I do not often speak about myself, or my past to many people. The anonymity of the internet is a good thing sometimes, I suppose. But with a lot being said about Michael Vick and his re-entry into society, I feel compelled to speak up some actions and words that have been going around lately. So here goes...
I am an offender.
When I was 18, I was involved in something that was absolutely wrong in every way. I assaulted someone who I was having an argument with. I was experiencing a state of mania and agitation when I did it. That is no excuse for it. I was initially charged with aggravated assault and had a decent public defender who got the charge pled down to simple assault. Because evidence about my mental illness was introduced, the court allowed be to serve 60 days in a secure facility that had a specialized mental health wing and resources. Honestly, it was probably one of the best things that ever happened to me, in some ways (yes, other parts of it sucked). I met people who taught me how to manage my moods and treat them better. I connected with people like me, who were struggling. But that's not what this post is about...
Like Michael Vick, I am a criminal in society. I have a violent crime record (though a misdemeanor, unlike Vick, who is a felon). Please don't take this post as a defense of Vick's actions, or think that I am implying that he did not deserve the time he served. He fully did. And so did i. But like him, I am out, back living among the world. And unlike Vick, I still have the ability to keep my record a secret from people. It will not impact my life so drastically anymore (except for the hearing I must attend before I can sit for the bar exam).
I have heard a lot of people incredulously exclaim that Vick should not be allowed to work again, or work only in a low-paying job, because he is "a criminal." Well, a lot of Americans are criminals. I am a criminal. I have the mugshot to prove it. Should I not be allowed to be an attorney, because I am a criminal? Should I be made to live in poverty, because I am a criminal? Should I forever be shunned by society, not allowed friends or a relationship, because I am a criminal? In a country where "criminals" are so many and so varied, something about that seems grossly unfair.
I don't have any easy solutions. I understand that certain crimes deserve to be treated with more severity than others. We would all probably care if a convicted rapist was living next door. But everyone who reads this, at some point, will know a person with a record. Most probably know them now, whether you know it or not. A large amount of them probably served time. And most of them are probably ashamed , or scared to tell you. I don't know exactly what could be done to right this situation. I am doing the best I can right now. I have made vast strides since 6 years ago, and am proud of it.
People think I'm crazy when I say that in a way, I feel for Michael Vick. His life will never be the same. He is now a criminal in society. And that's a precarious place to be. He is far privileged beyond most like him, and will never want for creature comforts. But a lot of people with records do want for these things, partly because our society simply doesn't know what to do with them. With us. And there's a lot more of us then you think. I have no easy solutions, just questions.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: I Have Something I Common with Michael Vick.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15953
His life will never be the same.
Twenty or so dogs' lives will never be again, because he strangled them to death when they underperformed. The survivors' lives will never be the same either - they effects of injuries and torture will never go away.
There are a lot of people with criminal records. There aren't a lot of people who did what Michael Vick has done. Making mistakes because you received inadequate mental health care is not the same as engaging in repeated, elaborately planned sadism because you like it and you can.
You may have a criminal record in common with Vick, but you are not the same kind of criminal.
I object to Michael Vick's reinstatement because I am a pit bull activist. Most people don't know that he never served a day in prison for animal cruelty because he plead "not guilty" and the charge was later dropped as part of the plea deal. He served time for racketeering, not for cruelty. This is not a "mistake" he was "caught up in." This is something HE did, HE performed, REPEATEDLY, laughing, without remorse.
I object because not only did he fight the dogs, he tortured them as well. For example: throwing a dog into a pool and electrocuting it while watching it struggle to swim and escape.
BADRAP sums up my feelings pretty well:
"For those who are still not aware, Michael Vick on the other hand is the guy who not only fought dogs, but threw family pets into the pit for fun, and laughed while they were suffering "major injury." He's the guy who killed dogs in a variety of ways - one last time: hanging, drowning, shooting, repeatedly slamming their head and spine into the ground until dead, and electrocuting with jumper cables attached to their ears before being thrown into his pool. So no, not even a regular kind of dog-fighter, but an over-the-top, especially sadistic kind of man."
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/08/gentlemans-sport.html
http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/sports/2008/11/vick-laughed-as-dogs-were-injured/
responses from those working on the case:
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/op-eds-on-vick-news.html
Many studies have shown a strong connection between people who torture animals and people who murder or violently abuse other people. I don't see Michael Vick as simply a criminal. I see him as a sociopath with no real remorse. Damn right I hope his life is never the same.
While I agree with you overall that criminals who have served their time and repaid their debt to society are still unfortunately (and to a large degree unfairly) stigmatized, I don't think that Vick is a good poster child for the problem.
The fact that our society has an inclination to treat criminals as terrible, irredeemable monsters doesn't change the fact that Vick is a terrible, irredeemable monster.
What makes him irredeemable? What is the criteria for being redeemable? What is our response to those who cannot? It's hard to justify those people even being alive, then.
I suppose it speaks to who or what you consider worthy of forgiveness. And I must say that my own faith leaves me heavily conflicted on that topic. Is forgiveness conditional?
What I will say is that I do understand where you are coming from. I have had two or three really awful manic episodes that, had other people who realized how ill I was at the time not intervened, I might have been charged with a crime. I had not been violent, but I had been behaving strangely and people have a tendency to jump to conclusions at times. In my case, I was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital for three weeks until the mania subsided. I remember sobbing for most of a night, praying for the mania to go away.
But anyway, like others have noted on this thread, I have a difficult time finding it in my heart to forgive Michael Vick. I don't believe that he has really repented and resolved to do better. It bothers me that he was given a second chance when I really am unconvinced he learned from the experience. My faith tells me that I ought to try to love my enemies and turn the other cheek to them, but my heart is hardened in this regard.
This response is to Comrade Kevin and to others here:
The thing is, Michael Vick has nothing to prove to you or to anyone else who have difficult times "finding it in their hearts" to forgive him. This isn't meant to insult you, but I'm trying to be realistic here. What does he have to prove to us? How do we determine if he is "really" sorry? What would that look like? Especially since we all have different interpretations of what "really sorry" would mean.
But it's a problem for us to overstate the influence of our own opinions on this issue. I don't think anyone is asking us to forgive Michael Vick, as if "forgiveness" means regarding him as if he didn't hurt dogs. He lives a public life, so we know about it in every detail, and from the sounds of some of these posts, people lose sleep consuming and re-consuming those disgusting, gruesome details.
I think what the writer in this post is saying is that we ought not dehumanize Vick..and we ought to regard his formal punishment for what it is, something that begins and ends - though this isn't to say that his punishment will not follow him, but we have no right to treat him as if he didn't serve time or was not punished for his crime. And it's a disservice to him and another form of dehumanization to hear him say that he is sorry and changed and regretful, and we choose not to believe him.
I think the actions Vick took dehumanized him. He doesn't need my help with that
his acts in no way dehumanized him. he killed some dogs. get over it. and get off your high horse
"And it's a disservice to him and another form of dehumanization to hear him say that he is sorry and changed and regretful, and we choose not to believe him."
My reaction to his speeches isn't a "choice." My gut reaction is that he is full of shit given the facts of the case and the extent of his crimes, backed up by the language he has used when apologizing. How on earth is that dehumanizing? That word doesn't even make sense in this context. I see him as human, but a terrible example of humanity.
Given the context of dehumanization already established by many of these posts (ie., the rhetoric of being "irredeemable"), persistently saying "I don't believe you" to Michael Vick's "I'm sorry"s is another way to deny that he is capable of remorse and regret. Perhaps you and others believe that he indeed is not capable of these things - but how do you know? That's the point no one is contending with from my post: what gives people the intellectual and moral superiority to position Vick as incapable of human feelings? The fact that he killed and tortured dogs? As weird as it is, my grandpa enjoyed shooting and killing cats chasing after rabbits from his bedroom window, but he was still capable of love. Let's grapple with the contradictions rather than seeing dog fighting as an independent variable in a really complex situation.
"Perhaps you and others believe that he indeed is not capable of these things - but how do you know? That's the point no one is contending with from my post: what gives people the intellectual and moral superiority to position Vick as incapable of human feelings?"
Yeah....I never said that.
I'm sure he is CAPABLE of remorse and regret, but I don't believe he feels them in this situation outside of remorse that his public image is forever tarnished. That's not dehumanizing him.
Yeah....and I never said that you said that. I wrote "perhaps you and others believe," referring to those on this website who have more than implied their belief in his "lack of capacity" for remorse and regret, and to your comment that he is a "terrible example of humanity." You've expressed that you don't believe that - fine. I won't argue with that.
But again, you "don't believe" that he feels remorse outside having a tarnished image, but how can you know? Is it possible that people could be wrong about their impressions of his public apologies? I'm really wondering what people are expecting him to do in order to be fully remorseful. Some are expecting a sort of paradox out of him: he would be truly sorry only if he just hadn't done it. Rather than seeing this as an opportunity for building an alliance with Vick (the door is open after his apology), many have written him off as a worthless human being - an attitude the OP is asking us to challenge . The point of my own posts has been to suggest that people are capable of doing better, they're not worthless or "iredeemable," and that our stubborn perceptions of how sorry someone else is might say more about us than about them.
True, you never did, but you were arguing based on the assumption that I believed that so it had the same effect.
Your argument seems to be that we, as people, don't have the right to judge when someone is being sincere and I disagree with that.
And to the rest, what Sandra said (especially # 2) below x 100. I don't think there is anything he can really do to prove his remorse to ME, personally, save devoting his entire life to animals. Telling kids "dogfighting is bad" for the HSUS isn't coming anywhere close to cutting it for me. Time will have to tell on that one, but I'm guessing after his football career is over, we won't hear a peep about him doing anything for the welfare of the animals he tortured.
Kate,
I was not making an argument based on an assumption about you in particular. My argument was based primarily on statements made by others who have explicitly stated what I was arguing against. Some of your comments resonated similarly, but you said I was wrong. I will take you at your word, like I already said - but that doesn't nullify my argument about the attitudes that have been much more explicit regarding Vick and "redeemability."
My argument is NOT that "we, as people, don't have the right to judge when someone is being sincere." That right to judge is certainly there, but just because I challenge those judgments doesn't mean I'm revoking people's rights. I'm calling for those judgments to be held under some scrutiny. I don't know what comes after "he cannot redeem himself," "I cannot forgive him," "I don't think he's genuine." Then why would we even talk about him except to rally people to a particular cause by positioning him as a common enemy? I just don't know what the desired end is except to re-live gruesome details, maintain outrage, and to keep a public status attached to the cause of dog fighting.
Sorry, I don't think Vick should be allowed to have a fun, glamourous, and (by most people) idolized job like being in the NFL after he tortured those dogs. Let him work in a chew-toy factory!
Because nothing prevents recidivism better than a crummy job.
Once a criminal has served their sentence why should they not be allowed to take a job they are exceedingly qualified for? There's no legal basis for forcing Michael Vick to work anywhere he does not want to.
As for the "really repented" issue:
a. It's impossible to read another person's mind. Impossible. You or I could believe he has not repented and be wrong, or believe the opposite and be wrong.
b. Exercising the "real repentance" standard instead of the "reformed" standard is a way for us to make a criminal's sentence last far longer than their jail term. Especially in cases with minorities.
Here's a way to look at this: what are the odds that Michael Vick ever commits an act of animal cruelty ever again? Seems pretty low to me. That's reform. If he changes his ways and serves his time why should he be made to suffer more?
Many people commit vile crimes. We probably know some people, even care about some people, who have committed crimes. But the past is the past. Michael Vick can no more resurrect those dogs than you or I, but if he does work to save more dogs than he has killed he can try to strike a balance.
That's the nature of error.
Because nothing prevents recidivism better than a crummy job.
While it's true that lack of viable employment options is likely to be a contributing factor to recidivism, there's a whole wide range of employment between "crummy job" and "glamorized career in the NFL."
Here's a way to look at this: what are the odds that Michael Vick ever commits an act of animal cruelty ever again? Seems pretty low to me. That's reform.
Really? This honestly seems like a weird conclusion to come to. I admit that I wasn't able to find any clear stats on the recidivism rate for cruelty to animals, but I have kind of a hard time believing that jail "fixed" the underlying problems that led to this behavior. At best I would say that it is very likely that Vick won't get caught engaging in animal cruelty again.
That's the nature of error.
I believe that a lot of crimes are the result of errors in judgment. You make a stupid decision and end up doing something illegal. The OP's assault charge could, I think, be reasonably chalked up to error. People absolutely make mistakes.
What Vick did really doesn't seem like an error though. It seems more like a premeditated and profoundly sadistic attempt to inflict suffering for fun and profit. While I think an argument can definitely be made that he has paid his debt to society and that he should be able to resume his life, I also believe that athletes do, for many people, serve as heroes and role models, and that he can never be fit for that kind of position again.
Who makes athletes role models? We do. It's not his fault that people are bound to look up to him because he runs fast. Michael Vick merely has a marketable skill.
Should those who are talented writers but commit crimes not be allowed to write again? It seems inane to say someone shouldn't be allowed to work a job they're good at just because they went to jail.
Michael Vick is fit for the position of NFL player when a team signs him to a contract. His status as a role model is irrelevant.
Now, that doesn't mean you have to approve of him being hired. However, to out and out ban him makes no sense to me.
And while there are many jobs out there there are not many that Michael Vick is qualified to do. It's inane to act like he could just get a job as a lawyer or a pharmacist. He has years of job training in football and nothing else. It's really either the glamorous job or the crummy one. There isn't much in-between here. Since his crime was so high-profile no employer would hire him for a mid-range position due to the bad press.
As for whether or not Vick will commit animal cruelty again, he's:
a. On probation
b. Under constant watch by the media
c. Visible enough that there aren't many folks who would even sell him an animal
How likely do you really think it is that Michael Vick would ruin his chance at a decent life a second time, all the while under a level of scrutiny few folks ever see? His case is not a normal one.
I'd bet almost any sum of money Vick doesn't commit animal cruelty again. It's almost impossible for him to even get the means to do so at this point.
Let's say Michael Vick didn't play again in the NFL. It's happened with other NFL players, and the recidivism is scary. Maurice Clarett. Lawrence Phillips. Odell Thurman.
The best thing in this case for everyone involved, including the animals, is for Vick to get back on the field while being carefully supervised. Any less punishment is inviting trouble, but so is any more.
This post was brave, and I thank you for it.
People who have committed crimes shouldn't be made to live in poverty or to work only menial jobs because no human being should. Shunning someone because of the criminal label doesn't help society either.
That said, it's extremely problematic to allow someone who has committed truly heinous acts into what is a glamorous, and to some, heroic position. I don't just mean Michael Vick here either: I mean all those star athletes who have assaulted people too.
The fact that you're choosing, of your own volition and without shilling for your own advancement, to tell your story anonymously and explain your redemption suggests to me that you're sincere. Vick has every reason in the world to repent in public. I'm pretty skeptical of conversions that happen to dovetail with PR needs.
You did something very wrong, and you obviously acknowledge that it was wrong. You accept the justice of your punishment. You received treatment and embraced it, and with humility you're striving to be a different, better person than the kid who lost it and committed assault. Vick "did something very wrong," and as far as I know the similarities end there.
Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I hope you have all the support you need.
Just some general replies:
1. I can forgive a great many things. I do not hold a criminal background against a person, necessarily. That being said, I reserve the right to judge the redeemability of a person. Does the fact that I think a person is irredeemable mean that they should no longer go on living? Of course not. I don't have to like or value every person on Earth.
2. Michael Vick is probably remorseful. He is certainly remorseful that he was caught. I'd tend to believe that he regretted his inhumane treatment of animals if he'd stopped the dog fights and torture before he was caught and not because he was caught, but that's just the crazy ethicist in me.
3. The main reason I doubt his remorse was that Vick claimed to have 'found Jesus' just after he was put in jail and then he understood the horror of his crimes. massive eye-roll Puh-leese. I'm a flaming atheist who doesn't even accept the historical existence of a man named Jesus of Nazereth and I know that it's horrific to torture animals for your own sport and pleasure. Don't trot out the f*cking 'I found Jeebus' line on me and expect me to buy it. Grow your own morals - or buy them. Goodness knows the NFL and all it's insane adherents will pay you enough to buy decent morals.
Whether or not you believe in the historical Jesus of Nazareth or his divinity is irrelevant to Michael Vick's remorse or newfound morality/religion. Your atheism does not factor into his theism.
It's the same problem over and over again here: people who are unwilling to believe what someone has said because they wouldn't do the exact same thing in said situation.
Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant. The relevant details here are whether or not Vick commits any future offenses.
If only we stopped trying to read minds. It's the same "he looks honest" or "he sounds like he's sorry" problem over and over again. It's a flawed methodology that's mostly guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.
Why? Let's not forget the fact that we're socialized to inherently mistrust black men who have committed criminal offenses, such that people are more inclined not to "buy it" when someone like Vick says he regrets his actions.
When white folks hold the sociological monopoly on "real" remorse is it any surprise that people don't "buy it" when a black man says he's remorseful?
Free Bernie Madoff!
Wow. Thank for explaining to me that it was my racism that made me despise a man who attached electric cables to dogs and then eletrocuted them in his pool for fun. Here I thought it was his inhumane treatment of animals and cynical jail cell conversion to the glory of Jesus that made me want to puke everytime I heard his name.
Sheesh. And it was his skin colour the whole time. Huh. Really. I had no idea.
Because skin color has nothing to do with this. Surprise, surprise.
Racism always exists in general, but never specifically.
You describe a jail cell conversion as cynical. Why?
It's silly to decide on remorse based on whether or not you "buy it".
Whether or not you're a Jesus fan you've gotta admit there's some poetry to the ol' phrase "by your fruits ye' shall be known".
So I prefer to judge Vick's remorse based on what he does next. Not his religion. Not any sort of opinions on whether or not he "seems honest". Actions.
I've never argued that you ought not feel revulsion towards his past actions. I sure do. But the idea that Vick is beyond reform or forgiveness seems silly to me.
Then you can forgive him, if you feel like it. Just because I refuse to do so doesn't mean everyone the world has to agree with me.
Racism has plenty to do with who we choose to vilify and how intensely. Ask Chris brown and Sean Penn or Josh brolin. The black folks are always ez for us to heap our scorn on.
Thank you for mentioning Sean Penn and Josh Brolin. I actually had no idea either of those assaults happened.
However, davenj doesn't have the right to assume that Sandra's personal reaction is based in racism. I'm not saying that his race didn't play a factor in the media coverage; it probably did. Its out of line to declare a particular commenter's reaction to be a result of his/her racism, though, when he/she did nothing to indicate it.
Implicit racism exists. If coverage of Vick was racist and people are cultured to be racist then racism is a factor.
We judge people based on their skin color. Consciously and unconsciously. I never said racism caused Sandra to come to the conclusion she did. I merely brought up a factor, and an important one.
That's the problem with personal reactions. They're subjective, and because of things like implicit racism they're flawed. That's why it's important to look at this thing more objectively and not focus on arbitrary things like forgiveness, but rather tangible, concrete things like reform.
There are folks who will never ever forgive Michael Vick, some of whom won't do so because Vick's black. That's why shooting for forgiveness here is the wrong standard. Reform, on the other hand, is the standard we ought to set.
And yeah, most folks don't know about Sean Penn or Josh Brolin. Maybe it's just because they don't follow celebrities. /sarcasm
How is reform more tangible and concrete than forgiveness? How can we quantify the level to which someone is reformed any more than we can quantify his or her sincerity?
Monetary donations. Number of speaking engagements. Profile of speaking engagements. Number of offenses committed afterwards. Type of offenses.
Sincerity is intangible. It's not universal at all, and in a society where we're conditioned to believe a black man can't be sincere in asking for forgiveness it's setting a standard for Vick that's beyond reach.
Actions are tangible, so reform is tangible if we judge reform in the context of actions.
Therefore we can accurately judge Vick's reform using a fair set of criteria that don't hinge on someone's subconscious thoughts, many of which are tinged by the bias of racism.
If Michael Vick saves more pit bulls than he killed and never commits another crime in his life there are still folks who will not forgive him, some due to racism. However, it will be pretty impossible to deny that he has reformed.
I see your point now and I think its a good one. I still don't believe Vick is sincere but I understand how subjective my opinion is. I don't think Michael Vick has yet shown that level of reform. As I said above, I don't think I personally can believe it until his football career is over--then we'll see how much he cares about making up for his crimes with animals once he doesn't have to.
And I don't think I'll ever forgive him, honestly. The lives he may save will not make up for the ones he took. But if he does all those things that you mention in a decade or so, I'll believe he is reformed.
I think it would be an interesting conversation to continue in regards to a different crime. Would you make the same arguments about reform if we were talking about an athlete that served time for rape or murder? Sure, he could speak about how rape is bad and encourage kids not to rape, but would that prove his reform? I don't think so. I have a very hard time believing that rapists CAN be reformed, and Vick is along the same lines of that, to me at least. His behavior indicates sociopathy. I don't see his crimes as a bad decision of an aggressive person, I see them as the result of someone very mentally unstable.