« Tony Snow--Stuntz | Main | Judge McConnell's New Religious Liberty Case--Skeel »

Mike Vick--Stuntz

One of last week’s less prominent news stories of the past week was Mike Vick’s decision to file for bankruptcy. As everyone reading this post presumably knows, Vick was the Atlanta Falcons’ star quarterback; he was convicted of running a dogfighting enterprise in violation of federal law. His punishment is not only the 23-month prison sentence he is now serving, but tens of millions of dollars in lost salary and endorsements.

Vick’s case raises two problems that our legal system has never solved. The first is how to punish the wealthy and powerful when they commit serious crimes. Equality would seem to suggest that defendants like Vick should serve the same time as defendants who have none of the money and fame he enjoyed. But is that equal justice? Vick has lost much, much more than the typical criminal defendant who has much less to lose. How is equality to be measured in such cases? I don’t know the answer, but I don’t like the answer our justice system gives in cases of this sort. If Vick had not been the celebrity athlete he was, he would never have been prosecuted. Maybe rich celebrities deserve to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us—but if so, I’m not sure why.

The second problem has to do with the charge for which Vick was convicted. The federal dogfighting statute is not very old, and to my knowledge, was never enforced before this case—at most, I’d bet, there were a tiny number of low-profile prosecutions before this one. When the law changes, when conduct that once was legal becomes a crime, what punishments can fairly be imposed on the first few defendants prosecuted for that crime? If new criminal prohibitions can’t be enforced because they’re new, legislators are effectively barred from defining new crimes. On the other hand, if no allowances are made for defendants who can rightly claim that their conduct was long tolerated, those defendants become tools—a means of announcing to the rest of the world that the rules have changed. That’s fine for the rest of the world, but it doesn’t seem quite kosher for the defendants who serve as the justice system’s loudspeaker.

Even apart from those two problems, Vick’s prosecution seems worrisome to me: in a justice system that punishes so many black Americans, federal prosecutors should be wary of targeting black athletes unless they’re also examining the conduct of some of their white teammates. If we’re going to punish Barry Bonds for lying about steroid use, we’d better nail Roger Clemens too. The mix of race and enforcement discretion is an old and sad issue in American criminal justice; it merits and has received a lot of attention from those who think and write about the justice system. The two issues noted above have seen a good deal less attention than they deserve. For my part, I’d love to know how to think about the question whether defendants like Vick get what they deserve—or whether they get much worse.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://apps.law.upenn.edu/weblog/mt-tb.cgi/229

Comments ( 6 )

As you allude to, perhaps equity is not the right measure. The idea that to whom much is given, more is expected.

But despite Vick's heavy financial losses, I suspect that he, like many wealthy defendants, would prefer pecuniary loss than imprisonment.

Sometimes what seems unfair is so in more ways than one. For folks like Vick, avoiding prison can be seen as very unfair through a poor defendant's eyes.

This is a very thought provoking post. One of the things that really caught my eye was this statement:


Maybe rich celebrities deserve to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us—but if so, I’m not sure why.

I think I know where that feeling comes from. We believe, either from culture or just because we are human, that rich celebrities have been given the things in life that if we had, we would would make us better people than we are if only we had them (wealth and fame). Hollywood and all its dysfunction proves this wrong, but the feeling is there all the same. The core sin here is covetousness, I think. The temptation is strong to be envious of them and what they have.

I had never thought about the Vick case like this. Thanks for posting.

You have absolutely convinced me about too many (and too many potentially arbitrary) federal crimes, but while it seems that Vick's fame (and probably race and youth too) played into his being charged, how much does the fact that he apparently lied during the investigation phase play into the harshness of his sentence? Had he not fought it so openly, might he have been able to negotiate something much lighter? He (and his lawyers) raised the ante considerably with their own early responses.

Randy has a good point. I seem to remember the district court saying that Vick's lying and Vick's poor conduct leading up to the sentencing hearing prompted the judge to impose a more severe sentence. Furthermore, on the civil side, Vick lied to the NFL about his involvement in the dogfighting ring, and the NFL Commissioner made clear the moment Vick said that that if Vick was lying, the consequences would be severe. He was, and they were.

Also, while there are certainly problems with arbitrariness in our criminal justice system, consider the storyline if Vick has received and unexpectedly light sentence. We would be hearing stories about how there is one justice for the rich, and another justice for the poor. Sometimes it seems that the prosecutors just can't win.

Your last paragraph is really thought provoking. After thinking, I remembered that Winona Ryder, Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart, and the Duke lacrosse team were prosecuted pretty aggressively too. I might be simplifying too much here, but I think that the critical variable is celebrity defendants and the DA's incentive to become a celebrity politician, not race/gender.