Federal officials and animal rights groups are deciding which dogs they took from Michael Vick’s property are suitable for adoption as pets. They recommend killing the rest as unsuitable. Vick is the former National Football League, Atlanta Falcon quarterback arrested for running a dog fighting enterprise.

How can they even consider killing the dog victims as an acceptable option to end this shameful episode of cruelty to animals? Reportedly, animal rights advocates want to make an example of Vick. He faces the possibility of incarceration and the loss of $75 million salary.

I oppose all cruelty to animals. Nevertheless, this punishment is excessive for a first time offense. This is especially true if the people who champion the dogs’ rights recommend killing them if they are unfit to serve humans. They may kill them with less pain. Still, their motive for killing them, exterminating dogs no longer useful for a human purpose, is the same as the dog fighters’ motives.   

Maybe they cannot think of an alternative to adopting them out or killing them, but I can. Recommend that the judge sentence Vick to probation on the condition he set up a dog sanctuary approved by animal rights lovers for his unadoptable dogs. The sanctuary would continue for the lifetime of the dogs, with sufficient safeguards for the safety and wellbeing of each dog. Vick would have to pay for veterinarians, assistant keepers, animal rights groups’ cost to monitor the sanctuary and all other costs.     

This is my proposed solution, because my main concern is for the welfare of the dogs and not primarily about punishing Vick. Do I expect this outcome? No, because I suspect the people involved are more intent on punishing Vick than keeping his alleged dog victims alive. The government also is or was pursuing gambling charges. Nothing is ever simple and above board where parties with special interests use the legal system for their motives and not primarily to protect victims’ interests and make them whole.  

Someone asked me why some groups in Atlanta still did not believe him guilty although he confessed. I don’t know why other people conclude what they do. Nevertheless, I will doubt Vicks confession until I hear or see other evidence of his guilt than the testimony of alleged co-conspirators with plea-bargained motives to lie.  

I don’t claim Vick is innocent, because I know nothing about him or his character. I’m more concerned about the many other defendants coerced into plea bargain deals that violate their constitutional right to trial by jury.

What option would Vick or anybody have under the circumstances even if he were innocent or guilty of a much lesser offense like being stupid? The prosecutor offers a one or two-year sentence for a confession or the threat of piling on charges that might end with a twenty year sentence if a jury returns a guilty verdict. The court is willing to admit as evidence the testimony of three alleged conspirators with a clear motive to lie to receive a plea-bargained shorter prison sentences. What would you do, even if you were innocent or guilty of a lesser offense?

Why didn’t the prosecutors just prosecute Vick if they had the evidence? Vick is a wealthy man capable of defending his innocence if given the chance. Still, it would be foolish for him to chance 15 to 20 at trial instead of a guaranteed one to two-year prison sentence. He is guilty of something and cruelty to dogs is the type emotional issue that could prevent jurors from making distinctions about levels of involvement and guilt.  

Animal lovers and the prosecutors wanted Vick’s conviction as a high profile example to dog fighters. So, why not opt for an open court trial to send and unambiguous message about his guilt and the consequences for this type reprehensible conduct? As it is, they may or may not have the confession of a guilty person.

The court should never accept the testimony of coconspirators offered to gain a reduced sentence. It should only accept hard evidence they may offer in exchange for a sentence reduction. I hope the prosecutors reveal some hard evidence to show they did not rely only on coconspirators’ testimony to force Vick’s confession. Maybe they did already and I missed it.

In addition, they should declare killing Vick’s surviving dogs is not an acceptable option and look for alternative ways to save them. 

 

Kenneth Brooks is an independent writer. Contact him: P.O. 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. Opinion@ethicalego.com