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.
Under the law (for the most part :-) ), that is indeed the case. For the most part. Again, it comes back to the issue of ‘severity’. The severity of the crime(s). Human beings, as we are, are always going to judge the actions of others based on their ‘severity’. I do it, you do it, we all do it.
Here’s the problem, as i see it....there are very many people who have an emotional component attached to Vick’s crimes...after all, most people at least like dogs. Me? I love them. let me ask you honestly tho...if Vick had been tried and convicted for abusing cockatiels, would there have been the huge outcry? Again, it goes back to severity.
I understand your position, FRiend. I do. I just think the young man has fulfilled the requirements the Fed imposed on him, and he should be allowed to resume his life as he knows it. BUT, I don’t think he should ever be allowed to own a dog. :-)
Wait...that may be a better rehabilitation than prison...not dogs, just a dog. :-) Anyway, thank you all for the intellectual bantering, and all thots are just my opinion and nothing more. Good night!