Quote:
Originally Posted by FurnaceFace
I don't know what he's really arguing here. Is he saying Vick and Vick alone is being punished too heavily for the crime? Because he loses $75m+ does that mean he's being punished more than someone in the same situation who is losing $60k? To me it's just a different factor with the same result: an individual is getting punished resulting in the lose of opportunity to earn $____ for ___ amount of time.
In fact I'd argue Vick who has made millions* over a number of years is in a better position than a guy in his same legal situation making $30k a year.
*I'm assuming he has managed his money correctly and hasn't just lost it all. I'm assuming in a couple of years when he's out of jail he'll still have millions invested.
|
Yes, Vick invested in a number of small businesses including a dog kennel in Georgia.
I think you make a valid point, if I understand you correctly, that it's all a matter of scale. I don't think Easterbrook would argue with you on that point. However, I think his point is that in reality the punishment he's facing (or that anyone in that situation would be facing) is much greater than simply 12 months in jail. There are more ramifications for a convicted person than simply losing one's liberty (which is huge in its own right). The punishment in this case, at least according to Easterbrook, doesn't fit the crime especially when you consider the moral ambiguities at play that he does an excellent job of outlining.
