After what has seemed like a lifetime, the most vocal and publicized story of the summer is finally coming to a close. In reality it has been about a half a year since rumors of Michael Vick’s dogfighting ring surfaced. Now as it winds down we are being brought to a new debate; what punishment should fit the crime?

Or rather, what punishment do we want to fit the crime? The federal law states Vick could face five years in prison, though it is highly doubtful he sees anywhere close to that. The odds are good it will be anywhere from a year to two years behind bars for him. But then interestingly enough, few seem to care what the judge will sentence in the case.

The only judge anyone seems to care about these days is Roger Goodell.

He came down hard on Pac-Man Jones, suspending him for a year despite the cornerback not having been charged with a crime. The situation with Vick has been something far more delicate in nature because of the money Vick brings into the game. But due to the heinous acts of the crime itself and the animal Vick used, the reaction has been far worse than even Jones could have caused on his worst day.

So the call has been a loud one from many NFL fans, and many more who have never watched an NFL game in their lives. The cry? Ban Vick from the league.

It’s certainly a possibility. The NFL can essentially do what it wants, whether or not it is justified. After all right and wrong don’t always apply to life; just look at how a New York Times reporter can get locked away in prison but a federal official who commits perjury can walk away free thanks to who he knows and protected.

So yes, those that call for a lifetime ban on the quarterback certainly have hope of getting their wish. But the more interesting question, in my opinion, is why the calls exist, when they have been far worse crimes committed and forgiven and whether they are justified in their desires.

Here’s the thing; what has Michael Vick done that should prevent him from playing in the NFL versus some other sports league or hell, any job in general. I wouldn’t want him to be a veterinarian or even alone with children. But the NFL is a league where, as Lawrence Taylor so aptly put it, you get paid to bash heads.

Vick doesn’t get paid to hit, but is paid to get hit. Hit brutally over and over again until his body gives out. A choice yes; one his dogs never had the chance to make. Still that’s not the point because that’s not the NFL’s jurisdiction, is it? So what has the quarterback done to the NFL that gives them the right to prevent him from the chance to make a living?

The argument that Vick wouldn’t be denied the right to earn a living- that it would ONLY be in the NFL has questionable logic behind it. Why is it right for the NFL to ban him while he is as qualified to work as anywhere else? Why is the NFL different and more special than any place else?

The truth is if the NFL had the right to ban Vick, as so many people are calling for, why doesn’t McDonald’s have the same right? K-Mart? Halliburton? If someone who did time in prison was automatically barred from working again, denied the right to earn a living, wouldn’t that be wrong?

This isn’t a crime against the integrity of the league; that would be a bannable offense. Point shaving hurts the credibility of the product. Like or not, in a world where a defensive end is allowed to play the same year he committed vehicular manslaughter (AND THEN GET PICKED UP AGAIN FOR GETTING BEHIND THE WHEEL DRUNK), a year in prison for dogfighting is not.

This is not a defense of dogfighting. By no means am I saying Vick is a good person given a bad rap. My problem is with people who are demanding the NFL step in where it has no jurisdiction.

Vick’s crime was dogfighting. Vick’s punishment is handed down from the Federal government. Ironically, this is the one situation where the league does not need to interfere. The crime will be punished with jail time. Vick will lose a year, if not more, of his playing career. It will cost him millions in endorsements and quite likely even more in his contract. The Falcons will probably do more than just cut Vick, but also demand part of his signing bonus back.

If people do not like the punishment; then their complaint should be with the Federal Government that hands it out. Vick broke no NFL rule (unless you count gambling on non NFL events, but let’s face it, I’m sure players drop far more in illegal poker games and god knows what else in their free time). It’s on the Feds to lay out the sentence. And all this will be moot if he gets 5 years in jail.

So why must the NFL punish someone who is already going to be punished? Why is it their job to finish what the government does? Why are people demanding more than what the state deems as proper punishment and why are they asking for someone other than the state to dish it out? The NFL’s job is to provide me with entertainment, not to serve and protect me. The NFL can’t even protect and serve its own retired players- why should they be getting involved with protecting dogs at this point?

And this is where it gets murky- not for the NFL, but for the rationale for all those people who want Vick banned.

You see, the NFL as a league, has just as much right to bar Vick from their world as anyone else does for this. I highly doubt all but the most extreme individuals are saying Michael Vick should be denied a living in all forms when he is released from prison. So if Vick can work in your local convenience store, why are people so upset at him playing in the NFL?

The answer of course is simple; convenience store clerks don’t get 100 million dollar contracts.

Not that Vick will after this is over. But the fact remains if he is allowed to return to the league, Vick will still make more money than many people will see in their lifetimes. Regardless of the millions he has lost, the prospect of him living a very comfortable life is a horrifying one for some people. They don’t have a problem if Vick is allowed to work, so long as he doesn’t make X amount of dollars that allows him to live the life he once did.

And that ladies and gentlemen is where we have our issue. Because people who say they are not trying to stop him from earning a living in fact ARE trying to stop him from earning a living. He can work, but only in one that fits their impression of his character. He can’t be in a role that could give him fame, even if someone is willing to give it to him, because that’s not what the people want. They are trying to dictate what type of lifestyle he can lead after his debt has been paid; that is not the NFL’s job and it sure as hell is not ours.

You see what people are paranoid about is that Vick could come back to the league and make money again. They’re worried he can get a job playing the NFL again and make lots of green. They’re worried that the PR hit an organization will take won’t be enough and Vick will be back, living the good life. That bothers them.

So to put their minds at ease, they’ll take action that is unprecedented and unnecessary. To all those people who want Vick banned, I ask you, what has Michael Vick done that is so egregious it compromises the integrity of the NFL’s product? Has he gambled on football games? Has he taken steroids? Has he taken money to throw games?

No, he killed dogs. Tortured and brutalized them. Horrible, yes. But does it have anything to do with him playing football? No more so than Ray Lewis pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in a double murder, Leonard Little getting vehicular manslaughter and then a subsequent DWI, or the countless athletes who have been busted doing drugs, being their wives or getting into fights. These are players who have committed acts that are reprehensible in some way, but no one talks about bans. Was Scott Olsen suspended for getting into a fight with police officers after being busted for DUI? Or was Brent Myers cut by the Phillies for publically beating his wife so bad the police had to be brought in? So if it’s okay for these upstanding individuals to make a living once they have served their punishment, why is Vick not allowed to?

The other problem is the arbitrary nature of it. When you start trying to legislate quality of life, you run into a slippery slope. What is a life too good for Vick to lead? Can he have a job that allows him to live comfortably? Does he have to scrape it out for the rest of his life? What do you consider comfortable? Is there an acceptable salary for him to make? If Vick didn’t play another game in the NFL, and instead went and say, became a world class baseball player (Not saying he will), and then earned a 100 million dollar contract from the Orioles, is that okay? I’m guessing most people would say not; even though logically they would have no ground to stand on.

If the Falcons want to cut Vick, that’s their prerogative. If no team in the NFL wants to take a chance on him, that’s also their business. Nobody said Vick has to get hired. But he should be allowed to present himself as a candidate. It’s bothersome that so many don’t even want to give him that, especially since the man has done nothing to them except, in many cases, entertain them.

In the end it’s not the NFL’s job to be the judge and jury of its own players. That’s why we have the justice system. I’m sure you’ve seen it on a few Law and Order episodes- by the way what are the odds the Vick story adaptation makes it on one down the road?

In any case, the Feds arrested Vick, charged him and will soon sentence him. They did their job, however well or poorly as you might believe. It’s not the NFL’s job to dispense vigilante justice to appease the masses. The NFL’s job is to produce the highest quality form of entertainment possible from a football game.

Whether after serving time in prison Michael Vick can still contribute to that physically remains to be seen.

But at the very least, he should be afforded the opportunity.