Goodell laying the smack down

[Kazkal]

Goodell Cites “Public Confidence” In Suspending Stallworth

Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2009, 5:31 p.m.

Plenty of people think that Browns receiver Donte’ Stallworth got a slap on the wrist from the justice system, receiving 30 days in jail and two years of house arrest after pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter.

The perception that justice wasn’t done apparently fueled Commissioner Roger Goodell’s decision to suspend Stallworth indefinitely, only two days after the guilty plea was entered. Citing concepts like the integrity of the game and public confidence in the sport, Goodell moved far more swiftly than anyone expected.

“The conduct reflected in your guilty plea resulted in the tragic loss of life and was inexcusable,” Goodell wrote to Stallworth. “While the criminal justice system has determined the legal consequences of this incident, it is my responsibility as NFL Commissioner to determine appropriate league discipline for your actions, which have caused irreparable harm to the victim and his family, your club, your fellow players and the NFL.

“The conduct that led to your conviction plainly violates both the Personal Conduct and Substances of Abuse policies. Either provides me with full authority to take appropriate disciplinary action against you, including a fine or suspension without pay, and to impose appropriate conditions on your continued participation in the NFL. In this case, there is ample evidence to warrant significant discipline under both policies.

“There is no reasonable dispute that your continued eligibility for participation at this time would undermine the integrity of and public confidence in our league. Accordingly, I have decided to suspend you indefinitely, effective immediately. In due course, we will contact your representatives to schedule a meeting with you, after which I will make a final determination on discipline. Pending my final determination, you will not be permitted to visit the club’s facility or participate in any team activities.

“Everyone associated with the league derives tremendous benefits from participating in our game and from the extraordinary support we receive from the public. With these benefits comes, among other things, the responsibility to conduct ourselves in a lawful and responsible way, with no entitlement to or expectation of favorable treatment.”

Wow.

Somewhere, Mike Vick and Plaxico Burress just peed a little.

Haha I liked the end part.

[BengalPimp]

Watch, he wont even miss a year....

[derekshank]

Watch, he wont even miss a year....

He's only getting 30 days in jail ... but he's on house arrest for 2 years.

It's still a joke, because that's hardly a punishment for a millionaire. Oh no! I have to stay here in my luxurious home while others are forced to go run my mundane errands!

However, it should prevent him from playing football. And I emphasize "should"

Are there examples of other players being allowed to get around house arrest to play professional sports? Just wondering. If so... then it's really just a minor inconvenience.

[BengalszoneBilly]

It's still a joke.

It's a total joke! I've gotten two DUI's in my life, and served a total 4 months in prison. I didn't harm anyone, didn't hit anything, didn't even dent a stinking fender.

Money obviously talks in our corrupt justice system.

[gregstephens]

It's still a joke.

It's a total joke! I've gotten two DUI's in my life, and served a total 4 months in prison. I didn't harm anyone, didn't hit anything, didn't even dent a stinking fender.

Money obviously talks in our corrupt justice system.

Actually, back when I was working in the juvenile system, we had a couple of negligent homicides involving teen drivers and no booze where the juvi. driver got longer than this in juvenile detention.

But, on the other hand, if the victim's family worked out the civil aspect of this case and told the prosecution and the court they were ok with the sentence, to whom exactly is this an unfair resolution? Other persons convicted of DUI? Rarely are two offenses of the same type resolved the same way. Guy one steals ten grand from his employer and can't pay it back, he looks at a felony three. Guy two steals ten grand from his employer, but kept it all and thus pays it all back, he probably pleads to a first degree misdemeanor. It's the difference between 1-5 years and six months. Why? Because the second victim is kosher with the resolution.

[BengalPimp]

It's still a joke.

It's a total joke! I've gotten two DUI's in my life, and served a total 4 months in prison. I didn't harm anyone, didn't hit anything, didn't even dent a stinking fender.

Money obviously talks in our corrupt justice system.

Actually, back when I was working in the juvenile system, we had a couple of negligent homicides involving teen drivers and no booze where the juvi. driver got longer than this in juvenile detention.

But, on the other hand, if the victim's family worked out the civil aspect of this case and told the prosecution and the court they were ok with the sentence, to whom exactly is this an unfair resolution? Other persons convicted of DUI? Rarely are two offenses of the same type resolved the same way. Guy one steals ten grand from his employer and can't pay it back, he looks at a felony three. Guy two steals ten grand from his employer, but kept it all and thus pays it all back, he probably pleads to a first degree misdemeanor. It's the difference between 1-5 years and six months. Why? Because the second victim is kosher with the resolution.

Good point Greg, You know what's sad though, is that this family basically reached a settlement with Stallworth to avoid a Civil case, and thus, put a price tag on their family member. To my knowledge they have not released the amount of the settlement.

[BengalszoneBilly]

It's still a joke.

It's a total joke! I've gotten two DUI's in my life, and served a total 4 months in prison. I didn't harm anyone, didn't hit anything, didn't even dent a stinking fender.

Money obviously talks in our corrupt justice system.

Actually, back when I was working in the juvenile system, we had a couple of negligent homicides involving teen drivers and no booze where the juvi. driver got longer than this in juvenile detention.

But, on the other hand, if the victim's family worked out the civil aspect of this case and told the prosecution and the court they were ok with the sentence, to whom exactly is this an unfair resolution? Other persons convicted of DUI? Rarely are two offenses of the same type resolved the same way. Guy one steals ten grand from his employer and can't pay it back, he looks at a felony three. Guy two steals ten grand from his employer, but kept it all and thus pays it all back, he probably pleads to a first degree misdemeanor. It's the difference between 1-5 years and six months. Why? Because the second victim is kosher with the resolution.

So the sentence seems to be determined on what money the victims receive, and not on the basic crime!?! The scales of justice seem to bear more weight when money is laid upon them then when the weight of evidence is applied on them. I'm not good with that. A crime is a crime. I committed mine and served my time. I have no problem with that. When the rich do worse, and serve less, now I got a problem.

[derekshank]

It's still a joke.

It's a total joke! I've gotten two DUI's in my life, and served a total 4 months in prison. I didn't harm anyone, didn't hit anything, didn't even dent a stinking fender.

Money obviously talks in our corrupt justice system.

Actually, back when I was working in the juvenile system, we had a couple of negligent homicides involving teen drivers and no booze where the juvi. driver got longer than this in juvenile detention.

But, on the other hand, if the victim's family worked out the civil aspect of this case and told the prosecution and the court they were ok with the sentence, to whom exactly is this an unfair resolution? Other persons convicted of DUI? Rarely are two offenses of the same type resolved the same way. Guy one steals ten grand from his employer and can't pay it back, he looks at a felony three. Guy two steals ten grand from his employer, but kept it all and thus pays it all back, he probably pleads to a first degree misdemeanor. It's the difference between 1-5 years and six months. Why? Because the second victim is kosher with the resolution.

Good point Greg, You know what's sad though, is that this family basically reached a settlement with Stallworth to avoid a Civil case, and thus, put a price tag on their family member. To my knowledge they have not released the amount of the settlement.

For my part, I can't start judging the family for agreeing to this. If the dude was the breadwinner, you have to take the money because that's how you're going to survive now that he's gone.

To answer your question Greg... it's not so much that it's unfair to other DUI drivers as much as it makes a joke of the judicial system. If the country really believes DUI's are as bad and dangerous as they claim, if they really are intent on making punishments for these offenses a true deterrent... then it probably wouldn't be wise to take a DUI manslaughter case that made national headlines and give a fat slap on the wrist.

Frankly, the family shouldn't have much say in the matter. They should be compensated to the fullest extent of the law, AND he should earn a punishment to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that he seems truly contrite doesn't bring back the life he took. He made a poor choice, and sometimes you have to pay consequences for those choices, whether they were malicious in intent or not.

[BengalszoneBilly]

it's not so much that it's unfair to other DUI drivers as much as it makes a joke of the judicial system.

Michael Vick will have served more time for killing dogs than Stallworth will serve for killing a human being. Jokes at the expense of the judicial system don't get any bigger than this.

[gregstephens]

None of this is as easy as either of your points, however.

Derek, you state the victim's family shouldn't have much say, and I actually agree to a point. Look at the flip side, however. Family wants to take a deal because of a)the money b)Stallworth's remorseful c)whatever else. Prosecution says no way, we gotta make an example of this case. I don't know all the evidence in this case, but I do know juries. You never know what they are going to do. I've had cases with no shot at winning win, and I've had cases with no shot at losing lose. Stallworth goes to trial and, due to a pre-trial suppression issue, or jury sympathy, or a screw-up handling something, is acquitted. Family's civil case goes poof. Now, no punishment AND no compensation.

Billy, you compare the Vick case to Stallworth's. Vick was involved in an intentional course of conduct over a period of years involving direct acts of torture and murder of dogs. The man's life was worth obviously more than the dogs. However, Stallworth didn't intend on his consequences (although he should have been smart enough to foresee the possibility). He stopped. He called the cops. He was cooperative. He took responsibility. I'm not saying I agree with either sentence either man received. I'm saying you can't ever compare two cases because each one is its own apple and/or orange.

Having said all that, I do think the thirty days and all the blah blah blah was too lenient. Never said it wasn't. However, I know from my own experiences that the issues behind the workings are far too complex to be simplified the way the media and the public have done.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Prosecution says no way, we gotta make an example of this case.

That's what I don't get Greg. I'm not a lawyer, but I do recognize what is fair and what is not in this world. What I got was fair. What happened here isn't fair IMO, and is exactly what makes people lose faith in our judicial system. It usually favors the rich over the poor, except for the case of Bernie Madoff where he screwed over other rich people. Rich cancels out rich, so he receives a just sentence.

Just saying...

[gregstephens]

Prosecution says no way, we gotta make an example of this case.

That's what I don't get Greg. I'm not a lawyer, but I do recognize what is fair and what is not in this world. What I got was fair. What happened here isn't fair IMO, and is exactly what makes people lose faith in our judicial system. It usually favors the rich over the poor, except for the case of Bernie Madoff where he screwed over other rich people. Rich cancels out rich, so he receives a just sentence.

Just saying...

The unfortunate part here is that this was a no win for the prosecution. I've seen it in our own county. If you give the guy a break, regardless if you would have given to same break to average Joe, some are going to cry favoritism because he's rich, an athlete, whatever. If you don't give the guy a break, regardless if you would have refused average Joe the same break, the other side is going to claim you are trying to make a name by sticking it to the famous defendant (think the bonehead on the Duke Lacrosse case).

There is ultimately no real 'fairness' in our world. There is the law, which is imperfect and flawed at times. There is the 'moral code', which everyone has to decipher on their own. There is the outside perception, which, contrary to the old saying, is not always reality.

But I digress...I have, however, enjoyed this debate of ideals and philosophy. We are, for the most part, an above average intellectual group for a football forum. One of the reasons I love coming here.

[gregstephens]

I'll give you another example of the 'fairness' myth. Someone local recently had a case involving an older woman having sex with an underage teenage boy. That prosecutor pled the case quite favorably for her. A lot of the public response was, "Well, if that had been a man, he'd went to jail and never gotten this break." It didn't appear 'fair' because she got what was perceived as a lighter plea and sentence.

Reality: the evidence was apparently crap. Contradictory evidence. Unreliable witnesses. No physical evidence. Grand Jury very well wouldn't have even indicted it if she had been a man and the victim was a teenage girl. Based on what the state had, the prosecutor would have pled it for a song, even if the defendant was a Martian and the victim was a dog. Didn't matter. Of course, no one ever could say that in public response.

I can't say what the reality of Stallworth's case was because I don't know the evidence and the circumstance. I can't say it was fair or not fair, even depending on whose definition of that word you use. It appears lenient, but I can't say that for sure.

[redsbengalsbucks]

How long was The guy from KC suspended for when he killed the person while drinking and driving?

Seems like GODell has to follow precedent set in his case on this one.

It was Leonard Little that I was thinking of, from the Rams, he recieved an 8 game suspension for his offense.

[ArmyBengal]

Honestly, I find myself ok with how this worked out. Does it appear lenient ?? I can agree that it does however, I'm not up to speed with every aspect of the case outside of what the media has reported and I don't really need to explain that one I don't think. What I do know is, Stallworth had no priors, took responsibility from the get go, and never tried to be anything but helpful with the authorities. How many times have we seen the rich person try to avoid or deny the whole thing completely ?? Stallworth was very remorseful through the whole ordeal and was more than willing to compensate the family without much thought.

From my understanding the compensation was closing in on the 5 million mark. When I got to thinking about it, if the case had gone to trial, there would have been all kinds of arguments to what actually happened. To that point, there were reports that the man killed was jaywalking. Does that go to justify what Stallworth did ?? No, he had been drinking. However, there was more to it than Stallworth simply running him over resulting in his death and I think a defense attorney would have played that up until they were blue in the face.

When push comes to shove, I actually applaud the parties involved to come to a resolution that was in the families best interest, as they were the victims here. Let's not forget his two year house arrest and 1000 hours of community service. I just think the family would have been the ones to suffer more had this gone to trial.