Should Convicted Athletes Be Allowed To Play?
ufeffDakota Wilson
April 1, 2013
ENC 1101
Laura Radford
Are Convicted Athletes Being Fairly Punished For Their Crimes?
When a college or professional athlete is charged with a crime, it seems the whole world is watching; the story is covered by nearly every newspaper, tabloid, and television station. Regardless of whether or not they were given a fair trial, or if the outcome is actually even true, the extent of their punishment stops directly after their sentence has been carried out. A few community service hours, maybe even some time behind bars, and of course, the burden of being hounded by the paparazzi. But despite being charged for sometimes even the most heinous of crimes, athletes are still welcomed back onto the playing field, court, ring, etc. This kind of special treatment towards athletes simply because of their celebrity status is both morally and ethically unjust, and needs to be put to a stop. If an employee at a restaurant were charged and convicted of rape, it is almost certain that they would be fired for moral reasons, bad publicity, or any reasons in-between. So why is it that when a college or professional athlete is charged with the same crime, they are still allowed to continue to play? Granted, there have been instances that the convicted athlete has been asked to leave the team. For instance, Marcus Vick, who was finally dismissed from Virginia Tech’s football team after a series of incidents (Lipka, 2006)—but more often than not, this is not the case. Possibly even more importantly than any publicity issues, is how the dismissal of these crimes influence today’s children and teenagers. Much of today’s youth thinks very highly of athletes, and are easily influenced by their actions and habits. When you consider how big of a part these athletes are in our lives—almost everyone has a favorite athlete or sports team—what kind of message is this unfair treatment sending out to society? Children are being taught that
April 1, 2013
ENC 1101
Laura Radford
Are Convicted Athletes Being Fairly Punished For Their Crimes?
When a college or professional athlete is charged with a crime, it seems the whole world is watching; the story is covered by nearly every newspaper, tabloid, and television station. Regardless of whether or not they were given a fair trial, or if the outcome is actually even true, the extent of their punishment stops directly after their sentence has been carried out. A few community service hours, maybe even some time behind bars, and of course, the burden of being hounded by the paparazzi. But despite being charged for sometimes even the most heinous of crimes, athletes are still welcomed back onto the playing field, court, ring, etc. This kind of special treatment towards athletes simply because of their celebrity status is both morally and ethically unjust, and needs to be put to a stop. If an employee at a restaurant were charged and convicted of rape, it is almost certain that they would be fired for moral reasons, bad publicity, or any reasons in-between. So why is it that when a college or professional athlete is charged with the same crime, they are still allowed to continue to play? Granted, there have been instances that the convicted athlete has been asked to leave the team. For instance, Marcus Vick, who was finally dismissed from Virginia Tech’s football team after a series of incidents (Lipka, 2006)—but more often than not, this is not the case. Possibly even more importantly than any publicity issues, is how the dismissal of these crimes influence today’s children and teenagers. Much of today’s youth thinks very highly of athletes, and are easily influenced by their actions and habits. When you consider how big of a part these athletes are in our lives—almost everyone has a favorite athlete or sports team—what kind of message is this unfair treatment sending out to society? Children are being taught that