I assume people have read this:
Victim supports Vols signee convicted in crime | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean
. However, the heinous nature of some acts prevents the provision of a "second chance". <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice
ffice" /><o
></o
>
<o></o
>
Some Examples:<o></o
>
<o></o
>
· I don't think that a pedophile should be allowed to work in any occupation requiring their involvement with children. Ever.<o></o
>
<o></o
>
· It would be foolish to date OJ Simpson, and hope to see other people. Or next year. <o></o
>
<o></o
>
· That a governor would pardon and commute the sentence of a convicted inmate because the victim expressed her/his forgiveness of the original criminal act. <o></o
>
<o></o
>
Unfortunately, these are neither extreme nor overly-exaggerated examples, but rather, quite apt ones in comparison to the case of Daniel Hood. <o></o
>
<o></o
>
I personally believe it reasonable to assume that your involvement in the act of rape - especially with a 13-year old victim - should prevent your ability to serve as a representative of the University of Tennessee, in any regard, including that which is automatically bestowed to you as a member of its football team.
Apparently others more qualified than I, disagree with my assessment. That's ok. While I think it is a mistake, I can see where they believe themselves right in moving forward.
How is helping someone duct tape one of your female relatives, then assisting in the rape and torture ( and don't tell me being forcibly raped with a toilet plunger is NOT torture ) of that person, not considered comparable to the examples he gave??