NFL star quarterback, or should I say ex-NFL star quarterback Michael Vick has been charged by Surry County for the same incident that gave rise to the federal dog fighting charges. As we all know, Vick has already pleaded guilty to the federal charges. Now that Surry County prosecutors have access to some of the federal evidence, they decided to bring charges.

This incident has elicited strong debate on both sides. Personally, I believe that dog fighting is reprehensible. However, many people think that being cruel to animals and dog fighting should never be punishable by taking a man's freedom. After all, in the eyes of the law, dogs are property much like your car or watch. If someone steals your car you can sue them for damages. If someone steals your dog you can sue them for damages. But should someone give their freedom for fighting dogs?

Most people seem to fall on the side of the line that advocates making dog fighting illegal and thus, worthy of taking a man's freedom. Other than putting someone to death, taking an individual's freedom is the harshest result that can happen. We value freedom in this country and to have that taken away is significant.

In other arenas of the law, namely the civil side, we have many fine lawyers to held individuals get compensation for wrongs imposed on them. Should incidents such as those involved in Vick's case merely be handled on the civil side of the law?

Does the potential punishment fit the crime? Any thoughts?

Larry