Carruth's in jail. Had he been released while he was still of age to have an NFL career -- and the NFL suspended him further, you could compare the two. Stallworth had a minimal jail sentence. A one year suspension for a DUI (especially one leading to death) seems in line with other substance abuse and DUI's. (actually -- given the death it seems a little light). Vick effectively got 2 years. That's a huge suspension by NFL standards. Especially since his crime had nothing to do with football. Do you think an extra year? Or life? Given players who've attempted to kill people, (or actually caused the death of people), have received less.
By your own logic, Carruth effectively has a 24 year suspension. You are essentially arguing with yourself in your own post.
No, I say again, the logic equally points to Stallworth didn't get punished enough to Vick has been punished enough. By your logic, you are saying Stallworth's punishment fit the crime then, right?
Not trying to be argumentative . NFL didn't need to address Carruth's situation. One year for alcohol/drug offenses seems about their standard. Would you ban Vick? Booing I can understand. Teams choosing not to sign him -- their perogative. But losing 2 years in the prime of his career doesn't seem light. Just trying to think it out. I could understand one more year -- maybe-- but any more wouldn't sit right with me. Even one more year would seem unreasonably harsh given the suspensions I've seen them hand out.
Just as the NFL didn't need to address the Vick situation until he got out of jail. Either time in jail gets labeled "league suspension" or it doesn't. It is unreasonable to try to have it both ways. Whether it hurt him in the prime of his career or not, that is what he "earned". IMO, there is no reasonable logic by which jail time is league suspension. If a player takes steroids and bursts a tendon before getting caught, the suspension time doesn't run concurently with the time he is on the IR. He heals, is activated to the roster, and then serves his suspension. "Suspending" someone from playing football while they are in jail is just as meaningless. The time in jail was his penalty for his offense against society. The time away from football is his penalty for offense against the good name of the league. These are different offenses against seperate entities. That having been said, if you want to call jail time "suspension", I can understand. Just be consistent. Don't call it a league suspension in one case and not the other.
Didn't think I was trying to have it both ways. But we're arguing semantics regarding Carruth. Call it a lifetime ban; a 24 year ban; or no ban at all. Would have been silly for the NFL to issue any kind of suspension in his case since he was prevented from playing anyways. I'm not even sure if he got the 'unspecified suspension' but don't see how it matters with regard to Vick. I do think jail time has to count in the suspension given the limited time a player has to have a career. Plus -- unlike an injury -- he was unpaid at the time he was forbidden from playing. His league punishment started as soon as his cheques stopped. I agree you can make a theoretical argument that the suspensions cannot be concurrent -- but I think practically, they are. I don't think it's logical to say he got 6 games -- when he's been out for 2 years. Given that, I'm genuinely curious. What do you think would have been appropriate and why? (again--given the context of NFL discipline).
Again, I am using Stallworth as one example. Others have posted other examples in this thread about folks killing people and getting less time, and there are numerous other examples of folks (to be fair, mainly those with $$) doing considerable harm to people and serving less time than Vick did. Based on that, it's silly to me to say he wasn't punished enough when he actually served the time that the courts deemed appropriate (again, more time than some get for killing people) and lost all his $$. My logic states that 2+ years of jail and losing millions is punishment enough for killing animals, based on other criminals getting less for killing or injuring humans. You can try to opt out by saying you don't agree with the lighter sentences that these other folks got, but the facts still remain that a man was punished more for hurting animals.
I don't have the statistics, but I'm guessing he was punished considerable less than most people are punished for inflicting similar damage to humans (or even less damage, but still deadly). You can point to specific cases here and there all you want (though you've only specifically pointed to one), but I'm guessing, on the whole, you're claim is wrong. For every case where someone kills another person and "gets off lightly" there are likely thousands where more appropriate real time is served. If you want to believe Vick got fair sentencing generally speaking that is fine. But you're logic in comparing it to other cases where you think a guilty party was punished appropriately doesn't make sense. Again, from what you're saying, I am to gather that those cases where Stallworth, or people like him, don't serve significant jail time...that those people are being punished appropriately. I.e. - you're don't have a problem with those sentences, you have a problem with Vick's. Is this correct?
There are plenty of them . . . . Pick a profession and you can probably find 10 within a minute Rocket River
