Legal Lunacy: Con-Vick-Ted : Michael Vick & Tough Puppy Love

Shortly after a cleverly crafted plea agreement, a broken and contrite Michael Vick stood before a throng of journalists and members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as well as MBF (Man's Best Friend). MBF, made up of mostly pedigree mongrels and some pure breds, weren't buying it. "We obviously hate Mr. Vick and all he's done to us." "It's like Auschwitz all over again," barked an older German shepherd. MBF spokesdog, Paco, cousin of celebrity Taco Bell dog, voiced his doubt of any real justice in the Vick case due to the "amount of money and celebrity involved."

But seriously, Vick's attorney-penned 'mea culpe' was written with two general ideas in mind: securing a future place in the NFL and presenting mitigating factors before the judge, who cautiously reminded the Falcons QB he didn't have to agree with the prosecution's recommendation in sentencing; he could get all 5 years.

The reality of the situation, summed up by Falcons' owner Arthur Blank, who said in a recent interview, "We cannot tell you today that Michael is cut form the team. Cutting him may feel better emotionally for us and for many of our fans, but it is not in the long-term best interest of our franchise."

Get it? Its not financially responsibly to cut the cash cow from the farm. Maybe Paco is right after all.

So what can Michael Vick reasonably expect at his December 10^th sentencing hearing?

A very hefty fine. It has even been suggested that Vick make donations to various organizations and charities to demonstrate his willingness to "turn his life around" by providing the next generation with alternative means and opportunities to do as he says and not as he's done.

The more he rehearses his requiem, the more likely Judge Hudson will be persuaded by Vick's sincerity. Judges like remorse, especially when it falls from the lips of a first time offender, which Michael Vick appears to be.

He could also face the minimum recommendation of up to a year and a half for his crime. Although Judge Hudson could theoretically sentence Michael Vick to 5 years, it is highly unlikely that he will, unless the judge wants to "make an example" of Vick. This is where celebrity could work against him.

So what type of facility could Michael Vick be sent to in the event that Judge Hudson wants to "make an example" of him, as has been a seeming trend in celebrity cases?

The best that money can buy.

Seriously, it is doubtful that Vick will be in anything other than a dormitory style complex much like the camp Martha Stewart spent her sabbatical in. This is where celebrity works for him. Otherwise, the very fact that he is Michael Vick would make him a target of other inmates.

So where's the lunacy? The assertion that dog fighting is a cultural sport and not simply cruelty to animals. Both comedian Whoopi Goldberg and entertainer Jamie Foxx have likened dog fighting in the Deep South to cockfighting in Puerto Rico. It is worthy to note that the statutes concerning animal cruelty are different from those concerning dog fighting. In Silver v. United States, the court held that animal cruelty is not a lesser-included offense of dog-fighting and so the two charges do not merge. According to the court, "[e]ngaging in animal fighting requires the instigation, promotion, carrying on or attendance at an animal fight and premeditation by the animal's owner or custodian. No such proof is required under the cruelty to animals statute. A defendant may therefore commit the offense of animal fighting by planning and promoting an animal fight, even if no harm has yet come to an animal. Conversely, the cruelty to animals statute requires the actual infliction of cruelty, and no such completed act is required to prove a violation of the prohibition against animal fighting. [I]n many cases... conduct which constitutes animal fighting also runs afoul of the cruelty to animals statute. Nevertheless, each crime requires proof of an element which the other does not."

Essentially, dog fighting is like ultimate fighting for dogs. It is brutal to say the least, and illegal in all 50 states and D.C.

A study on the sociology of dog fighting published in Society and Animalsstated 5 techniques employed by dog fighters to justify dog fighting:

1. denial of the victim ("dogs are fighting machines with natural inclinations to fight")
2. denial of responsibility ("no one is being hurt by the fights")
3. denial of injury ("dog fighting is merely boxing for dogs")
4. appeal to higher loyalties, and
5. condemnation of condemners ("dog fighters are of a misunderstood group, a group that holds onto its culture and heritage, of which dog fighting, cockfighting, and hunting are all part of")

The bottom line is that Paco is right. There is so much celebrity and money involved that the real issue is being swept away in the flurry of media reports - the brutal treatment of animals for the sake of making money and arguably depraved entertainment.