I've had not a little internal conflict this past month over the Michael Vick saga.
On the one hand, I have a lot of trouble seeing someone who tortures and kills animals as a fellow human being.
On the other, I am a huge fan, not only of the letter of the law regarding due process, but of the spirit of the law as well. I despise the way the media--and the public in general--often have people sentenced on mere accusation. I hate the way "charges filed" has come to mean "guilty" in the court of public opinion. As such (although, again, I know this is not something that is included in the "letter" of due process), I don't much care for the idea of people losing their jobs (or being suspended, or what-have-you) over just accusations or charges. I need a conviction thank-you-very-much.
With all that being said, is it bad that a week ago I was defending the guy, or rather, arguing that people should not be signing petitions urging he be fired from the NFL; but now that he's plead out, I'm kind of hoping he meets a cell block of the biggest, ugliest dog-lovers in the prison system? Does that make me too terribly inconsistent?
(*so sayeth Aldous Huxley)