Yes

by Brian Pears

Created on: September 17, 2009

The fascinating thing about Michael Vick's crime is that reactions to it cut across so many different demographic segments of our society. Despite having been the highest paid quarterback in the National Football League and one of its most recognizable faces among younger fans, one can only assume that a great many people who have strong opinions about Vick likely hadn't heard of him before his arrest and conviction. So, Vick's fame, powerful but localized within the football fan community, quickly became infamous, and as such made him a household name.

With all that said, and while still paying great respect to each individual's opinion about Vick, the inexactness of the question asked in the title must be addressed. Only a very few of us in society may truly decide whether Michael Vick deserves a second chance. From a legal standpoint, he was granted a "second chance," so to speak, by successfully fulfilling the terms of his incarceration. From a business standpoint, he has been granted another chance by the NFL, a cartel tight enough to have its commissioner make the decision to allow its teams to hire a convicted felon. So, like it or not, Vick has been given a second chance, and outside of the legal system or Vick's professional association, no one's opinion will change that.

However, the essence of this topic, and a much more interesting question to boot, is: has the price Michael Vick has paid - legally, financially, reputationally - been sufficient for society to welcome him back fully? Colloquially, we may speak of society's willingness to "forgive" him, but forgiveness is an individual decision. The concept of a societal re-welcoming is broader, deeper, and less personal than individual forgiveness.

Like forgiveness, the determination as to whether Vick has paid enough dues is an individual one, but unlike forgiveness, we can measure society's opinion through proxies. Measuring the number of protests against Vick, and gauging the number of protestors and their level of anger, is one place to start. To that point, I'd like to see whether the number, size, and vehemence of protests waxes or wanes with time. A weakening in that sort of public outcry would imply some acceptance back into society.

Also, we can use the television ratings of his games (not the physical attendance at them, as nearly NFL game sells out every week) as a measure. If the ratings start higher than average for Philadelphia Eagles' games, especially those in which he might be expected to play, and stay high, one might take that as a measured of continued interest in Vick. Or, one could argue that if Eagles' ratings are lower than expected and stay low, that might be evidence of a continued boycott of Vick. Thus, while the ratings might not tell us anything conclusive, at least without considering other evidence, anything outside an expected average range would likely be an indication of some reaction.

Finally, we can pay attention to the media, both traditional and new. In terms of traditional print, television, and radio media, you can rest assured that if they are still talking about Michael Vick a couple months from now, at least in terms of his crime, it will be because they believe talking about Vick will bring them ratings, eyeballs, and revenue. One can argue about whether the media shapes opinion or gives voice to what people are talking about, but in either case, if Vick is still worthy of discussion, he will be discussed. Likewise, if Vick continues to grab the attention of the blogosphere, save perhaps for a tiny but likely forever motivated animal rights minority, we can take that as an indication that the story is still in the forefront of people's minds. But if most of the references to Michael Vick are about what he does on the football field, that would indicate a level of societal re-acceptance.

Please don't misunderstand - discussing how we might decide whether society has decided that Vick has paid his dues has nothing to do with the heinousness of his crimes. Violence towards any creature is savage, but when it's directed towards those that can't defend themselves, the disgust we feel is nearly unfathomable. And rightly so.

But despite that, we still ought not confuse the fact that Michael Vick is indeed living his second chance as we speak with the issue of whether we as a collective feel he has redeemed himself in our eyes. Only time can answer the second part, but we have ways of determining how close we feel he has come to rejoining us morally as well as physically.

Learn more about this author, Brian Pears.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.