Nissan resorts to hiring ex-felon to endorse their products.
- Thread starter Chad Feldheimer
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with that?
Why is it so hard for you to answer simple, direct questions?
wait a second, are we arguing about the NFL's policy or Nissan's? I thought the original post questioned Vick's hiring by Nissan as a spokesperson? I think there's a bit of a difference between a secondary company hiring him as a spokesperson as compared to the NFL's hiring him to play football.
Not that it particularly matters to me, I'm with the group that feels he served time, he has a right to earn a living at his previous occupation - playing football in the NFL. It's not as though the crimes he was convicted of have any material bearing on the game of football. I'm not sure it's a wise marketing move for Nissan to make him the spokesperson for something completely unrelated to athletics, but we'll see how the marketplace views it.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Stop being so damn sensible!
Using the conflict justification for NPR's firing of Juan Williams is equivalent to justifying the NFL locking felons out. The NFL is in the entertainment business. Everything the players do publicly affects the NFL organization. I'm sure you're all going to run to the defense of the NFL's rights to fire these guys if that's what the market wants, regardless of what is moral or ethical?
GVC
Well-Known Member
eh?
GVC
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with NFL teams (or, by extension, the NFL itself) choosing not to hire (or to fire) a felon because it would negatively effect their bottom line. These are entertainers after all.
With that said, I think "criminals", in many instances (something like 1/2 of the inmates in America are in prison for non-violent offenses), aren't given a fair shake in American society, even when it's obvious that 1) it's highly unlikely that they'll repeat offend, 2) the punishment acts as a sufficient deterrent to non-desperate people and 3) the cost of prolonged punishment of the offender is far greater than the benefits he/she could provide to society (and the economy) if not for said punishment.
Why do we lock so many people up? Why, as American citizens, do we feel so compelled to continue punishing otherwise productive people after they've done their time? How much punishment is enough punishment?
It seems to me, for various reasons, that we've gone too far here.
With that said, I think "criminals", in many instances (something like 1/2 of the inmates in America are in prison for non-violent offenses), aren't given a fair shake in American society, even when it's obvious that 1) it's highly unlikely that they'll repeat offend, 2) the punishment acts as a sufficient deterrent to non-desperate people and 3) the cost of prolonged punishment of the offender is far greater than the benefits he/she could provide to society (and the economy) if not for said punishment.
Why do we lock so many people up? Why, as American citizens, do we feel so compelled to continue punishing otherwise productive people after they've done their time? How much punishment is enough punishment?
It seems to me, for various reasons, that we've gone too far here.
If the NFL and its component teams (whether the league is a single entity or not is a subject of much dispute) determined that it didn't want to employ Michael Vick because of his criminal history, character issues, public relations hit or whatever that would be within their rights. I would not be stringently asserting that the NFL is obligated to continue to employ him.
I think all TICC, Viny, et. al. are saying is that we shouldn't demonize a company simply because it chooses to believe that a particular felon is rehabilitated and may bring them value and that the "all felons are taboo" attitude is probably somewhat counterproductive.
I doubt that, sir.
Let me rephrase: I love dogs. My black lab is in my Christmas Card for hell sakes. I think that people who torture and kill animals/dogs should have their sacks torn off like a paper towel. I have zero respect for rapists/child molesters, which is kind of where I was going when I was saying they're on the same line. Zero tolerance for the lot of them.
There, is that better?
p.s. I love you.
Thank you.
I'm in 100% agreement with TICC on this one. If for no other reason, I don't understand the internal desire of many Americans to provide disincentives to ex-cons. You'd think we would reward productive behavior and hope it cuts down on repeat offenders. In fact, I applaud Nissan's decision to hire Vick as a spokesperson. It's a reward for the positive life changes and rehabilitation work he's put in.
Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I'd much rather have a Chevy or Ford which only cost about $15k more, perform much worse in any unbiased test and sport a stylish interior straight from 1995.