The Michael Vick Situation and Rights.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
July 28, 2009 9:16am CST
The whole situation with Michael Vick, the NFL and how different teams are reacting brings up a bigger point.
Our system of justice holds that once a person has "done their time", they should be free to be as much a part of society as anyone else.
That is true, but we also have the freedom of association, employers have the freedom to decide who is the best candidate for a job opening, and we all have the right to our own opinions.
I think the hardest legal questions arise from situations where rights collide. Michael Vick has done his time, so yeah, there's nothing wrong with the NFL choosing to allow him to play professional football again. However, does that mean that all the teams should be forced to consider adding him to their roster? Aren't the team leaders exercising their rights to not want him as the NFL exercised in reinstating his eligiblity?
On a more broad scale, if I'm an employer who is considering a few applicants for a job, I have the right to decide who is best for that position. The applicants all have a right to be considered, even those who have been in prison.
Since both sides are exercising their rights, there is no violation of anyone's rights at all. The only violation would be to force an outcome on one side or the other.
Having a right to something doesn't negate the rights of everyone else.
I think people forget that.
1 person likes this
7 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
28 Jul 09
Ted, I am kind of confused here, I don't know of any NFL team that is forced to consider hiring him. NO NFL team has offered him a job yet, but I am sure someone will. I don't agree with what he did, but like you said he did serve his time, and he should be treated like anyone else. The real outrage should be the fact that Michael Vick spent 3 years in jail for killing dogs. Yet, Donte Stallworth got 27 DAYS in jail and paid $2 + Million to the family of the man that he KILLED while drunk driving. This where the outrage should be.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
Yes, that is an outrage, but this isn't an article about that... write one and we'll talk about it.
It's more about when rights collide than Michael Vick here.
@N4life (851)
• United States
29 Jul 09
If he was "treated like anyone else" with a felony his employer likely would not have even given him the opportunity to be hired again. This is of course the right of the employer, but when we look at society as a whole it is best if employers not automatically disqualify someone because of their past as this leads to higher crime rates, more families on different forms of govt assistance, etc..etc..
1 person likes this
@phildozer (284)
• United States
28 Jul 09
The Bills still signed TO and everyone knows what a ticking time bomb he is. If a team is willing to sign Vick, then they by all means should do so. The incident is over, Vick has done his time, and the boy just wants to get back to work. And with a mentor like tony dungy, how can he do wrong?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
Ok, he has done his time and just wants to get back to work.. but does that negate that the NFL, the teams, or any other employer's rights to decide who is best for a position?
@phildozer (284)
• United States
29 Jul 09
Well you act like someone HAS to pick him up, but right now hes a free agent, and any team that signs him knows what hes done and is willing to accept his restrictions. I guess im not to sure what your saying beyond that?
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
28 Jul 09
The problem is the NFL is not the employer, but the individual team. If the Green Bay Packers wanted to hire Micheal Vick that should be up to them. What the NFL has decided to do is we will determine when a team can hire Micheal Vick and when they can play him. Now the NFL does have the right to bar someone from playing on an NFL field, but the NFL does not have the right to bar him from employment.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
Actually it's kind of both. The Green Bay Packers can't hire him unless he is approved for employment by the NFL. The NFL DOES have the authority to decide if he should be able to play on an NFL.. in fact, they did make that call, and they decided to let him play.
If they didn't, he wouldn't be able to play for any NFL team.
Another example would be Pete Rose. No matter how much the Cinncinnati Reds (or any other team) may have wanted to sign him, none could becuase Major League Baseball banned him.
@madmillionaire (598)
•
28 Jul 09
The NFL are right to allow him to make a comeback as he has "done his time". However I am sure most of the club owners will be very wary of offering him a deal because of all the hype and baggage that would come with signing him. And knowing the US you can imagine all the animal rights groups will be up in arms wherever he ends up.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
True, no team that signs him can later claim that they didn't realize what it would mean.
@venshida (4836)
• United States
28 Jul 09
I am not well verse on this topic, but I fell Mike Vick has done his time. He deserve a second chance. I am glad he was granted a second chance. The teams should not forced to consider him for their roster. They should treat him as any football player if he is a good fit for their team hire him. If they don't want him that's good also, Mike was a good player. I think he will be a good asset for any team that sign him.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
Do you feel the same about all others and their chosen profession?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
29 Jul 09
I don't believe that any team should be forced to sign him nor do I believe that that will happen. I also don't believe that doing your time absolves you of the crime you went to prison for and makes you an equal candidate for another position when competing against qualified individuals who haven't broken the law. Should a CPA who went to prison for embezzlement have his 10 years of experience overshadow another applicant with less experience and who didn't break the law? Each individual employer should be free to consider every applicant for a job based on a range of criteria that they themselves determine.
@abenitez (501)
• United States
29 Jul 09
The NFL is absolutely right for letting him play again and I really hope that a team decides to give him a chance. But, that is completely up to the team. Just because he has the right to play again does not mean that a team is obligated to sign him. The teams have a right to not sign him and he is well aware of that, he should be. For a team to sign him they have to feel that he is a good fit and he can help them win.
