ronburgundy
Contributor
I don't want to rehash the whole thing. There is nothing to debate regarding his clear guilt in the crime of assault.
So, any argument over whether he actually committed criminal assault is an off-topic derail.
He committed assault and clear objective evidence proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Also, he was only not prosecuted because the victim refused to prosecute, which is a central problem prohibiting prosecution and stopping of spousal abuse.
Accepting those as facts, should an NFL team pick him up?
One argument against it is that no matter what his wife wanted, he should have been convicted of assault and given the standard jail sentence for that. Most abuse advocates argue that prosecution of cases with clear evidence should move forward regardless of whether the victim wants to press charges. Not only does this apply to non-stranger abuse due to intimidation factors, but could be applied to all violent crimes based on the principle that that public has its own interest in prosecuting such crimes, no matter how the victim feels. Should a team give him the legitimacy, $, and reputation repair that hiring him would bring, if the only reason he is free and able to play is that the victim didn't prosecute.
A counter argument for a team picking him up is that it was a first-offense, he has been contrite, and doesn't appear to have done anything since (Given the exposure, if his wife felt in danger and wanted out it would happen quickly and with her taking most of his millions). Thus, in might not actually be in prison now even if he had been convicted under those circumstances.
The one argument I am hearing that I think is total nonsense is that "He should be allowed to earn a living, and why punish his wife by keeping him unemployed". First, the NFL not giving him another job does not mean he is unemployed. Second, he already made about $30 million for a few years work that allows he and his wife a cushy life without ever working for pay again. In fact, he would have more support to play again if he agreed to give all his future earnings as a player to domestic violence causes. I am conflicted, but I think I would fully support him playing if he did that.
I like to distinguish the related but separate questions of possible disagreement that often get conflated, so here they are below:
Presuming his obvious guilt, should he have been prosecuted for assault without support from the then girlfriend?
Presuming his guilt but given the other circumstances of the assault, should a guilty verdict have put him jail currently?
Should an NFL team hire him? (which one could argue either way, even if you said yes to the above questions).
So, any argument over whether he actually committed criminal assault is an off-topic derail.
He committed assault and clear objective evidence proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Also, he was only not prosecuted because the victim refused to prosecute, which is a central problem prohibiting prosecution and stopping of spousal abuse.
Accepting those as facts, should an NFL team pick him up?
One argument against it is that no matter what his wife wanted, he should have been convicted of assault and given the standard jail sentence for that. Most abuse advocates argue that prosecution of cases with clear evidence should move forward regardless of whether the victim wants to press charges. Not only does this apply to non-stranger abuse due to intimidation factors, but could be applied to all violent crimes based on the principle that that public has its own interest in prosecuting such crimes, no matter how the victim feels. Should a team give him the legitimacy, $, and reputation repair that hiring him would bring, if the only reason he is free and able to play is that the victim didn't prosecute.
A counter argument for a team picking him up is that it was a first-offense, he has been contrite, and doesn't appear to have done anything since (Given the exposure, if his wife felt in danger and wanted out it would happen quickly and with her taking most of his millions). Thus, in might not actually be in prison now even if he had been convicted under those circumstances.
The one argument I am hearing that I think is total nonsense is that "He should be allowed to earn a living, and why punish his wife by keeping him unemployed". First, the NFL not giving him another job does not mean he is unemployed. Second, he already made about $30 million for a few years work that allows he and his wife a cushy life without ever working for pay again. In fact, he would have more support to play again if he agreed to give all his future earnings as a player to domestic violence causes. I am conflicted, but I think I would fully support him playing if he did that.
I like to distinguish the related but separate questions of possible disagreement that often get conflated, so here they are below:
Presuming his obvious guilt, should he have been prosecuted for assault without support from the then girlfriend?
Presuming his guilt but given the other circumstances of the assault, should a guilty verdict have put him jail currently?
Should an NFL team hire him? (which one could argue either way, even if you said yes to the above questions).