|
Public holds distorted value of life |
|
|
|
Thursday, 24 January 2008 |
It’s no secret that we are desensitized to violence, and, for the most part, I’m okay with that.
You’d be hard pressed to find someone who abhors a cinematic or newsworthy depiction of violence.
I don’t think it’s the viewer’s fault, nor do I believe it breeds violent behavior.
However, I recently noticed a striking contrast of attitudes between human and animal bloodshed in my
film class.
During a scene in the war epic “Apocalypse Now,” a boat full of soldiers encounter and slaughter a
group of unarmed civilians with little hesitation.
When the soldiers search the carcass-covered boat, they discover a young puppy.
As the soldier picked up the puppy, my previously disinterested class began to cry out in unison,
begging for the soldier not to kill the dog.
I was initially taken aback at my classmates’ sensitivity to the dog’s survival and their apathetic
attitude toward the man-to-man chaos that had ensued over the previous two hours.
But then I quickly realized that animals are undoubtedly viewed as innocent exactly 100 percent of the
time.
I’ll be the first to admit that aestheticized violence is entertaining and effective in the cinematic idiom.
However, when our sensitivities, or lack there of, toward human and animal life in film become policy or
part of court rulings, the outcome is imbalanced and senseless.
Such is the case with the sports story of 2007. I’m talking about the Michael Vick dog fighting case, of
course.
Now, let me clarify that I, in no way, support Michael Vick’s decision to execute animals. I think pet
owners across the country sympathize with the defenseless canines that were tortured to death.
However, there was another scenario in the National Football League a few years prior to the Vick
incident that is widely unknown and much more alarming.
In 1998, Leonard Little, a rookie for the St. Louis Rams, was celebrating his 24th birthday when he
decided to stumble behind the wheel of his Lincoln Navigator.
Little ran a red light and hit another motorist, killing 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler. According to Sports
Illustrated, Little had a blood alcohol level of 0.19 percent.
Little entered a guilty plea of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a light sentence of 90
days in jail, four years of probation and community service hours, according to ESPN.
The NFL suspended Little for eight games.
Eight games?!
Michael Vick may never get to play in the NFL again. Yet there is a certain defensive lineman for the
St. Louis Rams that gets to suit up every Sunday after killing a human being.
Leonard Little even made it to the Pro Bowl and won a Super Bowl in 2000.
Little obviously didn’t learn his lesson because after he widowed a husband and left a son motherless,
he was arrested six years later for drunken driving and speeding. He played all 16 games the ensuing
season for the Rams.
So by setting this example that a dog-fighting conspirator can get 23 months in prison and a repeat,
drunken felon and accidental murderer is allowed to continue his professional career with few
repercussions, our judicial system is placing the weight of human life below those of animals that are
unable to reason.
Perhaps the dog-fighting case received more exposure because Vick is a higher-profile player than
Little, although Little was First-team All American in 1997.
Or maybe the nature of Vick’s crime was more obscure and bizarre, warranting more coverage.
Nevertheless, the severity of the punishments is imbalanced and mind-boggling.
I know that animals are deemed innocent and helpless, but there is no way that taking away a human
life should be less punishable than the same act committed to an animal. The NFL should be
ashamed for letting this disproportionate sense of justice prevail.
Brandon Brown, a senior journalism major from Charlotte , is a news reporter.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments
If the author thinks Vick got too much prison time, then it's best to just present those arguments that are directly relevant to the Vick case and not compare it to some other case with it's own idiosyncrasies which in the Little case included a gross miscarriage of justice.
I believe I know the film you are discussing. In any event, the reaction is due to more to "distance" than to the species. I suspect that if the puppy were replaced with a baby or a child, the audience reaction would have been equally strong.
Regarding the 1st 3 sentences: It's unfortunate that the author is "okay" with people being desensitized to violence. A fairly large percentage of the population abhors depictions of (real) violence in the news and many also object to extremely graphic violence in cinema because a number of studies have shown a strong statistical correlation between such depictions and resulting violence.
Several other articles have stated something similar to the author's disclaimer, "Now, let me clarify that I, in no way, support Michael Vick’s decision to execute animals. I think pet owners across the country sympathize with the defenseless canines that were tortured to death" However, the article then goes on to reveal that brutality to animals really doesn't move him as the victims are "just animals" - that's the position he's arguing for. If he felt otherwise, he'd see through his bogus logic.