At the moment my head is playing Socratic philosopher, trying to take in the discussion. But it still seems to come back to, if someone is sanctioned by society and have completed the sanction, then they should be allowed to participate once again in society.

You obviously believe that animal cruelty is an especially abhorrent crime. As I said before, you are free to believe that. Everyone maintains an internal level of what crimes they judge to be worse than others (is rape worse than homicide? Is large scale economic crimes worse than single victim violent ones? those are personal judgements).

You say Vick is an outlier: that again is a personal judgment you choose to make. And like I have said, there are people who regard mentally ill offenders as particularly dangerous above all others (and just for reference, I’m still as mentally ill today as I was then – I just have more effective treatment). So if that view is equally as valid as your own, then I am an outlier who is not really deserving of re-integration.

You also talk about your distaste for the way Vick has been placed on a pedastal by the NFL – and I’m inclined to agree that the chance for teachable moments and real discusses about animal cruelty have been lost. But that’s not a re-integration argument. My whole point is that re-integration is a right all ex-cons have a right to to, subject to reasonable limitations (like Vick’s bar on pet ownership). That makes sense. I have an active no-contact order with my victim. That’s totally acceptable, I get why that’s there. But you keep using factual instances of Vick’s case to sort of make the argument that he isn’t subject to re-integration. And that’s where he disagree: of course he is! All us ex-cons are, because it’s the only viable option to reduce recidivism.

Your arguments are all valid – but their social, ethical and psychological arguments – not ones having anything to really do with re-integration or prison reform. This is part of the reason why prison reform and advocacy is so damn hard and so few people are into it: because it requires forming empathy for people who in many cases are repugnant. You have to separate other serious concerns about prisoners and offender behavior from the rights all people are entitled to. Prisoner and ex-prisoner rights are human rights – and those apply regardless of the human your talking about.

baraquiel rejects the system based on (a), either because she finds the personal safety aspect of the premium too high or because she thinks the payoff is chimerical. You seem to reject it based on (b) by highlighting the immorality of providing the same opportunities to Vick as anyone else who’d served that amount of jailtime. I think her response would be, in the context of this model, that the collective action solution to reintegration therapy falls apart once individual citizens reserve the right to opt out of deferring to the state as the punishing authority. In other words, treat somebody who got out not having done a “just” amount of time, in your eyes, as well as you would somebody who did. She also makes the point that if you think the current punishment for a particular crime is unsuitable, change the sentence systematically (by acting within “society”), but don’t attempt to do it one-on-one after the convict has been released (by acting merely as an individual).

And drahill, that is what I was saying by “suck it up”. Individuals’ personal preferences are hardly ever an exact match with the general will.

My whole point was that most people who are convicted of crimes are deserving of complete re-integration to society without persecution (you are one of those people.) But, due to the nature of his crimes, Vick is not. Vick is an outlier and that is where my dissention lay.

It is obvious that there were buckets of extenuating circumstances surrounding your crime that were even recognized by the courts (You were mentally ill at the time) and Vick was consciously cruel.

I deliberately used your word ‘abhorrent’ to describe Michael Vick’s crimes to indicate that I believe that he should be categorized with the group of criminals you yourself described as those due special consideration when integrated back into society (child abusers and rapists). I’m assuming that murderers would also go into this category, in your view.

My point is that Vick’s crime is not merely one that “holds a special distaste in popular culture.” It is unusually serious and horrific. There is an incredibly large body of evidence that suggests that those who purposefully commit cruel and violent acts toward animals are also inclined to commit crimes such as rape, child and spousal abuse, and murder. They tend to be lifelong abusers and continual threats to society. Animal abuse is one of those things that pops up in almost every serial killer’s history. Here, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13dogfighting-t.html?pagewanted=all

I’m not saying that now that he’s free, Michael Vick shouldn’t be allowed to exercise his rights as a citizen of the United States. I’m saying that society would be right to recognize the gravity of his actions following his release. The NFL would be right not to throw him back up on a pedestal. He deserves to be granted employment, but the uncertainty arises because he wants to rejoin the NFL and football players are some of the most heavily rewarded and publicly celebrated individuals in our society. The last time he was in the NFL, Vick used his football money to finance a giant dog-fighting enterprise. This fact demands consideration.

I agree that people convicted of crimes need to be given jobs and a chance to participate in society at the same level as everybody else and that preventing them from doing so only leads to more crime and the erosion of society in general. Not to mention, it is morally wrong to deny those who have endured their punishment a second chance at peaceful functionality in society.

However, you have to recognize the fact that there are levels here and that somebody who has a violent break because her meds aren’t working shouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny as somebody who is free of clinical defect and found guilty of committing habitual torture. Had you not been immediately arrested, I sense that you would have emerged from your episode and recognized the fact that it was wrong to pummel that girl. Michael Vick operated a multi-state animal cruelty ring and only stopped because he got caught.

You clearly believe that Vick is a monster. That is totally fine to believe – I am not here to convine anyone otherwise or what have you. However, see, here’s the rub: there are people who believe I am a monster. I beat a girl to a bloody fucking pulp (and yes, my language is deliberately harsh). There are people who believe that I should not ever again enjoy a high quality of life because of what I did. Clearly, you believe that about Vick.

But see, here’s the thing: your making a value-laden judgment. You consider the crime of animal cruelty to be especially abhorent (and that is a fine view to have). However, you just used your own personal judgment and feelings to make blanket determinations about and distinctions of cases. And that’s what I’m trying to remove from the equation. What I’m talking about is re-integration and what (if any) duties society owes to former inmates when they emerge (and almost all do, at some point). The fact that Vick’s crime is one that holds a special distaste in popular culture does not create a de facto permission to violate his rights upon his release. Obviously, many come out with right restrictions (like Vick’s bar from owning any pets). Those things are reasonable. But I do believe that all ex-cons (and yes, Michael Vick among them) do have a right to reasonable re-integration. The issue of whether the NFL was prudent in re-signing Vick is a whole separate issue.

And as for your last point, I do, to some extent, have to believe that Vick is my “cohort” as you put it. A lot of very unsavory and dislikable people are my “cohorts” because we share a common experience of incarceration. That doesn’t mean I like them all, or would even want to be in a room with them.

That said: I consider what Michael Vick did to be abhorrent. I will fully admit that I don’t know anything about him personally, but I know he didn’t do it because he needed a way to make money. He knew exactly what he was doing and who he was victimizing and he wasn’t blind to his choices. He in no way did it because he’s part of an at-risk sector of society that is victimized or oppressed. (He may have been when he was younger, but I’m sorry, millionaire football players don’t get powerless minority status or it’s accompanying consideration.) He did it because he considers the feelings of animals to be insignificant. He thought it was fun to watch easily manipulable yet fully sentient beings that we as a species have bred to trust and rely upon us rip each other apart. He tortured innocent dogs and I believe that he deserves to be shut out of opportunities due to the severity of his crimes. Maybe he does have some psychological problem caused by some abuse I don’t know about, but we don’t excuse pedophiles for that reason.

I know you didn’t write this entry to discuss the ins and outs of Vick’s crimes and their implications. However, I don’t think you should be drawing him into your cohort just because you’ve both been convicted of violent crimes. You deserve a true second chance and he is a monster.

The disconnect in my opinion is this: many, many people will agree that you should get another chance to be a member of society and far fewer people will agree that you should get chances to be their friend, for example. Personally, I’d be a little wary of going to a party with someone who had sent a stranger to the hospital at a party — I’m an outspoken person and I’ve also never been punched in the face and I’d like for both of those to continue to be true.

I mean, I believe that if we have a prison system, it should be geared towards rehabilitation. But I also know for a fact that a large number of prisoners do not have experiences that are rehabilitative and so treating someone who went to prison for a violent offense as if they have de facto been rehabilitated upon leaving prison seems, honestly, a little obtuse. I do think that criminal histories are a vital part of the conversation. That said, as a for instance, I would have a very, very, very difficult time being in a friendly social situation with someone who had gone to prison for rape, for instance, although the actual guilty verdict is more important to my judgment there than the prison sentence. My question for you is this: some people are dangerous and it’s important for everyone to be able to police their social groups to minimize their exposure to dangerous people. I think that many, perhaps most, people have badly-crafted algorithms for doing this and I think that simply including “was ever in prison” as a deciding factor is neither just nor in fact very functional. However, it is certainly the case that there are some people who commit violent crimes and go to prison for them and are still dangerous, and in some sense you can never actually know for certain if someone *will* be violent towards you until they *are* violent towards you. So, given all of this — how do you suggest that people balance the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with the desire to not be around people who might act violently towards one? Here I’m talking basically about purely social interactions and not institutional ones (e.g. jobs or colleges — I believe people have a right to education or the ability to earn a living wage in a way that they don’t have a right to, for example, friends).

The punishments should fit their respective crimes. The just punishment for attacking someone in a bar under extenuating circumstances shouldn’t be 60 days in jail and lifelong social pariah status. If you do your 60 days and you create a serious track record of law-abiding behavior, society owes you another chance.

Criminal records for relatively minor crimes should be wiped clean after five years unless the person re-offends.

What better incentive to pursue a life of crime than the realization that you can never get a straight job because you have a criminal record?

What better incentive to reform than the promise that the slate will be wiped clean when you prove that you function as a law-abiding citizen?