Michael Vick - prison sentence determineed

As this SI article mentions, Michael Vick has been sentenced to 23 months in prison. The article implies the sentence is for the federal crime and that Virgina could prosecute for state crimes and he could be in prison longer than 23 months. I don't know the details.

As I''ve commented before, his crime was atrocious and worthy of being arrested for and going to prison for. His arrest revealed on a national level the ugly world of dogfighting. Yet as I heard this recent news, I thought of two things.

How arrests, prosecution, judges, jury, police, and lawyers are all subjective. There is no machine cranking out arrests and putting people behind bars - human, fragile, biased men and women are that system. Shouldn't be there a lot more arrests than just Michael Vick? If there is so much evidence to get him on so many levels of crimes (which I agree there is), then where is the punishment for his cross-state collaborators? He can't be the only one they have dirt on. Are they waiting to build a bigger case because I'm sure Vick was a big player based on how many dog pens were on his property but there have to be bigger players.

And then another thought came to mind. Thinking of how many people raised a (righteous) ruckus about the dogfighting and how horrible it all was (true) and how that finally got the NFL and sponsors' attention, seeing how much America loves their pets and hate people who abuse animals. And others wrote good pieces questioning America's love for animals and wondering if Vick had beaten or raped a woman, would he still be so hated? Or would forgiveness come quickly. Is a dog worth more than a woman? Good question to ask.

Asking myself, why is there so much public support for animals? Why do we take the time and energy to call and write letters about a case like Vick but we simply say "eh" when we see another news piece on murder or abuse on a human. Asking myself the question, too. And the first response people will say, in protest, "But the animals are helpless and innocent. They can't protect themselves and can't stop the abuse." True yet... that implies that children and women that are abused are not innocent or helpless, that they perhaps had some part in their victimization or they had some ability to stop it. Now, we don't mean that but that's what we're saying.

I think fighting for the protection of animals can feel easier. There is no way the animal was "asking" to be hit or put in a fight or hurt. We can have no doubt that we're on the right side (though of course we disagree on subjects such as hunting and other I believe cultural topics) and look down on those who are so clearly cruel. It is easy to climb on the high horse and sit confidently up there.

And defending people is not as clear. Was that woman really raped as she says she was? Who are we to tell someone how to raise their kid, even if abuse is there? What are our real motivations in helping other people - are we acting out of a race bias or arrogance? I believe these internal and sometimes voiced questions block us from acting when we need to act, from stepping in when the people would really like someone to step in. But it's not clear, it's hazy and gray and full of lawsuits and hurt feelings and miscommunications. And yet Jesus went there, to those places, and I want to go too.

Let's enlarge our love for innocent animals to include the difficult task of loving people, the ones modeled after God's image.