Many people believe that Michael Vick’s recent second apology was more heartfelt and believable than his first, and that he is sincerely sorry for the crimes he committed against dogs.  Is he sincere? After being sentenced to 23 months in prison, anyone would likely be sorry they did something—whether they regret the actual act itself or not.

The ASPCA and pet owners everywhere are condemning his renewed contract with the Philadelphia Eagles. People are outraged over Vick’s new contract, and sales of Michael Vick dog toys and anti-Vick t-shirts are apparently still going strong.

(Which I really don’t get. Sure, it’s born out of anger, and people think it’s funny, but wouldn’t an anti-dog fighting shirt be more proactive than an anti-Vick one? If the sentiment is to prevent animal abuse, you’d think that would be the main focus here.)

The Humane Society of the United States, on the other hand, is working with Vick in his court-ordered efforts to educate youth against dogfighting. They are offering actions on their website to take against dog fighting, using Vick as an example; yet they also appeared with him on 60 Minutes to announce that he’ll be a spokesperson for them. You have to wonder—is the message “Say no to animal cruelty,” or “Say no to doing things that get you caught”?

The HSUS claims they are neither for nor against his signing with the Eagles; however, since they’re now using him for publicity, they’re probably pretty happy about it!

So which organization is right—the ASPCA or the HSUS? Should Vick be able to play again or not? I doubt that most people who go to prison are awarded millions of dollars upon their release. That said, plenty of players have been given new contracts following violent crimes, and plenty are accused of others, like rape, without suffering any consequences at all. If the policy is that you can abuse or kill humans and still be a million-dollar sports player and therefore a “hero” in so many people’s eyes, then it’s only fair that Vick gets another chance.

That said, the very fact that these players are allowed “second chances” presents an entire issue in and of itself; why do we reward perpetuators of violence with fortune and fame? Their jobs are already particularly violent in many cases—especially football and hockey—and we celebrate that. Then, when they are convicted, we are momentarily outraged prior to letting them play again not long after. It’s no wonder that so much violence occurs in the first place when we celebrate it on the field and condone it off the field.

So what do you think about Vick’s specific case? Should he have been given the new contract or not?