Reply With Quote
So, if the Falcons were not playing last night, there is no possible way that the sentencing would have been announced?
it is someone else's fault he got 2 years and lost millions...its the medias and perhaps people like you.
So, if the Falcons were not playing last night, there is no possible way that the sentencing would have been announced?
The media and other people made him break the law?
Of course it is
oh give me a ing break, i'm aware of all this. its bull . of course there are guidelines for the maximum allowable penalty, and rationale should be used when delivering a sentence...it wasn't and this is a travesty. furthermore, equating my reaction to this shameful display as not having respect for the written law, if thats what you are doing, is ludicrous.
rulings are situational...
whatever bro, you either missed my point or purposely chose to.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that I believe they used the Falcons game as a means of achieving maximum public exposure. I don't think the fact the sentencing was on the same day as the game was a mere "coincidence".
No, I just disagree with you. I believe his actions caused him to be in the situation he is in. He would have lost millions no matter how much jail time he received.
i don't think anybody thinks Vick isn't at fault here or isn't responsible for his actions. but he doesn't deserve his sentence, it was a product of sensationalism...his sentence isn't his fault.
So the law is the law except when you think that the law should be something else, in which case the law should be disregarded?
In federal sentencing, there are guidelines for assessing a punishment in any situation, not just the maximum allowable penalty. All of the factors concerning the nature and extent of Vick's crimes factored into coming up with a sentencing range; his lack of candor with the prosecutors and with his probation officer were also part of that equation.
Most importantly -- the thing that you completely omit from any of your analysis -- is the fact that Vick entered into this plea agreement understanding that he was likely to be sentenced to at least 18 months. It's not as if the Judge just came up with this out of nowhere. Vick actually signed a do ent that expressly said that Vick's sentence would be imposed at a particular level (in this case, a base offense level of 15) and that the government would recommend a sentence at the lower end of that range. That's what the government did. The judge essentially accepted that recommendation but applied an upward departure for the lack of candor about killing dogs -- Vick's plea agreement also required him to cooperate with the government on that specific issue -- and for the drug violation -- again, a specific term of Vick's agreement. In short, Vick got the 18 months he knew he was likely to get when he signed that agreement and then he got an additional 5 months for not living up to his agreement.
It's curious to me that even Mike Vick can't argue that the sentence is unreasonable -- he freakin' agreed to that sentence!!
As such, this ruling is situational, as you put it -- it's situational in the sense that it enforces the terms of the deal that Mike Vick made with the government; a deal that imposed a much lighter sentence than could have otherwise been imposed.
His sentence is his fault -- he freakin' agreed to it!
http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070824/vickplea.pdf
I disagree..to a point. His sentence is his fault because he broke the law...now you are correct in regards to the length of that sentence..that is up to the judge.
Maybe he wouldn't lose as much with a shorter sentence...that can't be proven but any sentence he would have received would have cost him millions.
jesus. 3 big things:
1. i'm sure Vick agreed to the plea b/c he felt it was his best chance to get back on the playing field in the shortest amount of time. that doesn't mean he agrees to it or thinks its fair
2. i'm sure Vick doesn't think what he did was all that big of a deal, hence his at ude...and while i don't condone his actions, what he did was not that severe
3. sometimes certain laws are unjust and outdated. tell me the justice in an 18 year old receiving consenting fellatio from a 15 year old in high school and spending over 20 years in jail? hows that law working out for you?
...some laws are bull . and i am sure Vick would have loved to fight this case harder, but his counsel knew he would end up doing even more time and so he took, possibly, the fastest route back to the field. its all bull .
Vick's defense attorney's need to give some of their money back, they ed up in this case almost as bad as Vick did.
So which law here involving Vick is bull ?
The gambling? The dogfighting? Which one?
Vick's concerns that this deal was unfair went out the door when he signed the agreement -- are you now saying that neither the law nor Vick's agreement should have been a consideration here? If that's true, when should those sorts of things ever be considered in a criminal prosecution?
And Vick's execution of that agreement sure as means he agreed to it. Suppose that you and I are negotiating a contract. There is a term that I insist upon -- a penalty provision -- that you don't think is fair. Still, you need the work that I'm offering and you decide to accept my offer and sign the contract. When you do something that invokes the penalty provision, do you really think it's a defense to my breach of contract claim for you to say you thought that term was unfair? Of course not. You signed the contract and, by so doing, you agreed to that term.
A plea bargain is, for the most part, no different than any other contract. The government usually agrees to a somewhat reduced sentence from the maximum and the defendant agrees to plead guilty, subject to the conditions imposed by the agreement.
Vick made a calculated gamble. He agreed to a plea, knowing he was most likely going to jail for at least 12-18 months, because it gave him a chance (he thought) to get back on the football field. By undertaking that gamble, Vick necessarily agreed to the terms of the agreement, even if he thought them unfair. His choice, if he didn't agree to those terms, was to take his case to trial and face the possible consequences of a conviction for more severe crimes. To say that his execution of the agreement is somehow not indicative of his agreement to the terms imposed by it is, I think, disingenuous.
It is deemed severe enough to be punishable by 5 years in prison, a 3 year probation, and a $250,000 fine.
Those are arguments to change the law -- if Vick hadn't waived his appeals (he has) and could get a sponsor of the law that is now compelling his incarceration to come forward and advise an appellate court that this was not an outcome that was anticipated by the law, then your argument would have some sway. But I suspect that this is precisely the outcome that the sponsor of that law anticipated.
If you don't like the law, why don't you write to your congressman or congresswoman -- in fact, write to all of them -- and urge them to consider a revision in the law. Whining about your belief that the law is unjust in an internet forum rings a little hollow when you're not willing to turn to those who could actually do something about changing that law. In the meantime, you're arguing, in essence, that a judge did the wrong thing by applying the law to the agreed upon facts of this case
So, wait a second -- you acknowledge that Vick "would end up doing even more time" for a conviction by a jury and yet you argue that somehow a plea should absolve him of the lesser punishment imposed by the Court? Are you even listening to yourself? This isn't about Michael Vick the football player -- it's about Michael Vick the admitted felon. If Vick was a doctor or an architect or a biochemical researcher instead of a football player, would his desire to take the fastest route back to his profession make any difference to you? I doubt it. If Vick was a ditch-digger or a fast-foot clerk or a school custodian I'm sure that his desire to get back to work as quickly as possible wouldn't have meant anything to anyone. I'm not sure what difference it makes in terms of the justness of his sentence that Vick was trying to take "the fastest route back to the field." But regardless, in taking that route, Vick flat-damned agreed that he would be punished by imprisonment and now he's gotten exactly that. I'm not sure how asking him to live up to the terms of his agreement is either unfair or unjust and I'm quite sure it's not bull .
Who's equating it? If he had tortured and killed people, he could have gotten 23,000 years and most posters here would be fine with that.
We live in a society where dogs are more than entertainment. They are friends, family, servants, co-workers, security guards, and (for some handicapped people) nothing short of a lifeline.
asking that they NOT be tortured and killed in return is not too much to ask.
if this bothers you, i suggest you move to a different society that thinks of dogs differently. although, across the world, you may find that societies that see dogs as nothing more than entertainment, nuisances, or food have a high correlation with not thinking much of human rights either.
Last edited by K-State Spur; 12-11-2007 at 01:23 PM.
If someone tortured my dog and killed it, the media wouldn't have to convince me of anything at all. I would want them to spend 5 years in prison if I didn't manage to murder them out of rage.
I am outraged at that. Dogfighting has been a nasty little secret in too many areas of this country for far too long. Hopefully, this case will start to shed some lights on those dark corners.
It's true that Vick was made an example of, but it's about time that somebody was. If you let the big name get away with it, nobody will ever go down.
exactly. because, you know, the country was already completely revved up for that mighty match-up between the falcons and saints.
Also for those of you that think it's just going to be 18-23 months and, "poof", he's back to playing football... Vick is going to be on a strict probation until about 2012. The requirements of his probation are going to make it very difficult to play football.
Analyzing the Vick sentence (Link)
Analyzing the Vick sentence
The reason behind ruling, how long he'll serve, more
Posted: Monday December 10, 2007 1:07PM; Updated: Monday December 10, 2007 2:15PM
After receiving a 23-month sentence on Monday, Michael Vick will be away from the NFL until at least October 2009.
On Monday, Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Michael Vick to 23 months in prison -- exceeding the 12-18 months that prosecutors recommended. SI.com caught up with legal expert Michael McCann to answer some important questions about the ruling.
1) Why did the judge exceed the prosecutors' recommendation?
There are several possible explanations for why Michael Vick's sentence is so long and why it eclipses the sentences of two of Vick's co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, who last month received sentences of 18 months and 21 months, respectively.
One explanation is that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson believes that Vick played a greater role in the organizing of the dog fights and the torture and killing of the dogs than his plea bargain suggested. After all, the dog fighting operation required funding, and it appears that Vick provided it. In addition, depending on how one reads the plea agreement, Vick may have personally killed and tortured dogs.
Another explanation is that Judge Hudson resented Vick's behavior following the plea deal. In September, Vick violated the stipulation in his pretrial release that he refrain from use or unlawful possession of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance.
Judge Hudson may have also been influenced by a pre-sentencing report filed by a U.S. probation officer who reviewed Vick's case. Though not binding on Judge Hudson, the report likely proved influential since it examined the totality and context of Vick's involvement in the dog fighting operation. In that respect, it may have been more influential than the amorphous phraseology contained in Vick's plea agreement, which was signed by him, his counsel, and the prosecution.
No matter the reasoning behind Judge Hudson's sentence, it's surprisingly severe for a first-time criminal, charged with crimes that some observers believe are routinely ignored by law enforcement officers, and whom prosecutors recommended not be sentenced to more than 18 months. Still, it is within Judge Hudson's discretion, as he could have sentenced Vick to up to 60 months.
2) Did going to jail early affect his sentence?
It didn't appear to help Vick. When a defendant reports early for a sentence, it is thought to signal that he has accepted responsibility for his transgressions. But Judge Hudson may have viewed it as a pandering ploy. If so, it may have had the opposite effect.
Similarly, Vick apparently didn't benefit by agreeing to pay more than $928,000 to care for dogs seized from his property
3) What message was Judge Hudson sending?
Judge Hudson's stiff sentences of Vick and his co-defendants offer several possible messages. First, illegal dog fighting operations have no place in the United States. Second, even if one's upbringing makes him more likely to engage in illegal dog fighting, we expect that person to overcome the temptation to engage in that dog fighting. Third, wealth, fame, and privilege will not insulate guilty defendants from receiving tough sentences.
4) Does Vick face more jail time with state charges?
Vick is still facing very similar state charges and is due to stand trial for them on April 2, 2008. If he is found guilty, Vick could receive additional prison time. Given the severity of Vick's federal sentence, however, state prosecutors may decline to move forward, though that is entirely within their discretion.
5) Will Vick's lawyers appeal?
I don't believe they have any grounds to appeal. They knew the inherent risk in a plea deal with the federal government: Judge Hudson could ignore the federal prosecutors' recommendation and impose a tougher sentence and warned Vick of that when he accepted the plea deal. And that is exactly what he did.
6) How much time will Vick actually serve and where?
The ultimate length of Vick's sentence remains unclear, since a conviction of state crimes could require him to spend more time behind bars. As his sentence presently stands, Vick will be required to serve at least 85 percent of his 23 month sentence, meaning a minimum of about 20 and a half months. Vick's potential for an early release depends on a host of factors, including his ability to avoid conflict while in prison.
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons will determine which correctional facility incarcerates Vick. The Bureau will take into consideration the nature of Vick's crimes, the fact he is a first-time criminal, his agreement to plead guilty rather than to contest the charges, any recommendations offered by Judge Hudson, and any space or overcrowding issues at the facilities that could house Vick. It may also consider whether Vick's celebrity status might make him a target.
Based on these factors, Vick will likely serve his time in a minimum or medium security facility. After Vick is released from prison, he will be on probation for three years and will begin what's called a "supervised release." During this probationary period, Vick's life will be restricted in various ways that are designed to reintegrate him into the free world. I spoke with Thomas Hutchison, the chief of staff of the U.S. Parole Commission, to gain insight on those life restrictions. Vick will likely be required to perform community service, to avoid committing any crimes or associating with known criminals, and to report regularly to a probation officer from the U.S. Probation Office. He may also have to undergo drug tests and to adhere to travel restrictions. In many ways, Vick won't be entirely free until 2012.
Michael McCann is a professor at Mississippi College School of Law. He specializes in sports law.
He deserves it all despite the efforts of some folks in this thread. In any case it matters not what any of us say. Vick is serving time in prison and that's the bottom line.
And to others he was punished much to harshly despite the efforts of others in this thread.
Last edited by mardigan; 12-11-2007 at 04:37 PM.
You left out an "O" in too mother er.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions