I think it probably depends on what you think is evil. I know many of the things I do on a daily basis are considered evil to many people, i.e. not covering my head, swearing, and working on Sundays. Oh, and I heart gays too. I think Alec made very good points. I believe evil is a very, very gray area. I also believe forgiveness is something that should be earned, however, but should be granted, also.

I have been struggling with this idea lately, too. I don't think I do believe in rehabilitation, probably due in large part to my experience as a counselor at a domestic violence shelter/rape crisis hotline. I don't think many of the abusers did stop hurting people, even after attending classes or serving jail time. There are high rates of recidivism in this country, so clearly something is awry.

On the other hand, the way our justice system is supposed to work is that you do your time and then you've paid your debt to society. So Michael Vick should be able to act like a regular human being now that he's been released, right? (Let's note, however, this isn't true for felons, not even non-violent ones: once convicted of a felony, one cannot vote, will have a terrifically hard time finding a job, and if outed to a community, stands a good chance of being run off, *if* one can find housing in the first place.)

My problem with Michael Vick is that he did this for fun. And let's be serious here -- he'd still be doing it if he hadn't been caught. Why would he have stopped? I'm pretty doubtful that someone who'd use a dog as "bait" and seen the ensuing carnage would suddenly grow a sense of compassion. It sounds to me like he's saying I'm sorry I got caught" rather than "I'm sorry for doing this."

Should he be able to get a job? Sure. Am I irked that he's going to make shit tons of money even after being judged an animal abuser? Yes. Do I think he shouldn't be able to own an animal again? You bet.

I eat meat and have pretty much no problem with being an omnivore as a concept. I do think that slaughterhouses have horrible conditions, for both the animals and the humans who work in them. Reform in this regard is a good idea for many reasons. And perhaps there isn't a humane way to kill a being, but where is that line? Do you get upset when you splatter a bug on your windshield? Do you gently brush away a spider that dangles on its thread near your daughter? Do you make sure you don't use chemicals that harm the environment and therefore other living sentient beings? Do you stop using laundry detergent that encourages algae growth in ponds and streams and therefore causes fish to die? (I'm not sure if I'm speaking to you, Torrie, or a larger, more hypothetical "you.")

Who knew I had so much to say about this? And yet, I have no conclusions at all.

Jana, such a good point about defining evil.

Tasha, you make some great points too. As far as where to draw the line- I use organic and all natural product, don't wear leather, take bugs outside instead of killing them, etc. I do my best to cause no harm, but I'm not perfect. If a bee was flying near my daughter I would kill it.

I think Tasha made some really great points, but its true that it is a grey area. And while I think what he did is wrong, I don't think it is comparable to evil. People are acting as if those animals have the same rights as humans, like we should be placing equal value on the lives of animals and humans. People should be forgiven as it is possible for people to change. As long as he continues to demonstrate himself as a changed man he should be treated as such. Some would say that the concept of no forgiveness is evil too. We should forgive those who repent should we not?

While I agree that different cultures/countries have different laws and what may be legal in one is not in the other, I do not think "evil" is relative.
Rape, child abuse, pre-meditated murder in most cases, etc. There are more. Many more, unfortunately.

(I said in most cases because if somebody took the life of my child, I might very well pre-meditate that person's demise, if you catch my drift).

This was hard to answer in the way that I wanted to; I kept going back and erasing part of what I said. In the end, I think some acts and yes, even people, are evil, pure and simple - there is no "relatively speaking;" there is no "grey," etc.

And you know something else? Some acts are unforgivable.
That's just my opinion.

Just because Vick seems to be good at one thing doesn't mean he should get to go do it anymore. That "thing" is being a celebrity athlete - enjoying the privilege of making those shit tons of money and exercising the opportunity to be a role model. I said it on Facebook and I'll say it here, I'm waiting for the NFL (and the other major leagues) to raise their standards. 'Trow the bums out! and let them fall back on their other skills and education. Oh, don't have any because you dropped out of school to play ball? Oops.

Ok delurking. My friend and I had a long conversation about Vicks "deserving" a second chance. We live in a world where we want to believe the best of people but often we are wrong to do this. My friend posed this question, 'If he had commited the crime of molestation on a child, and served his time, would he still deserve a second chance?" I immediately stated "NO, absolutely not!!!" He said, "Why not, he didn't murder a living creature, he just touched one inappropriately". This will make you insane if you think about it too long. A child's welfare and an animals welfare are entirely two different things, aren't they? But then again if someone harmed my dog I would not feel this way at all.

This really comes down to people's ability to de-value the life of dog's. Harming a dog might seem no big deal to some, but it is evil and evil rarely just up and leaves a person. I think he's sorry he got caught, or perhaps sorry he put his own name on the operation. But not sorry for doing it.

Considering whether child molestation is in the same realm of wat Vick did ...well that'll make you think long and hard about second chances. If you don't murder a child, do you deserve a second chance? If you only fight the dog's and don't intend their death or destruction, does that make you deserve a second chance? Is it the value on a living thing that determines it?

I think that he's getting a second chance only because of his ability to earn tons of money for the NFL. And that is not a altruistic reason for a second chance at all.

I don't feel I am equipped to speak to the evilness of anyone, or to properly articulate where Vick's actions in this particular instance may differ from other crimes.

I do agree with Dave M that I am most bothered by the NFL's allowing him to play again. That he will make boatloads of money doing so is at the heart of what pains me. If he went back to playing 'ball and only made $30k a year, I would consider it merely his job and his trying to make a living doing what he knows how. But I cannot stomach that this selfsame man will soon be adding millions to his already substantial cache (yes, I know he filed for bankruptcy).

My issue is that he is a convicted felon. Period. I take what he was convicted of completely out of the equation (my personal feelings tend to color my opinion needless to day). Objectively, he's a FELON. As a felon, even if you've served your "debt", there are certain things that you have given up permanently. One of which is having your cushy life back. By breaking the law, Vick gave up that life. He should not get it back. Why? Average people never get it back. Average people have trouble finding jobs as convicted felons. You're not supposed to keep privilege when you break the law and are a convicted felon. I don't care who you are, you give that life up. By treating Vick as special/different just because he can throw a football, well, that's just not right. He's not special.

He's a FELON. And he should be treated as such. Not given any special treatment.

My question is what kind of example are we as a society setting by hiring a convicted felon into a job that inherently has the job of role model? What are we telling our youth? That consequences don't exist?

As an aside, what kind of message are the Eagles sending by hiring someone convicted of animal cruelty and dog fighting to work for and represent a city that has a known problem with dog fighting? Not a good one, to say the least.

I am struggling with this one too. And I too, read Alec Baldwin's article. I do believe in second chances - but I'm not sure if I'll ever forget what Vick did. I'd also like to see more of his "rehabilitation" ie - speaking with kids/groups about and against dog fighting. Maybe he has done this -but I guess I'd like to see more of THAT news published rather than just bringing up the past. I'm not a football fan to begin with - so boycotting his games? Not going to work for me - I want to see more positives from this guy.

As to whether there is truly a 'humane' way to kill any being I am unsure. I do however believe the nature of such a killing is hugely relevant to a person’s possibility for rehabilitation and level of evil. If you slit someone’s throat versus torture them you may well be convicted of the same crime, and many would feel deserve the same punishment, but I don’t think the crimes are motivated in the same way. Torture before the murder implies an inherent enjoyment of someone else’s pain for whatever reason, and I don’t think that’s the kind of thing you can fix. If someone kept a person for days tortured raped and then finally killed them, do we truly consider them to be the same level of evil as say a parent whose child was killed and in turn killed the murderer as they did not feel justice had been served. Could we really consider Vicks on the same level as say an animal control worker who must euthanize a dog because he has attacked a child? I personally don’t think so and think that his enjoyment in the destruction of these animals for ‘fun’ is an inherent evil that will only escalate over time. There’s a reason that studies show people who kill and torture animals often move onto their fellow humans.

I absolutely believe that there is a difference between a quick murder and a long, drawn out and torturous murder. Killing ANYONE is something I am not on board with in any situation - I am 100% against even the death penalty and war. But I do believe that people who murder someone quickly, in a rage or fit of passion (whatever the excuse) is judged less harshly than someone who tortures someone before they kill them. It's about the amount of SUFFERING endured. That is why there are different degrees of murder when they go to trial. Killing someone is bad enough but it is also something that I believe ANYONE is capable of under the right circumstances. Torture takes it to an entirely different level though - I don't think everyone is capable of that.

If you think about it only in terms of death rather than murder then wouldn't you choose to die quickly? If you HAD to lose a loved one wouldn't you prefer that they die quickly (in their sleep or something) as opposed to something drawn out (like bleeding to death in a car accident)?

I hope that he uses his chance. I write people off. When someone burns a bridge with me I'm not a forgiving person because as a whole I don't think that people understand the meaning of an apology. If I say to you "I'm sorry" its important for me to know that YOU know that the apology isn't just an apology for the way you responded but an apology for my personal actions.

I'm not sure that he is sorry. I hope that he truly is. I hope that he uses this opportunity to not only pick up his life but to emphasize the goodness of life and of all living things, human or otherwise.

I have hope for him because there is no other option. His athleticism gives him an opportunity to do good - I hope he does just that.

Good post. I find interest in how we judge what is important when it comes to human life vs. animal life. How we decide what is horrible and what can be forgiven.

I think that torturing animals to death is no less forgivable than killing another human.

In my opinion Michael Virk may say he is sorry but he is still a person who tortured and murdered animals in a cruel inhumane way that is unforgiveable. He is no better and no worse than a person who murders other humans. He is the same. A malicious murderer.

He does not deserve a second chance at his sports career. Torture= torture.