It is most certainly a straw argument. To equate crimes of sexual deviancy with what Vick was tried, and convicted for, are TOTALLY unrelated. Do we sentence the first time shoplifter to the same jail sentence a convicted murderer should get? Why not? The crimes are not the same. Trying to draw a corollary between the most heinous of crimes and what Vick did time for is nonsense. Look, I’m not a fan of Vick; never have been, never will be. But, I do believe in the concept of second chances; the man did his time for his conviction...are we to believe the people who’ve done bad things and lived through the appropriate punishment are to be thrown on the ash-heap, with no chance of redemption/forgiveness? I refuse to accept that.
As an aside, all molesters and pedophiles should be shot by firing squad. A poorly-trained firing squad. So it takes a while. :-)
But if the shoplifter and the murderer both served their time, paid their debt to society and got out, under your argument are they not then equal at that point? Your argument being that once an offender has served his debt to society they should be allowed to resume their life as normal.