Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

my husband and I were talking about the whole Chris Brown/Rihanna abuse situation and he brought up Michael Vick.

whether we thought it was enough time notwithstanding, Michael Vic was given a pretty stiff sentence (serving jail time etc) for what he did to those animals.

Chris Brown's sentence of community service for beating, biting, and choking Rihanna will be arranged so it doesn't interfere with his work schedule.

I hadn't thought to compare the two before...but there is something about this that sticks in my craw.

do we have more compassion for animals victimized by abusers than we do for women? is that what this is saying?

or are the two somehow different enough that they cannot be compared?

I want to believe in the latter, but something in me thinks the former has more to do with it than I would like in this day and age.

what are your thoughts?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

sadly, i think the latter is more true, and I also believe that "celebrities" receive special treatment that allow them to get off easier than others. But, and my hunch is that case files would back me up, crimes involving violence against women receive lesser punishments than other equivalent crimes.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

While an animal can cause more damage with its teeth, I still feel like animals are more defenseless than humans. You can repeatedly abuse an animal and they have no recourse. At least a person can choose to go to the police, file charges, and leave on their own will (unless kept hostage, which is not the case with most domestic abuse). BOTH forms of abuse are horrible and I'm sure it is so hard for a woman to leave this type of situation. But in most causes she has the ability to leave and fight back. An animal doesn't.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

i hate that celebrities (athletes, actors/actresses, and politicians) often get lesser sentences than the average person would get. it's not fair and i don't think it sends good signals to our youth.

that being said --- i personally believe that violence against humans should be more harshly punished than violence against animals.

i hadn't thought to compare the two either - but now that you bring it up, i actually think the difference in punishments is pretty OUTRAGEOUS

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

For whatever reason, I am not sure what it is, I think professional athletes are judged more harshly in these cases, whatever the crime might be. I think maybe it's because they are usually stronger and can overpower victims more easily than an average man, and for that they are held to a higher standard. I don't agree with this, I just wonder about it.

I also think in these 2 particular cases, from what I remember, the Vick case involved more than one dog and a whole pattern of abuse, where the Chris Brown case involved one person. Perhaps that is why the penalty was stricter.

I know this may not be a popular opinion on this board, but for me, abuse of a person always trumps abuse of an animal. But each case has its own factors to consider, its own jury deliberating, and its own set of laws, depending on the location of the trial, so I guess in the end, it's always apples and oranges to some extent.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Beth, I understand what you are saying.

but I am talking about the aftermath...what happens to an ABUSER once he is caught.

Rihanna DID get the police...and this is what he got for what he did to her.

my point is, the LAW treated Michael Vick more harshly. why?

and why do we as people suppose that anything is more or less defenseless when it comes to an abuser? I think that puts too much onus on the abused.

both instances come from a position of trust. the pet trusting the "owner"...and one partner trusting another. and then it's slowly taken advantage of. taken away.

a grown dog can do a lot more physical damage to a man than a woman can (of course, I am not talking about a chihuahua here) if it wanted to fight back.

I think it's unfair to say that a woman can do more.

I think anyone that absues ANYthing is equally heinous.

I don't know....it's just tough for me to swallow I guess.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Chris Brown should definitely be sitting in jail right now. What he did, IMHO, was worse.

Michael Vick is a monster. Chris Brown could have killed her.

We are the country who honored Roman Polanski with the highest award in films though. So nothing surprises me.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

There are lots of legal things that astonish me. How someone who kills someone while driving drunk gets like 4 years of jail. How's that not a life-sentence when they ended someone else's life? The man who hit DaniRella's brother, what was his sentence? Ridiculously low....how??? When her brother was nearly killed? Sexual predators who forever scar the lives of children and other adults-- some of their sentences are appauling.

ITA with you, with these cases you mention as well as LOTS of others.

Message edited 8/27/2009 12:25:50 PM.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

I feel like people were more outraged over Micheal Vick...even him being allowed back in the NFL

no one is saying Chris Brown should loss his record deal

I don't get it

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Posted by Ophelia

Beth, I understand what you are saying.

but I am talking about the aftermath...what happens to an ABUSER once he is caught.

Rihanna DID get the police...and this is what he got for what he did to her.

my point is, the LAW treated Michael Vick more harshly. why?

and why do we as people suppose that anything is more or less defenseless when it comes to an abuser? I think that puts too much onus on the abused.

both instances come from a position of trust. the pet trusting the "owner"...and one partner trusting another. and then it's slowly taken advantage of. taken away.

a grown dog can do a lot more physical damage to a man than a woman can (of course, I am not talking about a chihuahua here) if it wanted to fight back.

I think it's unfair to say that a woman can do more.

I think anyone that absues ANYthing is equally heinous.

I don't know....it's just tough for me to swallow I guess.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Interesting question.

I think Chris Brown is worse. Not to get the animal lovers up in arms, but people - human beings - should always come first, which makes Chris Brown's crime the bigger offense.

By the same token, how can we blame Michael Vick for his cruelty to animals when the Chris Browns of the world treat people the way they do? If you can't treat the woman you love with basic decency how in the he l l can you expect someone to treat an animal properly.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

There are so many external factors involved in cases like this that you really just can't compare the two.

Were they both tried in the same court? Same state? Were they both in federal court? State court? What were the actual charges? What were the plea deals? What ADMISSIBLE evidence was available in each case?

We obviously can only make judgments based on what we have seen / heard in the news -- but what a jury can see in court and what is actual, admissible evidence determining the strength or weakness of a case can be VERY, VERY different from what we see / hear on the news.

I think it's easy to just look at the criminal behavior on one hand and the ultimate punishment on the other -- but it's just not that simple a comparison in reality.

And I think they're both dirt bags.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Posted by Ophelia

Beth, I understand what you are saying.

but I am talking about the aftermath...what happens to an ABUSER once he is caught.

Rihanna DID get the police...and this is what he got for what he did to her.

my point is, the LAW treated Michael Vick more harshly. why?

and why do we as people suppose that anything is more or less defenseless when it comes to an abuser? I think that puts too much onus on the abused.

both instances come from a position of trust. the pet trusting the "owner"...and one partner trusting another. and then it's slowly taken advantage of. taken away.

a grown dog can do a lot more physical damage to a man than a woman can (of course, I am not talking about a chihuahua here) if it wanted to fight back.

I think it's unfair to say that a woman can do more.

I think anyone that absues ANYthing is equally heinous.

I don't know....it's just tough for me to swallow I guess.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

They are both monsters to me.

I think Chris Brown should have received a harsher punishment but unfortunately with doesmtic violence it doesnt get taken to the severe level of punishment until someone dies. Its the sad truth. And just to add its not so easy for a woman to just get up and leave so it doesnt happen again. To me they are just as defenseless

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

One other thing I wanted to add -- we shouldn't deduct from these two cases that there are stricter laws or stricter penalties generally for abusing animals than for abusing people. Animal cruelty laws are RARELY properly enforced and the actual punishments available are usually not very strict.

Additionally, Vick was also charged with federal conspiracy charges, which carry hefty penalties and sentences. So again, his punishment had less to do with the animal end of things and more to do with the charges that fit his overall behavior -- and the laws he was charged under (federal as opposed to state).

Message edited 8/27/2009 12:49:25 PM.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Message edited 8/27/2009 1:27:35 PM.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

The guy the other day that killed his wife.... That reality star on VH1.....

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

Without quoting everything, I think Ophelia and others make some really good points. I'm having trouble comparing the two- women and animals can both become helpless in different ways. What Vick did was horrible... What Chris Brown did is horrible. But until reading this, I didn't make that connection- noone has a problem with Brown continuing to work, no question about his contract.

Also.. I believe Brown's apology even less now that it came out that there was a history of violence on his part, and that he felt it would be appropriate to party after his sentencing. His sentence was pathetic IMO.

Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?

I really don't want anyone to think I condone what Chris Brown did. I think it is inexcusable, and he is a horrible person. I was just trying to give the reason why I think people are generally harder on Michael Vick. Also, I would never want anyone to think that I trivialize domestic violence. I know it is a horrible thing and it is never black and white.