Michael Vick: Who Needs a Trial?

One of the wonderful things about the blogosphere is that opinions can be published here, even if they haven't passed an editorial board, or originated in one of the traditional centers of culture and refinement. In America, that's New York City, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and to a lesser extent San Francisco and parts of Oregon.

Here are examples of the blogosphere's freedom at work.

In case you haven't read enough about the pre-trial convictions of Michael Vick, here are a few of the blog posts on the subject.

• The Vick Case…doesn’t innocent until proven guilty still apply? (July 27, 2007)
  
• What Happened To "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? (July 28, 2007)
  
• Michael Vick: Innocent Until Proven Guilty...right? (August 1, 2007)
• Is Michael Vick Innocent Until Proven Guilty, or Should He Go Straight to the Dog House? (August 03, 2007)
• Innocent Until Proven Guilty (August 3, 2007)

This is an unusual post for "Apathetic Lemming of the North," so here's the background:

Last Saturday, I heard that the Atlanta Falcons owner, Arthur Blank, said publicly that Michael Vick lied about Vick's involvement in a dog-fighting operation.

Mr. Blank seems to base his conclusion on the fact that a dog-fighting operation seems to have been conducted at a residence owned by Mr. Vick. The owner has more to go on, of course. The men, who almost certainly were directly involved, accused Mr. Vick of participation, with lurid stories to back up their claim.

I do not blame Mr. Blank for his public accusation of Mr. Vick.

Mr. Blank is following a long tradition of executives and business owners, making irrational and draconian decisions, based on limited and dubious information.

Mr. Blank may even be right.

For those who have been away from Earth recently, Michael Vick is a football player who has been accused of involvement in a dog-fighting enterprise on a property he owns. As far as I can tell, there is at best limited evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement, apart from his ownership of the house and grounds where the dog-fighting and training took place.

Last week a news report said that Mr. Vick would most likely pead guilty.

I have been appalled at coverage of Mr. Vick, and his treatment to date. He's lost valuable promotional contracts, been effectively banned from the career he chose, and now has been accused of lying, on the basis of the accusations of two men who admit they participation in criminal behavior.

Mr. Vick may be guilty, but what's been done to him puts me in mind of the 'he's guilty: we'll hang him now, and have a trial later' situation some movies use.

Particularly after the Duke debacle, this guilty-until-proven-innocent situation disturbed me. But I didn't have a blog with a defined topic that allowed discussion of the Michael Vick phenomenon.

Finally, I had an idea: Look up other blogs about Mr. Vick's troubles, and put links to them in an ALN post, with a longer-than-usual discussion.

Update, August 20, 2007, 1:14 pm central time USA - I heard on the news that Michael Vick has entered a guilty plea: apparently on the charge of interstate movement of dogs for gambling purposes. More charges may be brought, of course.

What I said about the treatment of Vick in news media, and by the Falcons owner, stands. Guilty until proven innocent is what legal systems derived from the Napoleonic Code use. We've got innocent until proven guilty as a principle in the USA, at least theoretically.