He's legally permitted to own one, so if we don't dispute that fact, and can agree he's paid his debt to society, the question we have to ask ourselves is, "Is that enough?" And to ask that question is to ask ourselves the following questions:
1. What is the purpose of sentencing?
(a)If it is to punish, have we punished him enough?
(b)If it is to rehabilitate, do we think such a thing is possible in cases of dog fighting rings, and if it is possible, is Vick rehabilitated?
2. Should he pay for the rest of his life, or do we think enough of him/people in general to believe that a person can change? If people can change, and Vick can change, why is it outrageous that he has a dog for the sake of his children and as a learning experience for them and him?
I think what he did is reprehensible, but he's done his time, and if the courts didn't see fit to disallow single dog ownership for him, who are we to say differently? |
