash would be worth more to him in a negligant death lawsuit in court than one of my pets would be. After all, he can make money off that dog, I can't off any of mine. So, Nebraska, if you're going to accidently kill a dog, best for you to make sure it's just someone's beloved pet and not a fighter.


Aquilla

The operative word here is “accidentally.” Pets, like younger children tend to dart into the street. If a pet gets hit in the street then we should place the blame, if there is any, at the feet of the pet owner.

I only have one rule for my cats. If they even look at the door I tell them, “don’t even think about it.”

There are bumper stickers that say, “I break for animals.” As a general rule, I do this. Squirrels, in particularly, are a problem. They dart in any direction without warning. Am I going to break to save a squirrel.? Yes, if I can do so without causing an accident.

BTW: Nebraska



The Godfather has spoken.

Let's clear up a couple of points here. First of all, it's important to distinguish among genuine accidents, carelessness, and deliberate malice, even if we're talking about human beings. There's a huge difference between an automobile accident, no matter how tragic the events, and using a motor vehicle as a weapon. Given that, if you deliberately use your car to kill an animal capable of experiencing suffering, then, yes, I would expect you to face criminal charges.

Please do not misunderstand me. I acknowledge that there is a gigantic difference between crimes against human beings and crimes against other animals. My only point is that it is animals capable of suffering should be granted some legal protection -- not as much as human beings, by any means -- on the basis of their own merit as feeling beings. I reject the notion that animals capable of suffering are only property. Please note the word "only," which I have tried to make clear in all my comments.

To put it more clearly, perhaps. Crimes against humans are much more serious than crimes against other animals, indeed. I would simply add that a crime against one of our fellow primates, to pick one example, is much more serious than a crime (if one is possible at all) against a fish. The relevant point to be made is that the seriousness of a crime against a feeling being is directly proportional to the degree of suffering which that being is capable of experiencing. Humans can suffer more profoundly than other animals, indeed. I merely point out that some animals -- primarily mammals -- are capable of more profound suffering than others, and are more worthy of our consideration.

Those of us who argue that "animal rights" exist (as much as any abstract idea can be said to "exist") are often thought to believe that the rights of other animals are exactly the same as those of humans. This is nonsense. It is also nonsense, in my opinion, to suggest that the rights of non-human animals are zero.



I believe that my contention that non-human animals should be protected by the law to a lesser degree than humans is not extreme at all. It seems like plain common sense to me. And the law already reflects this, in regulations against cruelty to animals -- even if you own the animals. This seems only proper to me.

I did not offer any comment in the exact sentence to be served in this case, because I don't really have one. Three years for inflicting deliberate harm against a living being capable of a high degree of suffering seems to be about right, and I won't quibble if it should be higher or lower. As far as "manslaughter" goes, the law rightly recognizes it as a lesser crime than murder; and the equivalent crime we might call "animalslaughter" (the unlawful death of an animal due to carelessness) would be a lesser crime than the deliberate killing of an animal without the legal sanction of society. (I add this proviso in order to point out the fact that, although I am a vegetarian and I do whatever I can to avoid using products derived from the death or suffering of animals, I would not make killing animals for food or other products used by humans against the law. What I am willing to suggest is that making animals suffer and die for no reason except "fun" is something which the law should punish, in reasonable ways.)

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Animals should certainly have rights. Thankfully, almost all states have laws governing the use and maintenance of animals, and protecting them against cruelty. In this respect, the law confers rights and imposes duties regarding animals and their care. Beyond the sanction of the law, there is only moral censure. Dog fighting, bearbaiting, cockfights - it is all savagery. Indeed, what meanness makes sport of such inhuman abuse? It does not speak well for us.

I agree with Lesly (though I sometimes have more regard for animals than I do my fellow humans when I read about fathers putting their infants in a microwave, or a mother hanging herself and all her children...and that's just this week). Humans domesticated dogs and cats; therefore, in my opinion, they have assumed responsibility for the humane treatment of those animals.

The evidence against Michael Vick grows daily, but for whatever reason, the prosecutor hasn't filed charges yet. Somebody mentioned that Michael Vick is listed as a breeder. That's chilling. Breeding for the vicious traits in fighting dogs perpetuates the problem. Something I have always believed, but had never found document evidence for has now shown up in Newsweek.

It is going to take many years, and the deaths of many dogs before the bully breeds can be re-established as even-tempered animals. The AKC needs to step up and review its breeders rather than passing out breeding licenses like candy.

BTW, to those who believe dogfighting is a "sport" - do you know what happens to the losers of a match? Especially a heavily wagered-on match? Generally, the owner either beats the loser to death or shoots it. Not very sporting, I'd say.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

I suspect that charges haven't been filed yet because the investigation hasn't been completed. If some of the things that have surfaced recently are true, this whole thing goes way beyond Michael Vick's alleged involvement and there may welll be involvement by the feds into this. One thing that's interesting is that the NFL is keeping pretty quiet about the whole thing. They've posted some AP articles on their website, but I haven't seen anyone from the NFL quoted at all. You can bet though that they are looking into it with their own investigators and the NFL has a pretty darn good investigation division. Most likely they are in full cooperation with the other authorities and have been asked to keep things quiet for now.

In an another matter unrelated to dog-fighting, but related to how the NFL typically handles things, David Kircus, a player for the Denver Broncos was involved in some sort of an altercation at a party recently.

Here's the story.......



The Denver Broncos' reaction?



Since that time, some new information has surfaced, and David Kircus may be ok.

From the Detroit Free Press.....



I bring this affair up to demonstrate that the NFL takes the behavior of their players off the field very seriously.



Aquilla

This is an interesting thread, with several good points being brought up by all. In particular, I agree with much of what DaffyGrl, Aquilla and Victroia Silverwolf have said. Dogfighting is just a horrible, horrible thing, and can not be called a sport by anyone. Yes, dogs sometimes fight, but the type of "training" discussed and linked here is abuse, pure and simple.

Aquilla makes a great point about the NFL. They are cleaning up their image. I think you are going to see more players made examples of this season, and far less infractions tolerated. People are getting wise that if sports figures are paid big money because of the inherent entertainment value of what they do, then they are going to be held responsible for being at least somewhat decent role models. Your standing in the community does not affect your ability to play the game, but no professional sport is a pure sport. It is entertainment, and the players are heroes to kids.

As has been pointed out, dogs are not wildlife. They are highly intelligent, selectively bred creatures, with distinct personalities and individual traits. They have been of service to humans for a long enough time that they have earned certain rights. I am, overall, against their gaining the right to drive or vote. The lack of opposable thumbs is only one of the problems for driving. Another could be the way they process information as a species. There is little reason to believe they use the same rules of conduct as we do, in fact, I'm pretty sure you would find right of way is almost untenable to most breeds.

The rights that have to be granted, or better recognized, are the very simple rights to not be abused; to not be subject to harm. If you lock your dog in the car during the summer, (even if you crack a window,) I believe you should be prosecuted for animal abuse due to negligence. While it is life-threatening, and horrible, it can be determined that you may have done it out of ignorance, and thus the sentencing should reflect that.

Dog fighting, however, is a willful series of various abuses starting with the methods of "training," and ending with the potential for mortality right there in the ring. Profiting from it is exploitation of an innocent, much like promoting underage boxing, or using rocks to compare the head strength of various toddlers. (that's a joke. A sick joke, yes, but you'll get over it)

Michael Vick deserves a stiff sentence, and, in my opinion, should be banned from the league. It pains me to say that, as he has incredible talent, and could have been somebody great. Of course, his decision-making ability was always in question, as far as the game was concerned, and now it appears his real life actions support that he may have a bigger problem in that area than simply tucking the ball and running instead of looking for open receivers may have suggested.

Finally, on a personal note, my wife and I have six dogs; a toy poodle, a malti-poo, a teacup maltese, and three big boys; a shepherd/rottweiler mix, a shepher/something mix, and a pitbull/great dane mix. All three of the big guys are sweethearts, who we love dearly, and all three are capable of serious destruction to another dog, even though they have not been subjected to the "training" I have put in quotes three times. It comes quite naturally to them to fight, and the best thing we can do, as humane people, is to make every effort to see they are not put in a position where they cause harm, or come to harm. When they playfight among themelves, even though no one ever gets hurt, or bleeds, it would appear frightening to anyone who is not familiar with them. They appear as if they are going to rip one another apart, and yet they are JUST KIDDING!

I can't imagine how vicious these fights must get. Sick.

Image Link

Sweety, Gunnar and Santana

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person's celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

I think the nature of the sport lends itself quite naturally to the underground. Banning it may have the same effect as prohibiation did to alcohol in the depression.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?
Dogfighting and spectating are two different things. I would think the majority of people would be spectators and nothing more. Pulling a star player for that seems excessive. In fact I could see leagues looking for Dennis Rodman type personalities if their team has had a bad season and they are looking to inject attitude into the mix.



This is very common where I am from. I can think of quite a few people over the years that have been experimenting with rotweiller mixes looking for both size and aggression with mixed results. The warehouse district here is always looking for guard dogs so such a type of underground breeding is quite feasible. Usually the serious people are paying over 2000+ a pup but really the temperment not the physical stature is what makes the dog. I mention this because this is where the breeding program for such a sport begins...

The docile doby has always been a complaint of mine, as the natural anxiousness of a dobe was always a good fit for an alert guard dog. The have been many lamentations that the "gaminess" has been lost. I attribute this to the natural short hair of the breed which lends itself to glorified house pets in northern climates where people have them sleep on couches with their kids, something this breed was never intended to do. The only good news is this same selective breeding program has bred out alot of the hip problems and extended their lifespands to over 15 years which is good considering the size of the dog.

I think to a limited degree the breeding programs have been moving in the direction purported by Newsweek all along. I've talked to several breeders who place a dog's health before anything else. Most of the medium to large breeds were either toned down in the Doberman's case, or put back into working breeds if the energy level could not be pulled out. Pulling competitions seem to be the last refuge for the pitbull breeder. The larger point being there aren't many large dog breeders who are willing to sell their dogs to the apartment dwelling yuppies anymore. You need references. The suburban lifestyle has no use for the bigger breeds. This small but significant point has gone along way into breeding more docile dogs.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person's celebrity? Is 3 years enough?
Celebrity should have nothing to do with sentences or fines in my opinion. That particular drama has indeed been played out in Los Angeles over the last couple of weeks! I would think that a heavy fine and probatiom would be adequate.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?
Yes!

More years ago than I would like to reveal, my mom said to me "It's a sign of deep trouble if a child is cruel to animals." I've never forgotten that. Mahatma Gandhi also uttered something along those lines when he stated: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Personally, I've always felt that participating in dog fights are manifestations of what many of the participants would like to do to humans, but instead they take "it" out on man's greatest friends. I have a lot of trouble referring to this activity as a "sport". IMO animal abuse is an indicator of worse to come in a person's personality.

Yes! It took them long enough, but I hope that it means they have been exceptionally thorough and dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's before taking action.


I really hope that this highly publicized case puts others on alert that dogfighting is a crime that will be prosecuted.

Well, it is just still an indictment which is a long way from proving guilt in a trial. But, that's the process and it appears to be proceeding. I haven't actually read the indictment, but the reports I've read about it say that Michael Vick's name is all over it as a principle in this dog-fighting ring. I'm willing to give him his day in court, but quite frankly if I were running the Atlanta Falcons, I'd be looking for a new starting QB about now. The NFL has come down really hard on players that get into trouble recently. Suspending them for several games, even in one case the entire season. If Vick ends up being found guilty of what he's charged with in this case, his very promising NFL career could very well be over. And, in my opinion, rightfully so.


Aquilla

Even if just a portion of what alleged is true, Michael Vick should not continue to make millions in the NFL. The man is a heartless cretin who deserves the harshest sentence possible. The kind of wanton disrespect for life displayed by those who fight dogs deserves no mercy.

The NFL commissioner is giving Vick a longer leash than Vick ever gave any of his dogs. Hopefully Vick will strangle himself on it.

I hate reading stories like the one you linked, Daffy. They make me sick. But, the fact that the story you linked to came from Sports Illustrated as opposed to some "bleeding heart" pet magazine is really significant. Those folks are usually more interested in statistics and swimsuits than anything else. If you're a professional athlete and SI starts calling you out for your behavior, you are in big time trouble. The NFL doesn't ignore stuff like that.

But, like the rest of us, the NFL should give the legal process a chance to run its course. Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty and he has his right to the chance to defend himself in a court of law. As revolting as the charges against him are, he does deserve the benefit of the doubt until a verdict is decided in court. If he's found guilty, the NFL should lay down the hammer and ban him for life. If not, okay, he can at least attempt to continue his football career.


Aquilla

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Mandatory sentences are bad public policy, no matter what the crime. There should always be a range of penalties from which the court can choose.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

I consider dogfighting to be a heinous crime, but I fail to see what it has to do with football or any other professional sport that would warrant this. We have a criminal justice system to punish criminals; the road to very serious injustice is opened if we also pile on private penalties based on the indignation of given citizens (which is, let us be franky, often hypocritical). If a person has reconciled himself with the Law, that should be enough for anyone -- no matter what the crime.

Also, apropos of some conversations here, I don't see any reason why there should be a federal law against dog fighting. But perhaps someone could convice me of the need for that. I disagree, however, that doing this lies outside federal power. If transporting animals across state lines is involved, then in principle, it could be made a federal matter.

Nobody is saying the NFL should be forced by "rule of law" to do anything about this at all. There is no need for that. The NFL is a private enterprise that depends on public support. If the NFL determines that they will lose public support in the form of ticket, merchandise sales and television revenues by allowing (and by implication sanctioning) bad behavior, they have the right to distance themselves from the individual participating in such behavior. Playing professional football is not a "right".





Apparently this activity crosses state lines on a routine basis. Dogs get bred in Texas and end up fighting in Virginia as an example. This activity is apparently part of a "ring" if you will that does indeed cross state lines for the purposes of illegal activities including violation of various state laws against dog-fighting, gambling and abuse of animals. What federal legislation enables is for the totality of the crime to be prosecuted all at once as opposed to state laws prosecuting each violation piecemeal.


Aquilla

First, a little background.

I have owned two American Pit Bull Terriers (UKC). Magnificient dogs and great companions. I never fought either of my pets--both died of old age.

I have read about dog fighting, which is a centuries-old blood sport. Pit bulls, or dogs much like them, have been used in bear-baiting and bull-baiting (hence the name "bull dogs"; English Bulldogs as we know them today are not true bull dogs, as they can barely bite and hold), both of which were practiced in many nations. Bears and bulls were tied to a stake and attacked, and sportsmen bet on how long the animals would live before being killed by the dogs, and other related bets. England engaged in these sports until they were outlawed in about the mid-1830s. Sportsmen have bet how many rats Rat terriers and Jack Russell Terriers can kill within a give period of time when caged with the vermin. There have been dog-on-dog fights, and of course, cockfighting. Cockfighting is terribly popular in Latin American circles, as well as in the US.

In the early part of the 20th Century in America, dog fighting was a marginal blood sport, but practiced by a fair number of dog men. The UKC and later the ADBA laid down rules for fighting the dogs. These clubs specified how a dog "won" a fight, as it was not intended to be "to the death". Rather, when a dog "turned", or tried to get away, the dogs were separated by prying the jaws apart and the dog that turned was declared the loser. Typically, a dog that one five matches was declared a champion, and these dogs commanded large stud fees. Dog breeders, like horse breeders, carefully protected their pedigrees and their bloodlines. Dogs that did die usually died of dehydration from blood loss and perspiration. Dogs were given IVs to save them, as dogs were valuable commodities to be bred, and several old dog books give careful directions on how to give the dogs IVs.

Believe it or not, the dog man's credo included a belief that "man-eaters" would "cur out" or "lack courage" in the pit, and man-eaters were destroyed. Even the best champion dogs were generally very docile with people, as they were bred to kill other dogs, not people. Pits were also bred to be catch dogs for wild boar and to guard sheep from coyotes, among other things.

A man named Stratton (last name) wrote several books on the breed and the sport around the 1950s, some of which may still be available. He defended the sport saying the dogs were bred to fight, just as race horses are bred to run. They did what they were born to do. The sport he described may have been revolting to most, but it has surely gotten worse.

Sometime around the early 1970s, according to a vet I know in Cincinnati who is an expert on pit dogs, urban drug dealers and motorcycle gangs took an interest in pits. Smaller than typical guarding breeds, pits were used to guard caches of drugs often placed under their dog houses, and pits could be toted on the back of motorcycles or in small vehicles. At this same time, urban gang members discovered the incredible fighting potential of these dogs and began staging matches, often by stealing a pet from someone's house, starving and beating the dogs, and sometimes feeding the dogs gunpowder, to make them mean. Dogs were then fought, and losers were killed, or tortured and killed. Unlike the more humane approach of prior sportsmen, little systematic breeding went on. The blood sport went from bad to worse.

In addition, the breeding of the dogs changed. Dogs were bred for greater size and for man-eating tendencies, as they were not only fought but used for the drug dealers' guard duties. Pit bull attacks on people, unheard of 40 years ago, slowly became relatively commonplace. They became fashionable companions for toughs in the inner cities. Dogfighting had heretofore been mostly a rural activity.

The details of the Vick indictment are gruesome. Dogs were being killed in the most sick and sadistic manner, including being electrocuted and beaten to death. As federal prosecutors are not elected and make a name for themselves by getting high conviction rates, and as they have the depth of resources to fully investigate alleged crimes, in contradistinction to many state and local prosecutors who are often grandstanding to an electorate and have access to limited resources, I would suspect this indictment would not have been brought against such a high profile athlete unless they had him dead-to-rights.

As to our two questions:

1) We must be careful with sentencing here. I would suspect 3 years is fine. Longer sentences, esp. mandatory ones, sometimes lower the conviction rate, as jurors think the sentence is too harsh for the crime and refuse to convict.

2) The behavior of pro sports figures, like the rest of society, has deteriorated in recent years. I would welcome some leadership from the sports leagues in this regard, but since sports leagues make money putting stars on the field, stars that fans will pay to see, leagues often choose to ignore the sins of their star players. Shame on them.

In a federal case, can the jury even have an idea of what the sentence might be. Even if convicted, Vick stands a good chance of receiving less than a maximum sentence. This has shades of "jury nullifiction" that Aquilla harped on in the Libby thread. Since the judge sets sentence in federal cases, any such thing would probably fly in the face of the judge's instructions. It could happen, but it corrupts the jury system.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

After much reading, I think I have altered my position a lot- I see this entire proceeding as along the same par as what has happened with Drug laws and such- we have a pretty disgusting behvior to most folks, telling how poeple can deal with thier property. Where does this stop? This is as bad as confiscation laws have become, with eventually, goverment can go around snagging property whenever they feel like it for little or no reason. Take the folks that loan thier car to a friend, and that friend gets stopped with a baggie of weed- and the goverment gets to auction off the car for some revenue later. Very, very bad thing we have going on in this country. As much as I hate the prospect of dog fighting, I have to say, I have to believe I err on the side of human property rights rather than doggie personal rights.

I say no crime should even be charged, and the goverment has to stay out of it for the most part, other than regulating against disease or tax evansion.

Dogs are property, and it is very dangerous to elevate personal property to be allowed, when not commiting fraud or theft, that we allow property to take away one's freedom.

This is also the same kind of "protecting society" argument that follows when we deny gays rights, wish to make porn, drugs, gambling etc "sin" laws.

I think the Supreme court decisions allowing humane treatment of property as a constitutional restriction was very wrong and anti-freedom.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

Well, maybe.

Here is my deal with proffesional sports- they are not really true "free market" and operate in a grey area in commerce. The way the NFL is allowed to create monopolies and stifle competition and interact with goverment agencies, such as building stadiums with public money- I would say that one area that has VERY LITTLE distinct rigts are sanctioning bodies regarding sports- it is a privilege, NOT a right to play football, or own a football team.

Ideally, as a libertarian, I would like to see groups like the NFL, as far as thier licensing and ability to control other "franchises" be made illegal as we have today, and make public money or sports venue's be done away with.

But barring that- I think a "code of conduct" type contract when a NFL players signs up could get him legally kicked out, no problem.

From what I've read since beginning the thread and the indictment, Vick potentially faces more than 3 years. The SI article says that the interstate transport/conspiracy charges carry up to 5 years, and the dogfighting charges 1, for a total of 6. If I have time, I'll try to find out which charge carries what maximum sentence.

Ironically, Atlantans are split nearly evenly on whether he should be suspended from the Falcons (that may be because they have a personal stake in their home team), while 74% of Virginians think he should be suspended.

Another factor in this is Nike standing by their man. I'd like to see that company boycotted for a number of reasons...ah, well, that's fodder for another thread!

Federal sentencing guidelines rule in the Vick case, and the jury will probably know what they are. But, the vast majority of dog fighting cases are and will be brought under state law, and these juries will know what the potential sentence is (and often times have a say in the sentence, as many states have a sep sentencing hearing in front of a jury), esp if the sentences are made with mandatory minimums.




Good points, but I have a hard time viewing these sentient beings as just property. Maybe it's just because I am a dog lover.

As a Christian, I in no way equate dogs with people before the law--I am not an animal rights person, and I believe people are unique in status in creation--but I also know dogs can feel and express emotions, and have a unique and trusting relationship with man, almost different from that of any other animal. I just can't cozy up to putting a pit dog in cold water, hooking it up to a generator of some kind, and electrocuting it, which apparently are the basic facts in some of the Vick allegations.

But, I appreciate your philosohpical consistency and you make good points....

I don't know about other states, or federal cases, but in my experience in California juries are typically instructed not to consider the potential sentence that might result from a guilty verdict.


Aquilla

The chares against Vick are federal. So what is your point?



The law, whatever the issue, stands apart from your self-proclaimed Christianity.

As a Christian, you don't have to equate dogs with people before the law.

Being kind to animals is just the right thing to do. You don't have to be a Hindu, either, to respect creation and not abuse it for the purpose of entertainment.

People are held to certain expectations regarding their own property all of the time. Or should a person be able to set up his/her own personal dump heap right next to your house, two inches from your property line? After all, it's only stench and that's their property! This is an excluded middle fallacy based on the assumption that what one does on one's own property could never impact anyone else. However it obviously does. If someone deals crack, sets up a red-light style sex shop, or even a truck stop next to your property I guarantee it will effect you directly. Crime will increase, you might have to place bars on your windows, and your property value will decline.

If you expect people in a country that values pet as we do to turn the other way when they encounter animal abuse you are living in a fantasy world. It isn't practical, might work in South Korea (basically does) but not here. People are affected when they see injustice and abuse, even if the victim is an animal. I would add that animal abuse should not rise to the level of federal crime. But the inhabitants of a community can decide what they are willing to put up with in this regard.

For the few posters who don’t believe dogfighting is any big deal because, after all, “they’re just dogs”, and dogs are merely “property”, consider that dogfighting is about more than just dogs killing each other for sick humans’ entertainment.

C’mon, all you law and order types, why would you think this is some unimportant issue to just shrug away by saying “they’re just dogs”? Criminals! Drug dealers! Gangs! Illegal gun dealers! Wouldn’t that be enough reason to take the issue seriously? No?

Then, think about the c h i l d r e n. Kids go to these bloody events. It has been proven that cruelty to animals is a precursor to more violent acts, and the mere observation of the casual cruelty of dog fights desensitizes kids to violence. How could it not? I cannot even imagine watching two animals tear each other to bits as entertainment.

If none of that works, think about this: dogfighting is all about showing who is the toughest; men living vicariously through an animal who doesn’t know any better. How pathetic is it to measure one’s masculinity with a dog? If these idiots want to prove what a tough guy they are, they should get in the ring themselves.

And lastly, think about this: these killing machines are likely in your neighborhood. How would you feel if one of them got loose and mauled you, your spouse or your child?

So, don't care about the dogs being abused and killed every day. Care about the effect this has on you, your family, and your community. These ARE serious crimes, and should be treated as such.

Like being instructed not to consider what you just heard that was stricken from the record? Numerous studies have shown disproptionate sentences lower the conviction rate.






Go back and read my post--again---and maybe you'll get it.





Is there any other kind?

EDITThe argument to which I was responding suggests that dogs, as private property, can be done with as the owner pleases, the classic libertarian line. I was acknowledging this as a legitimate theory, but saying that while I do not believe animals have "rights", as I am not an animal rights person and indeed gave one reason for this viewpoint, I do believe cruelty of the kind being discussed here demeans the person acting in this manner, and therefore needs to be addressed in law notwithstanding the libertarian arguments. But, I have sympathy with the libertarian argument, even if I cannot accept it in this case.

As far as the law goes, sure, dogfighting is illegal. So is spitting on the sidewalk and speeding in your car, and I am sure you've done both. So what? We were discussing the philosophy underlying the law. You, somehow, missed that.

Try 100 watts next time.

I'm not sure this is a place for a discussion of underlying philosophy of law. We've done this on any number of threads. You were not just discussing Christianity as underlying philosophy of the law, but your own Christianity.



It sounds like you are attempting to give a "low wattage," since you threw that at me, testimony in some tent meeting. People here care what you think, but I don't think many care what you do or think "as a Christian."

Getting back on topic here concerning Michael Vick's future in the NFL which as I mentioned earlier is a private enterprise dependent on public support. The Rev, Al Sharpton has weighed in on the issue with a letter to the Atlanta Falcons, the NFL and Vick's corporate sponsors. This is a link to an Atlanta television station's reports on the Vick case. Quite a lot of information there. One of the things they have there is a poll for Falcon fans on what the Falcons should do. Now, it's just an online poll and we know how truly accurate those things are, but I did find the results thus far to be quite interesting......



Now I don't know how many of those 2848 are season ticket holders, but at several hundred dollars per season ticket, that could cost the Falcons quite a bit of cash.


Aquilla