by Ted Sherman

Created on: December 14, 2007

In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, the Mikado's Lord High Executioner sings:

My object all sublime,
I shall achieve in time:
Let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime.

The question is: did football star Michael Vick's jail sentence fit his crime? He knowingly engaged in a criminal enterprise and then lied about it when hauled into court. If the books mandate such a fit-the-crime sentence, then let him serve it. Was it enough? Who knows? In an America where celebrity criminals such as O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake can murder wives and others and stay out of jail, a case could be made for Vick.

Although they are still walking the streets, or in trouble for committing new crimes, the two obvious killers were sentenced by civil courts to shell out millions of bucks. The great decisions mandated that they were guilty of the nebulously ridiculous "responsibility for the deaths of others". Does all that mean that the judges said, "You are certainly guilty of something, but we can't figure out exactly what, so here's a slap on the wrist, a severe punishment to your wallet, and then you can be on your way."

There's a good argument that Vick, who was responsible for killing only fighting pitbull dogs, should not have gone to jail at all. There are many of us who can stop laughing long enough to declare that justice would be served adequately if Vick did not have to go to jail, but was separated from some of the millions he has stashed away from his obscenely high football earnings.

Learn more about this author, Ted Sherman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.