Quick Pounder bet….
April 3rd, 2009 by shtiny
Who plays in an NFL game first: Dante Stallworth or Michael Vick?
Who should play first…. Vick has served his time, but I think a lot of people will still believe what he did was worse than Mr. Stallworth…
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Vick, no doubt. I think Stallworth might be going up the river for a long time.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Agreed… definitely Vick. I agree with you that people will view Vick’s killing of innocent canines as more upsetting than Stallworth’s killing of an innocent human being, but the justice system isn’t going to let Stallworth walk away without some jail time. Since he was drunk, like every other drunk defendant, that seems to offer mitigating circumstances such that it’s “only” vehicular manslaughter and he won’t go up for murder… but he’ll still go up. He did it. To his credit, I suppose, he hasn’t shied away from his responsibility or offered any excuses (at least yet). But he hit and killed a pedestrian, while driving under the influence. These facts do not seem to be in dispute.
Vick is almost done with his sentence, will be a “free man” this summer. Now Goodell may suspend him on top of that, but even if he does, he’ll be done with any NFL suspension before Stallworth is released from prison (and theoretically faces his own NFL suspension… or are we only going to extend additional punishment to those who kill non-humans?) I have little doubt that, at some point, Vick will be “allowed” to seek employment in the NFL - and when he does, he will find at *least* one NFL team interested.
The obvious answer is Vick… likely by a couple years, is my guess.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Agreed that Vick will be back first, both because of the timing differential, and because Stallworth is potentially looking at more time than Vick. Who *should* play first - I presume this question is based on the counterfactual assumption that both men would be finished with their respective sentences and therefore available to play at the same time? I don’t know; I think there are valid cases to be made for permanently banning either man, or both, or neither.
I think Cliffy tends to perseverate a bit on the species of the victim in this discussion, which I think is a very important consideration but just one among many and far from dispositive. A very brief summary of aggravating and mitigating factors that guide sentencing, courtesy of Cornell Law School:
Aggravating factor:
Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others. The recognition of particular aggravating factors varies by jurisdiction.
Mitigating factor:
Any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Mitigating factors include an ability for the criminal to reform, mental retardation, an addiction to illegal substances or alcohol that contributed to the criminal behavior, and past good deeds, among many others. Recognition of particular mitigating factors varies by jurisdiction.
So in sum I think its a lot more complicated than a blanket statement, with which we all probably agree, that all else equal, killing people is worse than killing animals.
As an aside, I read a fascinating article recently on the trial of Comrade Duch, the Khmer Rouge henchman who ran the Tuol Sleng prison - Cambodia’s answer, such as it was, to Auschwitz. The article focuses on the capacities for repentance and forgiveness, and is very interesting given the context of Duch’s crimes. I think what I drew from it was that it is difficult for us to effectively gauge true remorse and repentance, but for adherents of most mainstream religions, everyone’s bill comes due in the end, which implies that there is little cost to erring on the side of mercy and forgiveness to the extent we are able. Sorry if I’m getting too serious but it was just a really fascinating article and at least somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand. We now return to the regularly scheduled discourse… San Dimas High School football RULES!!!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Whoops, forgot the link to the Duch article:
http://www.purposedriven.com/article.do?method=articlePage&contentId=112719
another interesting article re: Vick - evidently the bankruptcy judge was unimpressed with his reorg plan:
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2009/04/06/vicks-campaign-to-win-hearts-and-minds-needs-a-pick-me-up/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog
April 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Sorry, forgot link to the Duch article:
http://www.purposedriven.com/article.do?method=articlePage&contentId=112719
Another article from this week - evidently Vick’s BK hearing didn’t go so well:
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2009/04/06/vicks-campaign-to-win-hearts-and-minds-needs-a-pick-me-up/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog
April 10th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Tank is right, I too quickly devolved into the simplistic “human vs. canine life” comparison - and it is far more complicated than that… I agree. For example, who’s crime is “worse”: Stallworth’s DUI which resulted in a death, or Pacman’s actions which resulted in permanent paralysis. To the point: Death is worse than paralysis… um, duh - but who’s actions were more egregious, Donte’s or Pacman’s? Our society seems to not consider drunk driving to be egregious, in the sense that being intoxicated is viewed as a mitigating factor instead of an aggravating factor… something that truly troubles me. Full disclosure: Yes, I drove drunk a few times in high school. I was beyond stupid, and only out of complete fortune did I not hurt/kill one or more innocent people (and/or myself). But *I* made the decision to impair my ability to drive and then *I* made the decision to get behind the wheel, therefore *I* aggravated the danger of the situation… which should seemingly have made me *more* culpable, not *less*. I have no idea how I would’ve reacted if I was DUI and I hurt/killed someone… but complete shame on me if I would’ve hid behind the bottle as “mitigating factor”.
Put another way, Stallworth will be tried in his case based on the precedents in place and his consquences will ultimately be too light for the crime of murdering an innocent human being (um… that’s what he did - as much as the euphemism “vehicular manslaughter” attempts to sugarcoat it). The court of law will decide his punishment - but how will Stallworth play in the court of public opinion? Likely, it’ll be ignored - and the transgressions of Vick and Pacman will have gotten more play.
Course… just yesterday, a promising young Angels pitcher (and two other innocent passengers in his car, who will be easily ignored/forgotten) was killed by a drunk driver:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20090410_Rookie_pitcher_killed_in_crash.html
Since an athlete, albeit largely unknown to this point, was the killed instead of the killer… I wonder if it’ll do anything fo the public perception of “vehicular manslaughter”? And I wonder if Mr. Stallworth will now be viewed any differently - as he did the same thing, except he managed to murder only one person, not three.
I don’t know Stallworth’s history, but the Angel-killer apparently may face murder charges, perhaps because he was driving (under the influence) even though his license had been suspended for a previous drunk-driving incident. Good. He is a murderer, and the consequences should fit the crime. But is Donte Stallworth really any less a murderer? Seriously.
Sorry I’m serious here as well, but in all fairness to me… Tank started it! And San Dimas High football does rule, just for the record.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I agree with Cliffy that it seems somewhat perverse for intoxication to be viewed as a mitigating factor when it is ostensibly the root of the entire tragedy. On the one hand, I think it truly is a mitigating factor in the sense that Stallworth presumably didn’t set out with the intention of killing anyone, which differentiates his crime from a premeditated act. On the other hand, by definition he was at best indifferent to the risks he imposed on others, and driving while intoxicated has been treated as the serious crime it is for decades now - I don’t think anyone can drive to a bar in 2009 without some knowledge of that. And while some states have embraced the neo-prohibitionism of criminalizing a .08 BAC, from what I read he was at .14, which by my understanding is legitimately impaired by any definition.
I think the NFL would prosper happily without the services of Stallworth, Jones, and Vick, and I don’t think it would really be unjust to any of them. While having served their respective sentences should, I think, immunize them from further government sanction, it is a necessary but insufficient condition to immunize them against additional sanction by private citizens or businesses.
Here is the link I forgot to include earlier, to the Duch article:
http://www.purposedriven.com/article.do?method=articlePage&contentId=112719
San Dimas High, etc etc
April 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree that Stallworth, like 99.9% of all drunk drivers, didn’t set out to kill anybody. Indeed the guy who killed Adenhart and two others in that car didn’t set out to kill anybody either. It’s still murder, in my mind. I found this from Wikipedia, in trying to understand the relationship between “murder” and “premeditation” better:
“Common law murder is defined as the:
1. unlawful
2. killing
3. of another human being
4. with a state of mind known as “malice aforethought”.[citation needed]
The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of “malice aforethought” is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of “malice aforethought”:
[snip]
iii. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”),
[snip]
Under state of mind (iii), an “abandoned and malignant heart”, the killing must result from defendant’s conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.”
In other words, it appears the Adenhart, et al, murderer was foolish enough to commit his crime in Los Angeles of Anaheim, which as followers of the Angels from the 1980s can tell you, is actually in California. Indeed this morning I heard that he will be charged with three counts of murder (among other charges). Stallworth was either lucky or smart enough to kill someone while DUI outside of California, so he won’t be tried on a murder charge - since no such statute exists in Florida (if I understand correctly). That’s a shame. They committed the same crime.
I do still wonder if the Adenhart, et al, murder will have any effect on Stallworth in terms of the court of public opinion, or more importantly (to Stallworth), in the Court of Roger Goodell. Given his track record, it seems like Goodell will suspend Stallworth (and Vick) once he satisfies the penalties meted out by the criminal justice system. If Stallworth is still young (and fit) enough to consider a return to the NFL, Goodell may feel pressure (real or imagined) to help delay that return… at least I would hope he would, personally. One other personal note: I hope Stallworth’s chances for resuming an NFL career are as high as Rae Carruth’s. Now, I do believe Carruth’s murder (for hire, of his pregnant girflriend) is “worse” than Stallworth’s, and it’s clear Carruth has *zero* chance of an NFL career… duh - but that’s my point, I don’t want Stallworth to have that opportunity either.
At this time, Tank and I could devolve into the same debate we’ve had previously, about who’s crimes are worse enough to merit a permanent NFL ban: Vick, Pacman’s, or Stallworth’s. We don’t need to re-hash that again - but it seems like we can at least agree that if Donte Stallworth doesn’t play in the NFL ever again that, in addition to whatever other penalties/consequences he incurs for his actions, that’s seems eminently reasonable.
Again, though, the state of Florida may take care of that issue for Goodell depending on the sentence they’re able to impose. We’ll see.
As for the Duch article, my position is basically stated in the article, by Youk: “We need to forgive. But society also demands justice.” Now specifically for me, I don’t believe we *need* to forgive in every case - but if a criminal truly seems repentent and begs forgiveness, fine… in most cases, I can see the need to forgive (so that the rest of us can move on, it’s got nothing to do with the criminal… screw him/her). However, that in no way does - or should - mitigate the need for justice. People seem to think the two are linked. I think they’re mutually exclusive… at least on this earthly plane. Being truly repentent for one’s sins may help someone in the next life, but in my mind, it should have zero impact on the justice meted out… on the consequences of those actions. Apologies don’t bring back the murdered, so there still needs to be a consequence - and apologies don’t do anything for the suffering they endured, so the justice shouldn’t be altered.
A truly repentent individual will apologize for what was done, try the best they can to make it right, *and* also accept the consequences of their actions. When the crime is mass murder (or even a single murder, fwiw), nothing can be done to bring back the victims - which would be a necessary component of *fully* “making it right”. Therefore, I see no reason to adjust the consequence… “eye for an eye” if you like, and a truly repentant individual would understand and accept that. Otherwise, it’s just somebody putting on a show for their own self-interest. To me, it’s pretty much just that simple.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I forgot all about Rae Carruth. I take it he’s still in prison? And presumably, not country club prison, but Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
April 13th, 2009 at 7:43 am
According to Wikipedia, he was found guilty of conspiracy - but not guilty of first-degree murder (which coulda/woulda carried the death penalty). He got 18-24 years, and is scheduled for release on 10/22/18. The girlfriend died, but the baby was saved. However, “born prematurely and in distress, [the baby] Chancellor has cerebral palsy.” I”m going way off on a tangent here, but how the heck is only 18 years an acceptable consequence for his actions? Seriously.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Wow, what a thread this has turned into.
I’ll take Vick. Stallworth is fucked.
Maybe a better pounder bet is Vick vs Burress?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Hmmm… now *that* is an interesting Pounder bet, especially at this point. Burress was officially released by the Giants, presumably because they don’t want to deal with the uncertainty of his future (i.e. his future in free society). It seems clear he’s doing jail time - and the only question is how much. Burress hasn’t been suspended by the NFL for his trangression, is that correct… it was the Giants who told him to get lost end of last season? So does that mean Goodell will have a vacation for him as well when he gets out of jail (and wants to return to the NFL)?
I really don’t know which way I’d go… hmmm… I think I’d still take Vick - simply cuz his jail time is up this summer, while Plax’s will likely just be beginning. Yeah… yeah - I’ll take Vick (over Burress), if anyone wants that Pounder action.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I’ll take Burress.
You are correct - Giants gave him that vacation, not the league…