2:56 - Dude, like, dude it is way too high Dude. Later Dude.

"a bit too substantive"?

Wow, Lat you've outdone yourself this time - this is the ultimate in lazy thinking

3:03, that picture of Vick has been used for almost every past ATL post about his case.

Guys on my high school used to gamble on dog fighting and brutally kill pitbulls too. It was no big deal.

To paraphrase Madame de Pompadour: "Apres Lat, le deluge de 'firsts' et 'frat studs'."

And Vick is going to be the next former athlete to go completely broke. Lotso money + no ability to budget = modern black American tragedy.

I haz a blawg. Kin I post ur article on ma blawg?

Guys at my high school never had money or any ability to budget, but it was no big deal.

I could not agree more with 2:56.

Aside from the animal cruelty, though, consider that Vick was pretty clearly guilty of a large number of racketeering offenses. He ran an interstate criminal conspiracy that centered around illegal gambling. If Tony Soprano were caught running the "executive card game," you can bet your ass he would be put away for a lot longer than 23 months. Vick did the same thing with the same sort of people (his co-conspirators were convicted drug dealers), but his crimes had the added element of animal cruelty. If anything, this is worse than the Soprano's card game.

Also consider that Vick was given the plea deal AFTER his co-conspirators flipped. How often do you see a sentence this short for someone who refused to accept responsibility and only admitted his crimes after the state turned three witnesses? Never. You are the first to flip, or you go down hard. He ought to be going away for the maximum.

As a pure matter of law/federalism, is anyone else troubled by the idea of Vick being prosecuted twice, when no non (black?) celebrity would be in a similar situation? If not, what about the idea of his plea agreement from federal court being introduced into evidence of his guilt in state court? I find it disturbing that he is being singled out for likely political reasons by the local DA's office.

where can we get the FREE OOKIE t-shirts?

ookie by the way is a sweet underground dogfighting nickname, good choice mike

2:56 - Will it be a vegetarian dinner party?

The guy tortured and murdered dogs. How can anyone think this is remotely too little?

I'm one of those non-pet people many posters have criticized and even I think the sentence is too low. Brutalizing animals for sport (and cash) is pretty frigging reprehensible.

Consider also that Vick failed a drug test while free on bail and awaiting sentencing. How many defendants could commit additional crimes, while awaiting sentencing, and still get away with less than half the possible jail time?

Lat gets a lunch break? Christ, what are the hours here?

3:23-

oh, please not the "eating meat = dogfighting" argument again. the day that serving a steak at dinner is accomplished by forcing cows to battle to the death is the day that argument will have any validity.

Vick's failure to accept responsibility was expressly considered by the judge. The prosecution initially recomended a guidlines range of 12 to 18 months, but the judge found that Vick had not accepted responsibility, which increased his range to 18 to 24 months. Vick basically didn't get the benefit of his plea, while losing the ability to appeal his sentence.

3:31 - You obviously don't eat chinese food.

3:31, good call. I am as pure a carnivore as you can find, and I think this is disgusting. If 3:23(1) does not understand the difference between eating meat and flat-out torturing animals, no one here should waste their time responding to him.

3:31 - that would be frickin' sweet! Bovine Beat Down!! Followed by a tasty steak dinner for the homeless. I imagine the pay-per-view numbers would be through the roof. Bloodlust + feeding the needy + television = video gold!

by the way, Vick is obviously a pirate. look at that headgear.

Kin I plz has mah comments deleted? Thx.

Vick didn't get anyway with less than half of the jail time - even after Booker judge must consider the sentencing guidlines and the overwhelming majority of sentences fall within the guidelines range. Nearly all guideline departures are downward. Almost no-one is sentenced above the guidelines. Vick was within one month of the max. The only reason there is a 0-5 year range is because Congress was lazy and decided to set broad ranges and let the sentencing commission set out specific criteria for sentencing.

No kidding 3:38. A ninja would chop him down to size.

Vick's sentence is way too high. people are convicted for murder and get off with lighter sentences (e.g., the teen in Houston who just got probation for 5 years for stabbing to death a rival gang member). vick will be a drain on the tax payers and occupy jail space that could be used for someone else--a truly dangerous criminal.

it is a sad when these animals are abused, but they are only animals.

he should have recieved a fine and community service.

Guys at my high school used get sentenced to federal prison for running interstate dog-fighting and gambling operations all the time, it was no big deal.

331 -
Yes, because a cow being electrocuted, beat about the head, having its throat slit and then being hung from a hook to bleed out - that should in no way compare to the cruelties of dog-fighting. Damn now I'm craving a ribeye for dinner. Thanks.

Um Bullfighting? Who cares about animal cruelty.. that is what animals are for. What is next, swatting a fly?!?

Free VICKY

So, how many months is he really going to serve?

What kind of good behaviour reductions is he looking at? Would he be eligible for early release/parole as a non-violent offender?

It's up to 10% off for good time in the federal system, isn't it?

So much outrage over animals? Hope these same people are doing everything they can to save humans in all parts of the world.

There is no parole in the federal system any more. He will serve very close to the full 23 months. There is still a minimal reduction, but nothing like parole.

I heard he tortured cats too.

Federal System = 15% off for good behavior.

Damn relativists. The fact that some people get off too easy for violence against humans doesn't mean that crimes against animals should be treated lightly. If the abomination that is animal cruelty doesn't outrage you on its own merit, think about the distinct likelihood that a person who feels no compunction about torturing another creature will turn his violence on another human.

Too High, why does someone who expresses outrage over inhumanity have to do "everything they can to save humans in all patrs of the world"? Can't we express outrage over all injustice?

Also, even though, yes, humans are more important than animals, it takes a particularly sick and twisted kind of person to torture a dog. It's like torturing a baby. That dog cannot POSSIBLY have done something to merit that sort of treatment, whereas occasionally adult humans (like, say, Michael Vick) do. So pardon us for wanting a sick and twisted person who clearly has no soul locked up as tightly and as long as possible. If he is capable of torturing a dog, what's to keep him from torturing your kids once he gets out? There's a part of your brain/conscience/soul that you simply have to "turn off" in order to intentionally inflict suffering on an innocent creature. While murders are horrible, yes, they are often the result of greed, or a crime of passion, or something similar. This doesn't necessarily justify them, but it doesn't require absolutely and completely losing your soul either. I would be much more likely to believe that someone who (premeditated, enough of a "gap" to rule out crime of passion defense) sought out and killed her son's abuser is much more likely to be capable of being rehabilitated than someone who tortures animals. You do recall that most serial killers (those are the ones who kill with no reason and are physically incapable of feeling guilt) got their start torturing animals, don't you?

4:10(1) - A) You are talking to lawyers. Mostly corporate lawyers. What we do is bad for people generally. B) Fortunately, people are frequently capable of being extremely evil, even though they are nominally able to comprehend the wrongness of their actions - and often for no reason. Even the "less fortunate," should they become "fortunate," often become Republicans and would deny the help they got to the next group of "less fortunate" people in line. C) Animals, esp. nice social animals like dogs, cats, etc., are generally not evil, and to the extent that they do harm to others, they can't really empathize so it is not a knowing kind of harm (no mens rea...). D) Animals also don't have any control over their own well-being, making our abuse of control more egregious. When it's a homeless guy or a prisoner or someone equally vulnerable who is being mistreated, people are usually pretty outraged too.

Thus the greater outrage over injuries to animals than injuries to people. Hope this is slightly enlightening (as opposed to your cliche knee-jerk reaction, which was not).

"the New York Times (which helpfully notes that Judge Judge Henry E. Hudson is a dog owner -- should he have recused?"

That's absurd, Lat. Should a judge who has children recuse him/herself from a child molestation trial for no other reason than that s/he is a parent?

4:32 -- he was kidding.

Some of the supposed "legal reasoning" here is astounding in its stupidity. Yes, 3:46, that means you.

"Vick didn't get anyway with less than half of the jail time"

"Vick was within one month of the max."

"The only reason there is a 0-5 year range is because Congress was lazy"

My math is not as fuzzy as yours. Where I come from, 5 years equals 60 months. I'll try to keep this simple so you can understand:

23 months is not within 1 month of 60.

30 months is half of sixty. 23 is 7 months less than 30. 23 is therefore less than half of 60.

5 Years is 5 years, whether you think Congress was lazy or not.

I sure hope you're not billing your time on this blog to some hapless client. It looks like they already aren't getting their moneys' worth for the work you actually do.

zero chance I ever get upset over dogfighting. do I get upset over marlin or sportfishing? how about trophy hunting? nope, not either.

Vick was crucified because he is a celebrity and this judge is going well beyond the guidelines. What a waste of time over nothing.

Echoing 4:31, let's not forget that Luke Skywalker "used to bulleye Wamprats in his T-16." How many people did he, remorselessly, kill later on in life?

The slaughter of the innocents is a good measure of what one is capable of. As a society, we should look for this kind of behavior as early as possible, treat it, and if treatment doesn't work, punish it severely. Vick is a big boy and needs to go away for a long time. If 24 months is the max he could get, 23 seems just about right to me.

"Vick was crucified because he is a celebrity and this judge is going well beyond the guidelines."

Bullshit. Vick should have been charged with a slew or RICO predicates. There is more than enough evidence to send him up for numerous racketeering charging. This isn't just about dogs. He financed and personally participated in an illegal interstate conspiracy. He refused to flip on his co-conspirators, but got a sweetheart deal from the prosecutors anyway after they procured testimony from everyone else. If he weren't a celebrity, he would be going away for a lot longer than 23 months.

4:37 - it's called math, not legal reasoning

4:46 - Call it whatever you want. You don't know how to reason. You also don't know how to add, subtract, or do very simple division. 60/2 > 23.

4:46 - Call it whatever you want. You don't know how to reason. You also don't know how to add, subtract, or do very simple division. 60/2 > 23.

Ok 4:37, I'll walk you through the legal reasoning slowly, since it seems to be hard for you. Step 1, Congress created the US Sentencing Commission to establish guidelines to eliminate sentencing disparity within statutory ranges, like the 0-5 range you think applies. Congress expressly stated by statute that the guidelines would be mandatory. Step 2, the guidelines called for 18-24 months. Step 3, the judge sentenced Vick to 23 months. Hence, Vick was at the top end of the potential jail time as dictated by Congress, which of course reviews the sentencing guidelines. Booker makes the analysis a little fuzzier, but talking about the 0-5 range as though district courts have unfettered discretion is simply incorrect. For future reference, it is better to keep silent and risk looking foolish than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

4:57 -

Step 1 - start dogfighting ring
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - profit!

The only real question is whether Vick could have been charged with more serious conduct. 4:45 is probably right about that, but the charging decision is pretty much exclusively within the realm of prosecutorial discretion. As a practical matter, there is nothing the judge can do about that.

Ha, 4:37, you are a complete idiot. Please don't talk when you don't have any knowledge about the subject. Did you really get through all of law school without ever hearing about and understanding the basic concept of sentencing guidelines?

Lat....are you more into musicals?

Okay, 3:46, I'll walk you through Booker. The guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. End of story.

Now I'll walk you through the statute. The maximum is 5 years. Ergo, the "potential jail time" is 5 years.

Booker doesn't make the analysis "fuzzier." It pretty clearly demonstrates that you are wrong. Reread your last sentence and take your own advice.

4:57/5:06, unfortunately, I feel compelled to repeat myself. "Some of the supposed 'legal reasoning' here is astounding in its stupidity." If either of you appeared in court with as little knowledge of Booker as you have demonstrated here, your clients would sue you (and win) for malpractice.

If you look at post Booker sentences, which you obviously have not, you will notice that nearly all sentences are within the guidelines range because as Booker stated, judges must consider the guidelines. Further, nearly every deviation is downward and is based on the judge's disagreement with the drug sentencing guidelines, in particular those for crack cocaine. Put very simply, judges almost never go above the guidelines. No (competent) criminal attorney would claim that Vick was facing 5 years.

Seems unusual to me that Vick would be denied acceptance-of-responsibility points (based in part on the positive marijuana test), given that he pled guilty relatively promptly. In my area, it seems almost unusual for a defendant _not_ to have a positive drug test while on pre-trial release, yet they routinely get credit for acceptance of responsibility.

All professional athletes are criminals.

Well, 3:46, that's a great way to retreat from what you said above while pretending you weren't wrong. Vick was not "within one month of the max." He was not at the "top end of the potential jail time." Whether his sentence is consistent with other post-Booker sentences is a completely different question.

You made a bunch of ridiculous statements that were clearly contradicted by recent, well-known Supreme Court case law. You were flat-out wrong. Go ahead, retreat from those statements. Pretend you were really talking about something else. Do whatever it takes to make you feel better about the fact that you spent the last two hours sticking up for a sadistic creep, all the while arguing about a case that you haven't even read.

"So modified, the federal sentencing statute, see Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Sentencing Act), as amended, 18 USC § 3551 et seq., [18 USCS §§ 3551 et seq.], 28 USC § 991 et seq. [28 USCS §§ 991et seq.], makes the Guidelines effectively advisory. It requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 USC § 3553(a)(4) (Supp. IV) [18 USCS § 3553(a)(4)], but it permits the court to tailor the sentence in light [*246] of other statutory concerns as well, see § 3553(a)." United States v. Booker, 543 US 220, 245-246 (2005). Those two sentences basically summarize the remedy portion of Booker. Courts must consider the guidelines, but may consider other statutory concerns as well. Subsequent appellate decisions have established that court must still do guidelines calculations and must articulate factors in support of any deviations. District Courts have continued sentencing at guideline levels, with the exception that I already mentioned, downward deviations for drug sentences. As persuasive an argument as "Some of the supposed 'legal reasoning' here is astounding in its stupidity" is, I find myself unpersuased that Vick faced anything other than a sentence within or below his guideline range. Please feel free to dazzle me with your contrary legal analysis.

I don't believe you people. I don't care if he is black, white or purple. HE TORTURED PUPPIES. Death would have been too light.

Boy, it sure is hard to admit you're wrong, isn't it? I'll continue rely on my my post at 5:42. I have seen nothing since then that makes you look less foolish.

all of this seems "a bit too substantive for the pages of ATL."

5:42, or you could try reading my initial post, when I said "Vick didn't get anyway with less than half of the jail time - even after Booker judges must consider the sentencing guidelines and the overwhelming majority of sentences fall within the guidelines range. Nearly all guideline departures are downward. Almost no-one is sentenced above the guidelines." You will notice that I said the overwhelming majority (not all) and that nearly all departures are downward, again not all. You will also notice that I said even after Booker, to acknowledge that the guidelines are now advisory. Finally, you will notice that I acknowledged that sometimes, albeit very rarely, people are sentenced above the guidelines. Nothing you have said changes the fact that Vick's sentence was within one month of the maximum he could have realistically received, which is the guidelines max. That's what I said then, and its all I'm saying now. I like how you also conflate my understanding of the guidelines with supporting Vick. I don't. I think he should have been hit with the superseding indictment and additional charges. My only point was that given what he was charged with, his sentence was predictable and appopriate and was not potentially five years.

People say that Islamists are extremists about a teddy bear; well Americans are ridiculous about their pets.

Have you seen the way that they kill the animals you eat? I think this is a wonderful example of double standards.

They were dogs who were killed like cows. A fine was more appropriate.

6:53's mom is a cow.

ON THE SUBJECT OF CORRECTIONS:

"Yes, we are aware that Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months imprisonment, for his involvement in a dogfighting conspiracy. We took note of the sentencing in Morning Docket."

Billy Mereck took note that the sentencing hearing would be today, and not the 23 month sentence imposed.

Of course, it hardly merits a blawg mention since every single cable news media and MSM print outlet is beating the story to death today.

"Vick was within one month of the max."

has now become

"Vick's sentence was within one month of the maximum he could have realistically received"

Sounds like backtracking to me. The former statement is simply an incorrect statement of the law.

"his sentence was predictable and appopriate and was not potentially five years"

The first is correct, and the second is a matter of debate, but the third is still incorrect. Obviously, where the statutory maximum is 5 years, his sentence was potentailly 5 years.

6.53 - cows are not drowned, electrocuted, strangled, or bashed against the ground until dead. (read the complaint.) they are shot in the head with nail guns. if i had a choice, i would choose the latter.

besides, cows are delicious. dogs are not.

Good point 7:37, not to mention the obvious fact that there is a huge difference between killing for food and killing for the sick pleasure of it.

No comparison. Cows are so dumb they don't know where they are or that they exist. That said, Pit bulls are ugly dangerous beasts and should be killed anyway possible. These are not basset hounds, poodles, or cuddly creatures.

Gambling is what the NFL will use to ban Vic. (Ask Pete Rose about that.)

PS: To whoever posted “besides, cows are delicious. dogs are not”.

Obviously, you have never spent time in Tahiti or Vietnam. (Think their idea of the best Christmas dinner ever.)

“Delicious” is in the palate of the beholder.

Ookie to 60 months!!!!!!

11:08 --- Pit bulls are perfectly nice dogs when they're not tortured into being ferocious. You're the one who should be killed by any means possible. SUCK IT!

If only there had been this much outrage when white people routinely let dogs attack black people as sport........

Surprised no one else saw the irony of the poll "fetching the results"....

Surprised no one else saw the irony of the poll "fetching the results"....

9:41 - And I'm sure you were around to experience that.

This isn't a race issue. He committed a crime and was convicted. It doesn't matter if he was purple, green, white, black, yellow, brown, blue etc.

Yes, dog fighting is wrong. Yes, criminals should be punished. No, athletes, due to their public persona, do not deserve to be used as examples.

An example of what? Extraordinary leniency? The only reason he got a plea in the first place is because he is famous. Anyone else who holds out until all three co-conspirators plead is getting sent up the river.

This guy is going to hell for what he did to those dogs. 23 months is a start but not nearly enough

In 2006, of the 70,187 defendants sentenced, 0.6% were sentenced above the guidelines range. The statistics are available at www.ussg.gov under the publications tab. Vick was within one month of the max he faced. The 1/200 chance does not make my statement incorrect unless it is detached completely from its context by someone streching to cover their ignorance of federal sentencing practice.

Keep crying. Keep adding modifying clauses to what you originally said. You were still wrong.

Regardless of the likelihood, the potential jail time was 5 years. Get over it.

11:11- true. and besides the fact that my palate suggests that dogs are not delicious (i don't live in either tahiti or Vietnam), Mikey-mike vick wasn't eatin' 'em...just killing them for the fun of it.

pit bulls are extremely nice dogs when not abused or trained to be otherwise. intelligent, friendly, and loyal to a fault...those dogs probably all still love Vick & co. despite the treatment they received.

vick's an athlete and therefore he should not have been prosecuted. i could care less about some dogs in virginia. what i do care about is seeing some good plays on sunday.

By the way, your numbers tell an incomplete and very misleading story. The aggregate of all defendants' sentences has nothing to do with this particular case. What factors were unique about the cases that warranted an upward departure? Does Michael Vick fit into any of those categories? What are the numbers for crimes similar to his? For defendants who refused to accept responsibility? For defendants who engaged in a RICO conspiracy with convicted drug dealers? For defendants who agreed to a plea only after their co-conspirators all agreed to testify? For defendants who continued to commit drug crimes while awaiting sentencing? I bet that when you consider all of the relevant factors, the likelihood is higher than a "1/200 chance." Much higher.

What's up with all the "keep your head up Vick" signs at MNF? And a 'free Vick' t-shirt? give me a break. It's amazing what athletic talent and/or celebrity status can buy. Almost as bad OJ. Ugh.

Mike Vick gonna toss my salad.

For those of you that think Vick got off with too little punishment. Don't forget about this. Vick lost $100 million dollars (endorsements + contract) as a result of his senseless actions.

Yes, he brought that upon himself. But it is still quite a punishment. I'd take an extra 37 months in exchange for that $100 million back.