Why Deny Vick's Kids A Puppy?

On Twitter yesterday I posed this question: do you believe in punishing children for the sins of their parents? It may have seemed to come out of the blue, without any context. It was my thought after reading reactions to a comment by Michael Vick in an interview that he would like to own a dog again someday. "I would love to get another dog in the future," he said. "I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals." This brought out yet another barrage of hatred directed at Vick, with comments not unlike the "sub-human" comment I talked about in my last Vick post.

Some of the responses this time compared it to a child molester being allowed to have access to kids. I'm sorry, but I think there's a difference between an adult who sexually abuses children and someone running a dogfighting ring, even taking into account that he killed some of the dogs. I abhor anything related to dogfighting, but child sexual abuse is much, much worse.

The fact of the matter is that Vick is not allowed to own an animal while he's still on probation, so for now the point is moot. But what about after that? If he continues on the straight and narrow, if he continues to demonstrate that he's learned his lesson, if he continues to speak out against abuse of animals, is there really a risk if he makes his children's wishes come true and brings them home a puppy one day?

In the recent Sports Illustrated cover story, it mentions that fact, that at least one of his daughters wants a dog and isn't happy that she can't have one. If some people had their way, that little girl would be, in effect, punished for her father's misdeeds.
Is this fair to her? Does anyone really think that he's going to torture and kill his daughter's pet or train it to fight another dog? And what better way for his children to learn about responsible pet ownership and the proper treatment of animals than to actually take care of one themselves?


Reading that SI cover story, and specifically about Vick's mother's reaction to the birthday party thrown by his brother Marcus, at which there was a shooting that could have jeopardized Vick's return to the NFL and even his freedom, for the first time since this whole thing started I actually felt Michael Vick was sincere about turning his life around. Before that I felt that all of his remarks seemed practiced, as if he were just repeating what he was told to say. Lines such as "I want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem" were coming off as cliched. After reading that article, I am more willing to believe him than I was before. I'm not totally convinced yet, but I'm keeping an open mind.

Others can't do the same, and I think it's unfortunate, and even a little hypocritical in some cases. The debate isn't all that rational, and the more it goes on the more I become inclined to support Michael Vick.