Read Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer’s opinions.
The winner of the NFL Indefinite Suspension debate IS…
BLEACHER FAN!!!!!
Punishment is a tough task. Let’s use jury duty as an example. Jurists are unable to discuss the details of the case before the judge allows them to. Once the judge gives the okay, a jury room is a flurry of activity with everyone blurting out their feelings and reactions to various parts of a case in a raw and unformatted way… it’s almost exciting. As the room calms down, a leader usually steps up and begins going through the case in sequential order, breaking down evidence and highlighting the big points of a case where disagreement may become an issue. After all of that is discussed, a jury on the verge of convicting is stricken with the immense reality of what they are doing. If they vote to convict, a person will be punished – perhaps severely. Guilty or not, it’s 12 regular folks deciding to dramatically alter the course of another person’s life. It’s heavy.
So, I can understand, in part, how human nature plays a role in the decision making process for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell when he is deciding punishment for players in the NFL who commit crimes. It’s not an easy job to determine another human being’s fate – regardless of their guilt or innocence. It’s a big deal. But, it’s the nature of Goodell’s job – or at least it’s a task that he’s built into his own job description – to be the disciplinarian for a league with a history of off-field issues for their players. By handing down an indefinite suspension Goodell is skirting his self-appointed responsibility and perpetuating difficult circumstances for players who get themselves into legal trouble.
Bleacher Fan wins the debate because of a three key reasons. First, Bleacher Fan points out that Goodell’s indefinite suspension of Donte Stallworth – like all indefinite suspensions – turned a legal matter with limited impact on Stallworth’s team, the Cleveland Browns, into a huge roster issue. The Browns did nothing wrong in this case, but Goodell’s use of an ambiguous, open-ended punishment has a negative impact on one of the 30 teams in the league. Therefore, it’s understandable how the indefinite suspension is harmful to the league.
Second – and far more importantly – a punishment in our society is designed to rehabilitate the offender. Let’s use jail as an example. Jail is designed to rehabilitate criminals (whether it actually does that is another matter). There is a sense of structure inside and (some) criminals are given various responsibilities that give their existence a meaning and a purpose. Goodell has eliminated that basic rehabilitation function of punishment with an open-ended suspension. Like it or not, professional football provides a very structured, purposed environment. Removing Stallworth from that environment likely forces him to find another way to fill his time. This is unwise given his history with substance abuse and now a guilty plea to a felony. It is hard to image how Stallworth can return to the league at any point and be a productive member of the community – let alone a team – given his absence from a structured environment for an undetermined amount of time.
Third, in Stallworth’s case – and in all instances where an indefinite suspension is handed down because of a crime with a victim – the opportunity to make financial amends (whether that is wholly appropriate or not) is compromised. Goodell’s decision negatively impacts the victim’s family in Stallworth’s case, jeopardizing his ability to earn the income necessary to pay the financial agreement that was LEGALLY settled with the victim’s family.
Well argued, Bleacher Fan. Loyal Homer makes a good point about how the ambiguity of an open-ended suspension can drive a person crazy. Not knowing is tough. But that’s ultimately what swayed me to Bleacher Fan’s argument – it’s better for all parties involved to know and deal with the circumstances.
