[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

My problem is that these athletes think they have the right to play no matter what they've done. Playing pro sports is a privilege and if you can't control yourself (drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, whatever), you don't deserve to play. I don't think Michael Vick should ever set foot on a football field again.

I recently got into trouble on an email list because I defended a friend who was offended by someone whining about the loss of her cat. I know how upsetting it is to lose a pet, but the friend I defended had just twin grandchildren at birth. No one could understand why she didn't sympathize with the person whose cat had died. They blasted me because I didn't value animals as much has people. This wasn't just people in the US. This is an email list. Many of the most vocal blasters were in Europe.

I think it comes down to imagery...it's easier to rile the public with repeated images of animals being abused than the death of a person no one saw even a picture of. Do I think Vick did a horrible thing? Yes. Should he be allowed to earn a living again after serving his time? Yes, judged on his current abilities. If he can't throw or run like he used to, the NFL will move on by him very quickly....just like any other profession.

You perhaps shouldn't compare bad apples to bad oranges. Stalworth made a horrible decision to drive impaired and the very worst happened. Vick made a horrible decision that he enjoys torturing animals and being a sadist. Both suck in different ways.

I'm an animal owner myself, but I totally agree that a human life is far more precious than an animal's. It's incredible that a person would get a stiffer sentence for killing dogs than another person would get for killing a human being, but here's why it happened:

Vick was sentenced on the federal level for his interstate dogfighting operation after reaching a plea agreement. He actually faced harsher penalties for other federal charges (conspiracy, etc.) than for the dogfighting itself.

Stallworth, on the other hand, plead guilty to DUI manslaughter. Due to the circumstances of the sad event, it was concluded that the accident was unavoidable even if he hadn't been driving drunk and stoned...the victim just walked right in front of his moving vehicle.

Even though it seems to make more sense to look at one case as an accident and the other case as intentional and continous cruelty, it's still frightening to see that the dog killer got in more trouble than the man killer.