Writer Brenda Linck used a blog post on Fan IQ to suggest NFL quarterback Michael Vick, convicted on dog-fighting charges, is a role model.
Maybe, in a stretch, one could suggest he turned his life around – if and only if we see a change going forward for an extended period of time. But at this point, I’m not seeing enough from Vick. What he did was nothing short of horrible.
But Linck went even farther with her column on January 5, stepping into a heaping pile of clueless.
Linck made the following statement:
He ended up serving 21 months in prison. Did the punishment fit the crime? In my opinion, no; He should have served less time.
Actually, 21 months in prison is far too little time for operating a dog-fighting ring and torturing dogs to death. But Linck justifies her opinion by claiming that criminals can serve less time for acts against people. So increase the penalties for these crimes; don’t lessen the punishment for cruelty to animals.
And she says we all make mistakes. Sure, but we don’t all engage in cruelty to animals or people. And those who do should be severely punished. Yes, people can change and turn their lives around. But for this sort of horrible crime, the punishment should come first and then it’s up to the offender to prove him or herself over time.
Linck lost all credibility on this issue, when she suggested Vick’s punishment was too harsh – in comparison to his crime.PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic