Some of you keep talking trash in this thread (about money buying off justice, about the sort of character the guy has, etc) in spite of the evidence that some posters have written that suggests otherwise. I wonder if some people even read what others have to say in these threads or just spout off thoughtlessly without paying attention. Meanwhile, I seriously wonder how many people in these threads who are over forty have never driven drunk. Hell, even those who are younger.
As has been already argued by several posters, it's unlikely that celebrity and wealth had anything to do with the outcome of this case. In cases like this, which involve isolated low level celebrities, the state often likes to throw the book at individuals because there are no knock-on effects which reach deeper into elite circles. This has the effect of 'proving' to the plebs (that's us) that justice really is blind, that it's equal for all, that American democracy is based on the rule of law, and all such good things - which of course is not the case, has never been the case, and in fact is becoming less and less the case almost daily as we collectively move even more toward a reverence of royalty. (Little strikes me funnier or more Kafkaesque than seeing the sons and daughters of royalty in privileged positions in the media sitting around together in very
Serious discussions about how affirmative action goes against everything American.)
Throwing a second class member of the elite overboard to keep the crew happy and the ship afloat would mean nothing to the state. Quite the contrary, it would be an ideal situation for many prosecutors. So personally I have no difficulty accepting the viewpoints of some posters who seem to have more familiarity with this sort of thing that celebrity didn't enter into it.
Meanwhile, those who indulge in a knee-jerk reaction that less leniency is needed in society, they're living in a fool's paradise. For one thing, you already live in the most draconian society on earth regarding the administration of justice. America has a population that is roughly around 5% of the world's population, yet holds in her prisons 25% of the entire world's prison population. Study after study after study have shown that less leniency and more severe jail terms has no effect on reducing criminal activity. Some of you need to read more and think more creatively.
In a crime of this nature especially, there is nothing to be served by more extreme punishment. Most people in Stallworth's shoes find it very difficult to live with themselves after such an incident anyway. No imposed punishment can damage them as much as they often will damage themselves. I've known of people who had accidents while stone cold sober and the result for them was total devastation and the ruination of their own lives. Christ, how much blood do some of you want to extract from some people?
For the family of the victim to accept money for their loss seems to me to be emminently sensible. No matter how harsh things are made for the culprit, none of it will help the family in the least and it certainly won't bring back their loved one. At least money can have a direct impact upon the physical welfare of the family, even if emotionally it does nothing - emotionally speaking, there is nothing that can do anything to help them.
But none of that would affect the prosecutor or the judge. So it would be reasonable to wonder why they behaved in such a fashion - but I think that's already been answered in these pages.
Furthermore, states are running low on money. Many states are finding it very difficult to maintain their current prison populations. Suddenly, for all that those decades of campaigning for more stringent justice did, states are paroling prisoners left right and center right now, and even just releasing people. I'll refer to this
LA Times story as just one source for this. I suspect that in the near future, you'll be seeing more and more people serving a lot less time, particularly for malfeasance arising from foolishness rather than malevolence.
As for the NFL's punishment, I think it's pathetic and pointlessly cruel. What good does it do to deprive a person of their livelihood? If Goodall (or whatever the spelling is) wants to do something useful, it would be better to offer the player reinstatement on the condition that half his salary go toward some public interest, like better education on drinking and driving. That would be a more logical punishment - the player's life and livelihood is not destroyed and yet something very positive comes out of it that might even be beneficial.
Edit PS. As has also been quite effectively pointed out here, there is no comparison to be made between Stallworth and Vick, nor is there some moral lesson, nor is this about dogs and humans. (Personally, I hate those discussions anyway, as if a human life or
any life can be quantified and measured in terms of value. Frankly, arguments have been made that we should indeed frown more upon what a human does to an animal than what a human does to a human, but I won't go down that road because it'll sure lead to a rapid thread closure - except to say only, without prejudice, that those arguments are not irrational, but quite intriguing.)
Vick has shown himself to be someone who does
not want to take responsibility and someone who is obviously missing a few of the compassion genes. Stallworth has only shown himself to be foolish (gee, how rare a trait that is), but who has also shown himself readily willing to accept responsibility for his own calamitous foolishness. Stallworth has not shown himself to be trash (in spite of the glib, foolish, and arrogant remarks of some) - indeed, his character as far as we can know is still an open question. Vick on the contrary has revealed any number of things about his character and these are not flattering.
