Michael Vick and Due Process
Should the NFL immediately suspend Michael Vick in light of his indictment this week? Many observers say the league should hold back and wait for the legal system to run its course. "Innocent until proven guilty" should mean something in the real world, they say.
Sounds reasonable. For those who hold this view, a question: Was the NFL wrong to suspend Rae Carruth immediately after his arrest on charges he conspired to murder his pregnant girlfriend in 2000?
If the argument to leave Vick alone for now is to be based on the sanctity of an American legal cornerstone, that argument should extend to every circumstance, shouldn't it? If you believe Vick should be allowed to play in 2007, then surely you believe Carruth was wronged when he was cut by the Panthers before his trial started. (He was convicted of conspiracy and is serving an 18-year sentence.)
As far as I can tell, however, any outrage for Carruth would be the first. I don't recall any debate over the NFL's swift actions seven years ago.
It's at this point that some may discuss the difference in the crimes with which Vick and Carruth are charged. Carruth had to be treated differently because killing a human is more reprehensible than killing dogs, some might say.
But that logic doesn't work here. The rhetorical buttress of the "Free Vick" theory is the principle and not the particulars. If that's going to be your opinion, you must stick with it -- even if it leads you into retroactive defense of a convicted man.
Either do that or think up some other reason why a private employer would be completely out of bounds to discipline an employee facing an 18-page indictment and a date in federal court.