Earlier today, I wrote this post wherein I more or less insinuated that I believed that Daniel Andersen might be inclined to tout his tax evasion nonsense again, despite being caught and serving time in a California federal prison.
A few hours earlier, I had been tweeting away about the signing of Michael Vick with my team, the Philadelphia Eagles.
And I meant what I said. I do believe in limits to punishment and I believe in second chances.
A few hours later, I’m on the treadmill watching the Andy Reid/Tony Dungy/Michael Vick press conference hit ESPN. Dungy spoke really eloquently about second chances and rehabilitation and giving people the benefit of the doubt. And about halfway through, it hit me: I’m a big hypocrite.
I was willing to believe that someone who had done their time might be capable of starting over in the one instance – and then I automatically poo-pooed (that’s the technical term) the very notion in another. And that, my dear readers, doesn’t speak very nicely of me, does it?
So, for the record, I am hopeful that Michael Vick truly is remorseful for his mistakes and goes on to do good things with his life, as well as serve as a good example for others. Likewise, I hope that Daniel Andersen is sorry for the mistakes that he has made and goes on to be a productive member of society when he gets out. (Psst, Daniel, how’s your long ball? The Phillies could use some more offense.)
And I never should have implied otherwise.
taxgirl,
no worries. Football tends to skew everyone’s way of thinking! But kudos for owning up to contradictory emotions and assessments of situations. It’s hell being human sometimes, isn’t it? 😉
I totally agree that once justice has been served, i.e., a legal sentence has been completed, a person has the right to re-enter society and resume his profession. I’m always amazed by humanity’s penchant for eternal vindictiveness rather than appropriate punishment.
And anybody that Tony Dungy stands up for has got to have a good shot at redemption.
As a Cowboys’ fan, though, I just hope that Vick has lost a little something during his time the clink!
Kay
Hi Taxgirl,
I don’t think that’s a problem at all. Maybe it just means that you think one sort of crime is more serious than another or one is more amenable to rehabilitation than another. I happen to feel the same way – down with tax evaders! As for folks who run a dog-fighting ring…unsavory, but I don’t find myself caring as much.
Love your blog. Have a great weekend.
Sherra
You are a stand -up girl and that is all that matters….Love you column…
I think there may be a difference here that you didn’t mention. While both men went to jail and served time, Mr. Vick has admitted his mistake and wants to make amends. This other guy is jumping right back in to do what got him in trouble in the first place. Seems like someone hasn’t learned his lesson.
Secondly, more people are going to be relying on Mr. Andersen’s advice than they would on anything Mr. Vick does (bettors not included). Mr. Andersen is advising people to break the law.
Human emotions are contradictory under the best of circumstances and the last perfect person lived over 2000 years ago. Don’t concern yourself over situations like this. What concerns me most about our criminal justice system is that there is little rehab, heavy punishment along with huge doses of survival tactics and then we expect them to return to society as a changed people. No wonder we have the highest incarceration and recividism rates of any other nation.
Taxgirl,
I think recidivism differs by the person and the particular crime. You particuarly believed that Vick was rehabed and Anderson was not, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Like the group, I admire your willingness to admit your own failings, although in this case I don’t think I’d call this a failing. I believe there’s a big difference between giving someone a second chance and giving them carte blanche to repeat mistakes. We’ve got to have accountability worked in, and that’s what I heard you saying — not that you don’t believe in rehabilitation. The challenge, of course, lies in finding the right place on the spectrum of justice/accountability and mercy.
On Vick, he has served his time, and that means he no longer has to surrender his freedom of movement to government authorities. It does not obligate any private employer to rehire him. He lied to his employer and many officials in the employer’s industry. He engaged in gambling in direct violation of the terms of his employment. Any other employee in any other industry who similarly abused the trust of his or her employer would be dismissed and banned from rehire without a second thought, regardless of their presumed capacity to generate additional value for the employer. They would have a very hard time demonstrating to another employer in the same industry that they deserved another chance. They would likely have to change industries and start at the bottom. At a minimum, they would have to demonstrate some kind of track record of reforming themselves, not just state affirmatively that that is their intention.
If Daniel Andersen applied for a paralegal opening at your firm, would you give him an interview?
IMO – There is a biiiiiig difference between someone who objectifies living creatures, repeatedly and knowingly subjecting them to pain and suffering, than say, a tax evader or someone who commits other types of crimes.
I believe people can change with time and age, and or rehabilitation.
In addition, I believe we need – at the least – to pay more rehabilatative attention to those who have committed certain types of crimes. As what is present (or missing) in them that allows them, for example, to commit and enjoy crimes of cruelty is more concerning.
While we can all hope that Mr. Vick is a changed man – his comments to the press were hopeful – there are those whole pesky cruelty-to-creatures-only-a-small-step-to-cruelty-to-humans studies. With regards to Mr. Vick, I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
IMO, cruelty is a complex mental pathology and at the least I hope that Mr. Vick continues to receive extensive and on-going therapy rather than a two-week “Pat the Bunny” course.
Dogs are friends, not food – oops, that’s a whole other can…
I enjoy your blog!