> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/23/vick.punishment.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
>
>I heard about this tonight, and quite frankly, I think it's funny. Let me get this straight...the NFL wants time to 'review the indictment, to see how strong the case is against Vick'??? What a laugh - let me save the league some trouble - the Feds didn't spend the kind of time and money that they did, to come up with an indictment that was anything other than extremely strong. This was nothing but a stall tactic by the league (for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which is to eliminate any chance that Vick might show up at camp.)
>

That's undoubtedly true. But is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty completely dead in this country? Even as more and more cases come to light where someone was convicted and then turned out to be innocent, often after years in prison, we only seem quicker to rush to judgment.

I happen to agree that Vick is probably guilty as hell. But I don't think he should be punished until he's convicted. As an American he has that right and it shouldn't be trampled on for the sake of public relations.