« Go West, Young Pot Dealer! | Main | "Documentation, Documentary, and the Law: What Should be Made of Victim Impact Videos?" »

April 24, 2010

Anyone want to discuss the Ben Roethsliberger "sentencing"?

I am not sure if it is even wise to discuss or debate the NFL's six-game suspension of Ben Roethsliberger in sentencing terms. But on the reasonable assumption that some sentencing fans might have some sentencing-relevant reaction to how Big Ben is being punished, I figured I might spice up the final day of the NFL draft by encouraging some football talk in this forum.

April 24, 2010 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20134801b42a6970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anyone want to discuss the Ben Roethsliberger "sentencing"?:

Comments

It will be interesting to watch the NFL's Crime Dog approach to uncivil [if not explicitly illegal] conduct as it evolves. There is a feeling among experts that football encourages a certain uncivil je ne sais quoi ...

Having said as much, the Pittsburgh quarterback was, under the NFL's ADR pattern, due a significant suspension. Behavior matters and the Quarterback has shown himself a recidivist lout and nothing occurs in a vacuum ...

Perhaps Good_l's efforts will not collapse like a house of cards. I believe there are enough good citizens in the NFL to field at least twelve full teams. The other league -- the miscreant "MFL" -- will challenge mightily.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 24, 2010 1:18:11 PM

Perhaps the better question is if trial by media and the presumption of guilt are undermining the foundations of our Constitution and the American way of life.

Sarah Palin mentions the Constitution often with glib soundbites but sure tried to influence the media and the outcome with her interviews after her hacking testimony.

Posted by: George | Apr 24, 2010 1:22:56 PM

I look at it quite differently. I think there is a profound and inherent conflict in this sentence that lies, for me, at the heart of the contradiction that the NFL today.

The primary message of this sentence is that players who damage the image of the game (bring bad publicity) will be penalized harshly. The NFL is a huge business that wants to portray itself as "family friendly".

The problem is that the reality of an NFL game is that it is a mean business. It's an extremely violent sport. While some of the rule changes over the years have toned it down, it's still the most violent of all the major sports.

The idea that as human beings we can be completely compartmentalized psychologically is bogus. The idea that football players can go on the field and beat the crap out of each other and not have that affect their off-the- field behavior is as silly as the idea that we can send men and women into a war zone and not have any of them suffer PTSD.

The question then becomes why does Big Ben not get the one free rape that so many people on this forum have argued for our grizzled veterans? One is war and one is sport but for the individual psyche violence is violence.

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 24, 2010 1:58:01 PM

"it's still the most violent of all the major sports. ... The idea that football players can go on the field and beat the crap out of each other and not have that affect their off-the- field behavior..."

Hockey is, IMO, more violent. But even if it isn't *more* violent, it is up there with football. And it certainly encourages beating the crap out of each other. Why don't we see "off-the-field" incidents with hockey players?

Posted by: hockey | Apr 26, 2010 11:36:57 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB