Michael Vick and Donte Stallworth’s Sentence: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

Are the incongruent outcomes grossly unfair, as some have suggested?

Much has been made lately of the apparently light sentence given to Donte Stallworth of the NFL’s Cleveland Browns for his involvement in a drunk driving accident resulting in a pedestrians death. Stallworth was sentenced to ten years probation, thirty days jail, and a lifetime driving ban.

Many pundits and fans have suggested that this sentence was grossly unfair and a mere slap on the wrist when compared to Michael Vick’s sentence for his involvement in a dogfighting ring, for which he received 23 months in federal prison. Those who are outraged point to the fact that Stallworth got a mere 30 days in jail for his exceptionally reckless behavior that left a person dead, while Vick got slammed with 2 years in prison for conduct carried out mostly by Vick’s co-conspirators that harmed animals but not people.

However, an objective review of the facts of each case explain why the sentences in each case are reasonable given the factors surrounding each situation.

Lets look at the Stallworth case. First of all, the sentence is not all that light. Felony probation is no walk in the park. Probationers have someone involved in every area of their lives, including where they are, what they are doing, counseling, substance abuse counseling, etc. It is expensive, difficult and intrusive. Stallworth has to endure this for ten years. Stallworth also has a lifetime driving ban. Imagine how difficult it would be to never be able to drive, even for employment or childcare reasons. Save a handful of US cities, it is nearly impossible to lead a normal life without a drivers license. The thirty days in jail will not be pleasant for Stallworth, either.

Secondly, there was no malicious intent on the part of Stallworth. He had a car accident. Sure, he should not have been driving with so much alcohol in his system, but he did not intend to hurt anyone. Tens of thousands of people are ticketed for drunk driving every year, and they are just lucky that they did not hurt anyone. And these people get much less punishment than Stallworth.

Third, Stallworth was cooperative at all times with law enforcement. He called the cops. He admitted to everything. He was contrite and apologetic from the very beginning. This can make a big difference when it comes to negotiating a plea with the prosecutor. It makes Stallworth look less like a criminal and more like someone who made a mistake. This is huge since there is no reason to send a message to Stallworth with a lengthy prison sentence.

Finally, Stallworth paid a large monetary amount to the victims family for the victims wrongful death. Like it or not, money talks and b.s. walks. Prosecutors and judges are very responsive to the wishes of the victims family in these cases. The victims family wanted this sentence for Stallworth, and the victims family is very likely to get what they want in these types of cases.

Michael Vick had several factors not in his favor. First, as a federal case, the judge decides the sentence, not the prosecutor. In fact, the judge in Vick’s case gave Vick much more time than the prosecutors recommended. One is also more likely to get a harsher sentence in federal court than state court. Second, Vick initially denied his guilt and was not as forthcoming as Stallworth. Third, Vick’s crime indicated more of a criminal intent than Stallworth. Where Stallworth was irresponsible but not actually trying to hurt anyone, Vick was intentionally partaking in a bloodsport, which exhibited more malice in his heart. This is much more likely to incur a punitive prison sentence as opposed to a rehabilitative probation sentence. Finally, there is no denying the emotional impact of Vick’s crime, as the average person cannot imagine the blood lust of dogfighting, but many people have at one point or another drank a little too much and drove.

All things considered, the sentences in these two cases are understandable. Now, Commissioner Goodell’s decision to slam the Browns salary cap by $4.5 million, not so much. Certainly punishing Stallworth for his actions is reasonable, but punishing his team?