[suebee]

Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE

In regards to the severity of Vick's crimes, I found the following part of the article to be particularily interesting:
"The ongoing nature of his conduct remains serious cause for concern and understandably contributes to the enduring distrust of his repeated public assertions of remorse and reformation. Some additional yet basic risk factors one should consider in assessing Mr. Vick’s case and the continuing threat convicted abusers present to society include:

1.The vulnerability of his victims;
2.The large number of his victims;
3.The number of victimizing incidents;
4.The severity of the injury and methods used to kill;
5.The duration of the abuse;
6.The degree of pre-planning or premeditation;
7.The existence of other criminal conduct at the scene of the animal abuse (e.g., drugs, gun law violations, gambling);
8.The fact that this offender served as an instigator of criminal acts involving multiple other perpetrators; and
9.The offender’s history of positive interactions with the victim animal(s) prior to the abuse.
In light of these factors, it is difficult to discern how Mr. Vick’s supporters could reasonably believe that he should be allowed to exercise control over another dog. The Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees with that view and recommends the longest possible ban on ownership be maintained. Whether his supporters are truly concerned about animal welfare or just too invested in Mr. Vick’s “comeback” to give a damn about the fate of the next dog who comes under Mr. Vick’s control—you will have to decide for yourself."