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.