Michael Vick - A Repulsive Individual? Maybe. A Criminal? No.
Posted in Misc., Law, Subjective Law on July 29th, 2007Yes, I know according to our pathetically over-reaching, unprincipled legal system, he very well could be considered a criminal.
My point is that he shouldn’t be.
Unfortunately, one of many inescapable realities of freedom is that it inherently entitles individuals to do or say things that we disagree with, and in some cases things that repulse us. Cruelty to animals repulses me. If indeed Vick tortured and beat dogs to death - I’d love to see him accidentally fall into a cage of lions for some real one-on-one intimacy with aggressive animals.
However, as much as the thought of torturing or killing animals disgusts me, it should not be a legal issue (except for the extent that I mention below). Laws based on subjective whims are a tyrannical wildcard that must never be dealt in a free society.
Animals have no legal rights. A right is an ethical principle sanctioning an individuals action, and is only applied to rational, moral beings. Animals are neither.
I love most animals in general and dogs in particular. The thought of my sweet natured Chocolate Labrador being confiscated and used as psycho-bait for other more aggressive dogs is nauseating. If that horrible thought became a reality I do support very extreme legal penalties for such theft. Dogs & other animals that have owners are property of those owners - very special property, property that cannot be replaced.
Penalties for stealing another individuals pet should be harsh enough to effectively deter the practice. However, if the cruelty to animals doesn’t encroach on the rights of others (excruciating as it may be) a free country must allow it.
The self-induced damage to Vick’s marketability will probably render the end of his NFL career. It should not however, land him in the courtroom.

