JUSTICE VICK-TIMIZED

The Michael Vick dog fighting case raises a host of important questions about the concept of justice. Perhaps the one with the most pervasive impact: are plea-bargaining and justice compatible?

Plea-bargaining is an arrangement under which an accused pleads guilty to having committed a lesser offense than the one he or she is charged with, or is being threatened with, in exchange for a lesser sentence. It is reported that almost 95% of all felony convictions in the country are the result of plea bargains. The percentage applicable to less serious misdemeanors is likely as great, if not greater. Contrary to popular television dramas, relatively few cases actually make it to trial.

The pressure on the accused to enter into a plea arrangement comes frequently from aggressive prosecutors who are concerned about getting a conviction, who want to close as many cases as quickly as possible, and who are focused on the number of “wins” they achieve. The threat of excessive charges carrying extensive sentences, and the uncertainty of what may happen at trial can sometimes induce even innocent accuseds to enter into plea agreements. Supporters of plea agreements argue that both our courts and prisons are so overburdened and overcrowded that there is no conceivable way for all criminal cases to be heard and all those guilty to spend full terms in prison.

But the pressure on the accused to plead guilty to something often comes from an unexpected source, the defense counsel. Faced with the tedium of preparing for the potentially long trial of a client who may be short of funds to pay adequate counsel fees, a defense attorney may push for a quick resolution of the case via a plea bargain.

What is justice and why is it a virtue?

Justice is the principle of treating everyone in the universe for precisely what and who they are, as manifested by his or her statements and actions. It is a virtue because we must make constant decisions as to what does and what does not sustain and nourish our lives, and the use of justice as a tool in dealing with other people is vital to that decision-making.

The admonition to “judge not lest ye be judged” is wrong on both counts. Man must and should judge for the reasons stated, and should want, even demand, that others judge him so that he can claim justice to be an active, viable principle in his life. To treat the evil as good is to betray justice and to act against one’s life’s interest; to treat the good as evil is to make a mockery of justice.

Three main charges were leveled against Michael Vick: running a dog fighting operation, financing a gambling ring and executing dogs. Vick entered into a plea bargain under which he pled guilty to the dog fighting charge, admitted financing but not gambling on the fights and admitted “having a hand in” but not executing some dogs. The sentence? Possible 20 years, actual sentence two years.

Where is justice?

If Vick is guilty of heinous crimes that could warrant 20 years’ imprisonment in a federal penitentiary, a sentence of less than 10% of that term certainly does not seem like justice, does it?

“He is a first time offender” is an argument used by some to invoke leniency in sentencing for Vick. Does the term refer to anyone who has a clean record, as Vick does, or just to those who have not previously committed any crimes? Is a serial killer who has killed a dozen people but has a clean record a candidate for leniency? The testimony of Vick’s accomplices is that he has been engaged in these activities for years and thus he may be more accurately defined as a first time accused rather than a first time offender.

If Vick is not guilty of the charges against him, but pled guilty out of fear of being charged and found guilty by a jury of crimes with longer prison sentences, then no punishment is just, is it?

If Vick is guilty of some crimes but not others, or if the prosecutor is not certain he could get a conviction, then do we not need a jury trial to determine the crimes before we can assess the penalty?

If the prosecutor wanted a plea agreement because he is so busy he can’t go to trial on all the cases he has in front of him, or because our prison space is insufficient to house all criminals for full terms, then that is a confession that our judicial system is in shambles and justice has been preempted by administrative ineptitude and convenience. Federal and state authorities should be called to task for their failure to fulfill one of the vital responsibilities of government: to keep our citizenry safe through an efficient criminal justice system.

If Vick supports the idea of “and justice for all,” as I assume he does, them he would want justice for himself as well, wouldn’t he? And if so, he would want to confess to all his crimes without a plea bargain and serve the full sentence applicable to those crimes. Wouldn’t you? Shouldn’t you?

Any way you look at it, a plea agreement impales the concept of justice, both for the alleged criminals and for the rest of us as well. Committing Crime A and paying the penalty for Crime B is not justice. And, no, it is not partial justice, either. Justice is an all or nothing matter: the sentence is just or it isn’t. A is A.

Ayn Rand said “that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral concern and defraud the good in favor of the evil.” And that is what all of the alleged reasons for plea bargaining do. They place expense – the expense of hiring more prosecutors and judges and building more courtrooms and prisons – as a concern higher than justice. It isn’t, never has been and never will be. Particularly in the richest country in the world with the largest governmental budgets.

What is a crime?

Another issue of justice raised in the Vick case is whether dog fighting, gambling and killing animals should qualify as criminal behavior. After all, to logically implement justice, we need first to assess the nature and criminality of the acts committed.

All crimes entail the violation of individual rights. Individual rights are the manifestation on a political level of man’s natural need for freedom. Man, to survive, must make choices and implement appropriate action…and he needs to be free to do so. Since man’s freedom can only be restricted or restrained by an act of physical force, the conclusion is clear: all crimes must contain the element of physical force exerted against another. Murder is the forceful taking of someone else’s life, robbery is the forceful taking of someone else’s property, etc. And since the right to life gives man the right to defend his life and his property, and to consent to force being used against him, a crime, more particularly, involves the nonconsensual initiation of physical force against another human.

Animals have no rights. They make no conceptual choices; they are programmed to act a certain way given a particular stimulus. They need no freedom and have none to be violated. Which is why it is moral for us to own them, to fence them in, to neuter them, to eat them. Man does not need to eat fish, chickens, turkeys, pigs, lambs, cows, deer, and, yes, dogs, in many countries, to survive or to be healthy. He eats them for pleasure; they taste good. Think that would be lawful to do if animals had rights?

Accordingly, Vick’s activities concerning dogs may not be admirable but they are not criminal. Dogs are living entities and as co-living entities we might want to extend to them a bit of decent treatment, Treat what Vick did as minor violations of civility, if anything, fine him, slap him on the wrist and send him off. To take away his good name, his career, his liberty, is not just.

Of course, gambling by and between consenting adults (see casinos, race tracks, lotteries, church bingo nights) ought be a perfectly legal activity since it does not involve the initiation of physical force against another human. And running a gambling ring should be legal as well.

I have titled this column, Justice Vick-timized because that is what has happened. I wish charges against Mr. Vick had been dropped. I could then have titled this column Justice Vick-torious.

Here are my questions for the day:

If eating animals is ok, then so is killing them. No?

If killing them is not ok, then neither is eating them. No?

Would Vick have been better off legally if he had eaten the dogs after he killed them?