When the Mike Vick dog-fighting scandal first broke, I didn't quite understand how opinions had become quite so polarized on the issue. There was one side that believed that Vick was guilty as sin, and as such should be kicked off of the Falcons and banned from football for life. On the flip side, there seemed to be a camp that refused to say if he was guilty, and thought that due process should have allowed Vick to play through the season. How is there such a chasm on this issue? The explanation is quite simple really, and if people would take a moment to examine what everyone else is saying they'd see that in this case differing opinions aren't contradictory opinions.
Guilty or Not Guilty: The first great divide in the Vick debate seems fairly straight forward. There is a camp of people that sees seven witnesses ready to testify against Vick, physical evidence of dogfighting at a house that Vick owned, and a money trail so large that it could only lead back to a rich person and comes to the conclusion "I think Vick did it". That is ok, mainly because people's opinions do not have a hard and fast standard of certainty. I have the right to believe something that I see as having a 51% probability of being true. You have the right to believe something you see as having a 1% probability of being true.
While we live in a country that does allow people to form whatever opinion they wish, we also live in a country that operates on the standard of "reasonable doubt" when it comes to guilt in a court case. So...what exactly is "reasonable doubt"? Here is the best definition, as well as the most helpful one in applying the concept to the Vick case; "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs." Now for those of you that think Vick is guilty (myself included), ask yourself this question; If your life / family / fortune was on the line, and it depended on correctly answering whether or not Mike Vick was guilty of all of the dog-fighting charges against him, would you hesitate? I know I would, because I haven't seen the evidence in the case. I haven't heard exactly what the witnesses against Vick have to say. I wasn't there, and neither were you (hopefully). In other words, I agree with the people that say that we shouldn't crucify Vick just yet and that we should let the . And I also agree with the people that think Vick is guilty.
Business vs. Fairness: The second aspect of the Vick debate is perhaps the more contentious one. The people that think that the judgement of Vick should be held off till trial also generally believe that Vick shouldn't have his job taken away from him without being convicted of anything. Is it "fair" to get rid of Vick before he is convicted? In the end, probably not. Is it smart business to get rid of Vick right now? Absolutely. You see, the NFL and the Atlanta Falcons don't have to abide by the principle of reasonable doubt. The NFL doesn't have to wait for a conviction to suspend Vick, and the Falcons don't have to let him play in the meantime even if he isn't suspended. In fact, the Falcons would be insane to let him play. Can you imagine the protests? The distractions? The difficulty of Vick preparing for games during the leadup to his trial? The Falcons would lose money, games, and PR points if they let Vick play. Is it fair to him considering that he hasn't been convicted? Nope, but life isn't fair. Look at it this way; let's say you own a 7-11. One day one of your workers (we'll call him Dua for this theoretical) is arrested and charged with dog-fighting. The story makes the front page of your local paper the next day. Now do you let "Dua the Dog-Fighter" continue coming to work until his, knowing that him working at your store will drive away business and perhaps bring harm to both Dua and your property? Of course not. You tell the guy to stay home. Easy choice there, and also an easy choice for the Falcons in this situation. Business decisions don't have to be fair, they just have to be smart.
So are all of these opinions different? Of course. Are they irreconcilable though? No. Maybe now we can all just agree to disagree, with a little better understanding of where everyone else is coming from with their opinions.
Bookmark WTB!
Press [Ctrl + D]
