Who thinks that Michael Vick's punishment was a little excessive?

Question

Don't get me wrong, I think what he did was wrong. But if electrocuting animals was THAT big a crime, wouldn't owners of meat processing plants be charged with WARCRIMES by now?

Answer 1

He did more than electrocute them. He made them fight each other until they died, and/or killed the loser through hanging or drowning. He kept many, many dogs in terrible conditions, just for pleasure. I think he should have gotten more punishment. Cattle prods are legal. How do you think invisible fences work on dogs? (Even though I don't agree with those either.) And I would care just as much about roosters, it's just as wrong.

Answer 2

I'm not trippin off dat, but the fact he is being offered multi million dollar jobs offers when he get out by the UFL

Answer 3

What do war crimes have to do with meat processing?  Are you okay?

Answer 4

It was not just the torture of animals, but the gambling ring he was the head.  His sentence may not have been as bad if he stopped once he was indicted and stopped smoking weed during the process.

Answer 5

Maybe standards for cruelty to farm animals should be higher than they are now. (Now there are actually no welfare standards for most of the animals who are slaughtered and even for those species which are covered by the Humane Slaughter Act, the coverage is quite weak.)

What also makes me wonder is why people, in pointing to inconsistencies (such as the different legal protections given to dogs vs. pigsm even though pigs are far more intelligent), want to lower our standards to the lowest common denominator. Shouldn't we look at the nonexistent protection for many animals and decide to raise our welfare standards and compassion?

It really makes me wonder about the kind of people who see current abuses as a reason to lower our ethical standards rather than taking them as a reason to raise our standards. Something to think about.