‘NFL star and controversial public figure Michael Vick can now legally own a dog again, just five years after his conviction for illegal dog-fighting, and reports suggest that he’s ready for a new pup…
…In an appearance on Piers Morgan’s show last night, Vick admitted that he’d like to get a dog, albeit for his kids. The Philadelphia Eagles QB was previously banned from owning dogs for three years following his 19 months served in federal prison. The ban is just about up, and Vick sounds like he wants to celebrate it with a new canine companion, arguing that it would be “therapeutic” for his kids.’
Some will argue that once a criminal has served his sentence and ‘paid his debt to society’, he should not be punished any further.
The distinction here is that that the ban to own dogs levelled at a dog abuser is not a punishment. It is a means to protect dogs from further abuse.
No one would argue that a convicted paedophile should be allowed to spend time with children after serving the sentence for his crimes. It is difficult to understand why the situation should be any different if the abused party is a dog rather then a child.
There appear to be two plausible explanations for this inconsistency:
1. Animal abuse is not seen as a crime as severe as child abuse.
2. Michael Vick is rich and famous and able to use his money and influence to get a better deal.
Either way it appears to me that the law is unfair and needs to be changed.