1. james wrote:

i, for one, am considering not watching the eagles until vick is gone. how many of us would be able to return to our places of employment after committing a crime such as this? how many philadelphians have not been able to find work after being incarcerated? vick playing in philadelphia does nothing to contribute to the breaking of that status quo. tax breaks to hire ex-cons will still go unused. in my mind, vick could win the superbowl for the eagles, and he’d still be the most infamous dog-killer in the country.

2. Tom Penn wrote:

As a Philadelphian, and a dog lover, I believe as Dr. Hill has indicated, that Michael Vick has paid his debt to society.

When I first heard the news, I was stunned because the Eagles already have three quarterbacks. My first question was, what does this say about Donovan McNabb? How will HE take this news? Then I found out that Donovan wanted this move for HIS team, because Michael Vick is his good friend.

This decision to sign Michael Vick had to be approved by the team owner. The owner had to ask his staff two questions: How does this signing get us a Super Bowl win,? and how is this decision profitable?

The final question is, Do the Eagles believe that McNabb is going to get injured again, and Vick will step in and do the trick? Plus, isn’t Vick injury prone himself?

3. V E R B wrote:

I do agree with Dr. Hill, that some of his answers seem scripted. I don’t believe he’s sincere, but I didn’t really expect him to be either. After all, I can’t see how someone electrocutes and drowns dogs, and can have a change of heart only a couple of years later. And I don’t buy the whole God thing either. I think he’s full of BS, but he served his prison time, so what more can society expect?

I can also agree with James to a certain extent — Vick playing in the NFL again does nothing to break the staus quo. But again… as disgusting as Vick’s actions were, he has done his prison time so a second chance is in order. My issue is that animal abuse laws are far too mild. My anger and disdain are going into writing politicians so that tougher, more severe sentencing can be put in place. I think that’s about the best thing W/we can do.

4. DCI74 wrote:

I love dogs and I love the Giants so this is real painful but the man has paid his debt to society. No NFL team had to sign him but I am glad Goodell at least gave Vick the opportunity to seek employment.

5. Clif Soulo wrote:

I agree to DC, but why did Vick have to suffer further suspension, that’s my question. Being in prison (and thus out of the league) for 2 years, not to mention all of the possible $ he could (probably would) have made, I don’t see why he needs to serve an additional suspension.

And James, here’s my opinion on people who take your stance. One, we have laws in this country so that you aren’t discriminated based on your age, race, sex, or CRIMINAL BACKGROUND. Now granted, you probably won’t be working for a bank if you are a convicted bank robber, but Vick isn’t trying to work at a Kennel. Now if you said he could never own dogs again, or be employed at any petco’s, then you might have an argument.

And furthermore, you saying “…committing a crime such as this?” suggests that you think this a very horrible crime. While I agree it was/is horrible to brutalize, abuse, kill animals, at the end of the day, they are not human beings.

6. DCI74 wrote:

I hear you Clif but Vick isn’t losing anymore money than he’s going to get this season even if he misses the first 6 games. I agree I don’t think he should have been suspended further at all, I felt the 32 games he already missed should be sufficient. Because Vick is a vested veteran he will get his entire salary this season whether he’s active for 1 or 16 games and as far as endorsements I don’t think the suspension has any impact there at all, because no one has seen him do anything on the field yet.

james wrote:

how many philadelphians have not been able to find work after being incarcerated?

—————————————————————————————————-

You’re talking about 2 different things, finding work and having the right to seek work are completely different issues. How man of those philadelphians were prevented from seeking any kind of employment due to their records? If that happened to them they should be in a court suing somewhere but no one has taken the right to seek employment away from them and with Vick it’s no different. Goodell let him seek employment yet it was left up to the teams to make him an offer but none of the 32 teams were obligated or even owed Vick a conversation with his agent. Like Clif said it’s not like he’s working for a vet or a kennel, his job has nothing to do with the reason he was incarcerated. I’m not excusing or condoning what he did but his time has been served.

7. Clif Soulo wrote:

ahh ok DC. I still think it’s a case of Goodell using his power to punish Vick unfairly, but hey, he’s running the league. Don’t like him, but it is what it is. And since this Farve news hit, Vick’s headlines will be on the back burner for a while….YES!

8. james wrote:

dc, when you fill out an application for a job and you list your criminal record on the application, i gaurantee you probably won’t get the job. employers discriminate against ex-cons, and most times with good reason. if i had spent two years in prison on a federal dog-fighting charge, i would not find work in my chosen profession ever again. in fact, i would have trouble finding employment anywhere, and i would not have the money or the gumption to file a lawsuit against potential employers. labor disputes of this kind are some of the most difficult cases to win. honestly, i don’t see why vick is all that special. i view vick as a thug, same as oj simpson. i can, however, see how this is a decent move by the eagles to pick up a seasoned back-up quarterback for a guy (mcnabb) who rarely makes it through an entire season. but, like i said, i am not supporting this move and i will not have a hard time avoiding the eagles until vick is gone.

9. DCI74 wrote:

Man I so through with the Favre traveling circus!

10. DCI74 wrote:

james that may be true but it’s far from an absolute and I’ve hired felons before but I have never told anyone to not bother applying if they have a record because I know it’s in violation of the law as do most employers and that’s my point. No one with a record is further penalized upon completion of their stay under federal custody by being told that can’t even apply for a job anywhere. You may not get a job in your current profession if you were in Vick’s shoes but no one could legally stop you from applying and that is all Goodell did was allow Vick the opportunity to seek employment. Each NFL team is independently owned so hiring decisions are left up to them and the Commish understands that as well. Beyond all of that I also respect Tony Dungy who has a bigger reputation off the field with his prison work than the rep he had in the League and for me that speaks volumes if Dungy is willing to mentor Vick for the long haul. Mentoring and society readmission programs are available for many recently released felons but not all of them take advantage of those services so some responsibility must remain with them as well. You seem to be more focused on the career than the overall scenario. If Vick used to be a cab driver and unless his license was suspended as part of his sentence, would you be upset if he went back to driving a cab upon his release?

11. marcus wrote:

It is so interesting that Vick killed these defenseless animals using many of the same methods that were used to kill slaves. I think it is much worse to kill an animal than a human being. Usually, unless you are a serial killer, you are killing someone for a reason (i.e., they stole from you, they hurt you, they gave you the finger when driving, etc.). Granted, most reasons are not sufficient to warrant killing someone. But, they are reasons in the killer’s mind. Animals don’t do anything without provoking to justify killing them. Vick killed these dogs because he abused and neglected them, and they still didn’t win in some arbitrary fight. And, it seems that everyone is forgetting that dog fighting doesn’t just hurt the beautiful bullies in the fights, but most often, other defenseless animals (i.e., cats and a variety of small dogs, which are usually kidnapped from some family’s yard) are used as training bait. What about them??? It is a known fact that animal abuse almost always correlates with and is a precursor to human abuse. Therefore, the punishment should be just as severe. In my opinion, Vick is worse than Charles Manson. I wish he had been mauled by one of his abused captives, but since that is not a possiblity now, I hope he experiences all the despair in the world. God willing, PETA will bomb his car or something

12. EminemsRevenge wrote:

Philly is gonna go wildcat like crazy…Giants are gonna be WISHING they had the balls to make that move by the end of the season. Philly, the Pats, Steelers to win every week and Detroit to lose on your betting slips, that’s a SURE FOUR for at least ten weeks. And if i was in Vegas right now i’d be betting a Penn State Super Bowl!

13. DCI74 wrote:

james that may be true but it’s far from an absolute and I’ve hired felons before but I have never told anyone to not bother applying if they have a record because I know it’s in violation of the law as do most employers and that’s my point. No one with a record is further penalized upon completion of their stay under federal custody by being told that can’t even apply for a job anywhere. You may not get a job in your current profession if you were in Vick’s shoes but no one could legally stop you from applying and that is all Goodell did was allow Vick the opportunity to seek employment. Each NFL team is independently owned so hiring decisions are left up to them and the Commish understands that as well. Beyond all of that I also respect Tony Dungy who has a bigger reputation off the field with his prison work than the rep he had in the League and for me that speaks volumes if Dungy is willing to mentor Vick for the long haul. Mentoring and society readmission programs are available for many recently released felons but not all of them take advantage of those services so some responsibility must remain with them as well. You seem to be more focused on the crime and the career than the overall scenario. If Vick used to be a cab driver and unless his license was suspended as part of his sentence, would you be upset if he went back to driving a cab upon his release?

14. Mario wrote:

James why don’t you give Vick a chance to prove himself before you call him a thug. Tony Dungy is now Vick’s mentor, and my faith in Dungy’s credibility is all I need. Vick is in entertainment so it’s easier to get his job back, but I’m sure he will still pay after he retires and looks for employment. Nevertheless he’s done his time 2 yrs. for funding a dog fighting ring, yet Donte Stallworth gets 24 days for a DUI and second degree manslaughter. Hmm something wrong about those sentences.

15. james wrote:

mario, michael vick has already proven himself to be a thug. the name is quite apt. meanwhile, i don’t have to watch the eagles. they might be my favorite football team, but there is, as you say, plenty of other entertainment out there.

16. Mario wrote:

James, you’re forgetting that people change. You can label people all you want, but I’m sure you wouldn’t much appreciate people never forgiving you and continually holding your past over your head before you even get a chance to redeem yourself.

17. james wrote:

mario, unfortunately, most people don’t change. in fact, i’ve never met one that did.

18. Mario wrote:

That’s unfortunate for you, but I on the other hand see people all the time that have changed. If people didn’t change there would be no purpose for the church or prison ministries, etc. Bottom line give Vick a chance. The only reason people are going so crazy is b/c he funding DOG fighting. I doubt any other animal would cause such an uproar.

19. james wrote:

mario, you realize that mike vick didn’t just fund dog fighting. he personally and sadistically electrocuted and hanged dogs to death. i’m not going crazy, nor do i need to give vick a chance; i’m not his coach, friend, family, or teammate. i’m simply a fan who is not supporting my team until vick is gone.

20. DCI74 wrote:

james would you even care if Vick used to drive buses before going to jail? Would you want to him to never be allowed to drive a bus again because he went to prison for his crimes? If you believe that Vick deserves more punishment beyond what the Feds have given out, why on earth are any prisoners even released, what’s the point of even having a sentencing hearing if according to you any time that is given isn’t enough?

21. james wrote:

dc, again, if you or i committed this crime, we would not be able to return to our chosen professions. let him wash dishes or work construction, or pump gas, which is what i would be doing if i were convicted of the same crime as vick. let him work his way slowly back into society. as for your bus example, unless he is starring in an episode of the simpsons, i certainly wouldn’t want a pothead like vick driving any buses.

22. Mario wrote:

James, again Vick is in entertainment and his job depends on how people react and if you look at the reaction from Eagles fans as soon as one wants to give away his ticket another quickly scoopes it up. It’s not his fault our society places athletes over Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners. Maybe when we get our priorities straight being an athlete won’t be the over-hyped and severely over-paid job that it is today.

Just like music artist and actors/actresses, if they sell it doesn’t matter what they’ve done, if they don’t then they’re fired. If you were an athlete, actor, or music artist then you would get your job back or if you had good connections and worked for AIG or Countrywide.

Also how outraged are you about Donte Stallworth? He killed a Human!!! I value humans over dogs but obviously our justice system does not.

23. DCI74 wrote:

james, why are you so confident that every convicted felon can never return to their previous employment (unless clearly the job enabled the crime like a teacher abusing a student or a anesthesiologist stealing and taking drugs while on the job)? Like I said before I have hired convicted felons so your argument holds no weight with me. Over 10 years ago I hired the brother of my girlfriend at that time, he was 23 and had spent a year in prison on an assault charge when he was 18. He had never been in any trouble since his release and in fact still has continued to steered clear of any trouble. As recently as last year we ran into each other and he thanked me for giving him a job when no one else would hire him, now he runs his own business and is doing well.

So you still haven’t answered my question, if you don’t think that any criminal’s sentence is long enough and should be further penalized upon their release from custody why should anyone ever be released from prison at all? You seem adamant that the time Vick served in your opinion wasn’t enough so does that perspective carry over to all people with criminal records or just people who commit crimes you deem more heinous than another?

24. james wrote:

dc, i’m not saying anything about the length of the sentence. as for my argument about convicted felons, well, you answered that yourself when your acquaintance thanked you for “giving him a job when no one else would hire him.” that is how it is; it is normal for felons to struggle back into the workplace. i don’t have a problem with that. that is not going to change anytime soon, as the tax break experiment in philadelphia has proved.

mario, if bruce springsteen ran a dog-fighting operation such as vick’s i would not listen to his music anymore. it’s that simple. i love springsteen, but there are plenty of others who aren’t as cruel and unusual.

i’m not going to discuss the donte stallworth case here again, in deference to dc’s family-member/friend who was killed by a drunk driver.

25. james wrote:

mario, let me clarify something for you as well; i don’t care how many fans show up to see or watch the eagles; i will be doing my best not to participate as a fan until vick is gone. this is simply a personal exhibition of my own ethics, ethics i have derived from the society around me. i’m not saying people shouldn’t watch the eagles this year; i’m saying i won’t be watching them. i’m saying mike vick is a disgusting thug whom i don’t want to associate with. if you want to continue your association with him, that’s quite alright. but me, i don’t even want to see him on the sideline of my team, let alone behind the center. i’m one of the people joe banner calculated would not tolerate the vick signing.

26. DCI74 wrote:

Hmm ok james my point continues to go over your head and you keep flipping around just to stick to your perspective. The crux of my argument is very simple, my ex’s brother wasn’t prevented from seeking employment just because he had a record but according to you Vick should have been and that is my issue. The same way my ex’s brother applied for work and was denied is exactly the way the process is supposed to work, it’s left up to the employer to make the choice and that’s why the question is on the application. Choosing to skip it if the applicant has a record is reflection of his/her character but there is no automatic rule that says they aren’t permitted to apply simply because they have a record because each situation is different. Some employers had no problem continuing to penalize him at 23 for something he did at 18 and they were well within their legal right to do so but I knew he had changed so I had no problem giving him a chance plus he was qualified for the the job. There are many many felons just like him who have turned their lives around and never got locked up again. Clearly we view forgiveness and people’s ability to change very differently.

No felon should be prevented from seeking employment if he/she has paid their debt to society unless there are mitigating circumstances that relate the crime to the previous employment. A former bank employee who decided to stick up the place of course should never be allowed to work in a bank. A teacher/coach who used their position to abuse children should never be allowed to work with kids again. I can’t simplify it anymore than that. There is zero correlation between Vick being employed by the NFL and his heinous crimes, the NFL is not in the dog business so it’s illogical that Vick should be prevented from applying for a job that had nothing to do with his crime. Over 20 teams decided they weren’t interested in Vick and that was well within their rights but to say that Vick should not even have the chance to work with any one of the other 12 teams makes no sense. Again to me it seems you can’t separate the crime from the employment.

27. james wrote:

dc, if i were applying for a job as a school teacher, with mike vick’s record, i would not get the job. if i were applying for a job at dick’s sporting good store, i would not get the job. i’m not flipping around and totally understand what your point is.

however, in regards to contextualizing the crime, keep in mind then, i could expand my argument to now include a belief that vick’s large salary and position enabled him to commit the crimes in question, therefore him returning to the nfl should be thoroughly suspect.

dc, i also get that people want to keep convicts encouraged about their job prospects, but i’m not one of those people.

28. Clif Soulo wrote:

James, you simply don’t know that. You are making assumptions with no facts to prove it. Furthermore, it seems as though you feel that once a person has commited a crime, and served his sentence, he or she should not be able to making a decent living. So I pose this question to you, if your caught drunk driving, and kill someone, when you get out of prison, should you not be able to look for a job anymore because of your past mistake?

29. DCI74 wrote:

Ok james. On your first point I couldn’t agree more with you but again in those scenarios no one could legally stop us from applying. That’s just a simple fact. If employers could legally eliminate applicants with records there would be no reason for that question to be asked nor would the mention of a criminal background check be mentioned in the job description as most positions that require it will include normally under the qualifications section. So if I felt my record would prevent me from getting the job I wouldn’t bother applying rather than take my chances but that choice is left to me. I might decide to take that decision out of that employer’s hand and take my chances elsewhere but again I couldn’t legally be stopped from applying.

With regards to your second point, I agree with you in part. Certainly his income allowed him to bankroll but now his situation is completely different; his debts outweigh his assets, he’s making dramatically less and when someone is under bankruptcy along with that comes a continued accounting of all assets to ensure the creditors are paid. Remember Vick had a separate house and lots of extra income to pour into those activities. Suspect or not his accountant has to have a microscope on his finances unlike anything Vick experienced before.

The last point is where we distinctly differ. I think Tony Dungy is honest and a good just of character who is going to help Vick through this process. I also think Vick had enough time to realize all that he lost, I personally couldn’t imagine having to sit in a cell while my daughter was being born but he had to experience that beyond the game, money or fame. Of course in the end it will all be up to Vick if he becomes a changed man.

james, please correct me if I am wrong but as a diehard Eagles fan you’re ok with arrest records like in the cases of Juqua Parker and Mike Patterson?

30. james wrote:

yes, dc, morally and ethically speaking, i don’t have a problem with juqua parker or mike patterson. i have a moral dilemma supporting an athlete with an utterly repulsive record like vick’s. we’ve had this argument before. you know how i feel about criminal intent.

clif soulo, of course i would look for work, and i have a right to work, but i certainly wouldn’t expect to return to my regular job after a prison stint for vehicular homicide while under the influence. also, more than likely, i would not have access to the same network of colleagues that it has taken years to establish. there would be no tony dungy to vouch for me.

31. Mario wrote:

James, my point is you may no longer buy Springstein but others still will and he will keep his contract. That is the entertainment industry so while Vick my still be able to play football after that career is over most likely he’ll need Dungy to help him find another job cause most people probably won’t hire him.

You might not want ex-convicts encouraged about their job prospects but just remember that can cause many of them to turn back to criminal behavior just to go back to jail and have shelter and something to eat. It causes one horrible cycle of crime, no one hires you, more crime, and no job.

32. DCI74 wrote:

ok

33. james wrote:

mario, recidivism rates in america are about 60%. most crimes are committed by young people who believe they have no future, which is what usually drives them towards crime in the first place. if that is not corrected, through improvements in early childhood education, recidivism rates will not decrease, no matter what the job prospects for convicts are. if young people didn’t believe they had a future before entering prison, then a career of crime will seem their most likely option. you’re right, it’s a vicious circle.

34. Mario wrote:

You’re absolutely right about early childhood education, but they can still have hope instilled in them after being incarcerated. Many of those kids probably have a very narrow view of jobs in the first place. Nathan McCall is a great example of how young people can learn even while in prison and turn their life around and educate themselves even after their high school years are over.