A Friday Editorial: Stallworth and Goodell

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 9:12 AM PDT in Daily Links Comment 31 comments

Roger Goodell has become notorious for doling out fines and suspensions to NFL Players. He has drawn criticism from a fair number of players for the zeal and inconsistency with which he hands down fines for hard hits, even hits that are deemed legal by the referees on the field. While the line between what is and isn't a legal hit has become murkier, one thing is abundantly clear: Roger Goodell wants his league to be straight-laced.

I've never met Donte Stallworth. I saw him play a few times in college, and I've seen a few of his games in the NFL. I don't know if he speaks with a Scottish accent or prefers soy milk to dairy. Like everyone else, I've read the publicly released facts of the incident he was involved in. Before spending his court-determined 30 days in jail, a contrite Stallworth made amends with the family of the man he struck and killed. That doesn't in any way excuse what happened, but it does show that Stallworth at least cares enough to try. What you may not have yet seen is that Stallworth has been suspended indefinitely by the league.

After Lofa Tatupu was arrested for a DUI, he received no suspension. Odell Thurman initially received a 4-game suspension for his latest DUI, which then was stretched into a year because of his fairly extensive history. Jared Allen received a 4-game suspension only after his second DUI within a year. Marshawn Lynch was involed in a hit-and-run incident and received only 3 games of suspension. I understand that Stallworth's actions had a much more grave outcome, but the mistake he made is identical to that of the other four players while the punishment will likely be vastly different.

The suspension then is based not just on the decisionmaking of Stallworth but rather on the bad luck of the circumstances. What happened is sad and regrettable, but to some extent Stallworth is being punished for generating bad PR. I understand that it's within Goodell's right as Commissioner to make that call, but I'd like consistency out of the man running the league. Just because Jared Allen and Odell Thurman were lucky enough to not hit someone doesn't mean they made better decisions. In fact, they made the same bad decision multiple times. Lynch hit a pedestrian and drove off without accepting responsibility for his actions, yet somehow it's Stallworth and his zero prior incidents are set to become an example of the league.

*It's worth noting that I have very little sympathy for Stallworth. He will have to live with this for the rest of his life, and hopefully he does something good with that.

1 recs | Comment 31 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting,

and well said.

by Dukeshire on Jun 19, 2009 10:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've been making much the same argument

But not about NFL suspensions, but about the way the law handles DUIs, period. It is odd that the same mistake gets a way heavier punishment simply because your luck is running low.

That said, it’s how the law works. Unless you disagree with that as well, it’s odd to complain about Goodell being as consistent about DUI vs involuntary manslaughter as the law is.

Stallworth got off with an amazingly light sentence, too, but it is what it is.

by Vasilii on Jun 19, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think, in my head, the justice system exists to punish people for the process and result of their crimes.

I’d prefer the league left “justice” up to the courts, and penalized players mostly with respect to their decisions (and did so consistently). I think the league’s goal should be hold their players accountable to their teammates, opponents, ownership, and fans.

That said, I understand completely how you could argue your second point.

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've always seen the justice system as a means to maintain order

not punish. What could be proper punishment for taking a life?

The aims of the justice system should be to prevent Stallworth from recidivism and discourage others from committing the same crime. The crime is not killing someone; it’s driving while intoxicated. That Stallworth did kill someone is, as you pointed out, bad luck. That Stallworth did kill someone is exactly why DUI is a crime, because it’s inherently dangerous. The proper means to protect life is not to increase the punishment when a life is taken. Obviously, no one intended a fatal collision. It’s to increase the punishment of the dangerous act itself. DUI laws in America are outrageously lax.

I think Goodell is thinking about the image of the NFL, and to that end he’s probably making the right decision. People are pissed about Stallworth. People think his sentence was too light. Goodell is seizing on that. Stallworth and justice are not that important to Goodell. He’s only interested in the business of the NFL. He’s taking bad PR and turning it into good PR.

by John Morgan on Jun 19, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess the difference between us is I don't see the Stallworth decision as good PR.

I’ve never really been big on throwing Frankenstein to the angry mob just to make your own position look better.

If Goodell wants to send the right message about actions, he should be treating all player DUIs equally instead of handling players specifically based on how badly the public reacts to whatever it is that they did.

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats idealistic though

Goodell’s job is to care about the angry mob.

And I think we’re being a little unfair to Goodell. His policy isn’t set in stone but it seems that first time DUI offenses get 0-1 games, second time offenses get ~4 games and previous encounters with the law or behavior and attitude after you offenses can add or subtract from those totals. As different as all of the situations you listed were they were all handled similarly.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 19, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are describing the right thing to do

but the prudent thing is to act swiftly, distance the league from the unpopular player and pass judgment when opinion has stabilized. Right now, because people are pissed, an “indefinite” suspension sounds ominous. It agrees with the vengeful, cynical and forgiving alike. It could even be an attempt to do the right thing, but only after public outcry has subsided. A suspension of any length less than a lifetime suspension is sure to anger some and feed the ghouls that are exploiting this story to make money. When the ghouls have moved on, the suspension can be determined in a more rational atmosphere.

I think Goodell’s move is good business and that’s what the NFL excels at.

by John Morgan on Jun 19, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, it's still June.

It’s two and a half months before there’s any games or paychecks for Stallworth to miss.

by bewrong on Jun 19, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's quite simple really.

If Goodell suspends all the starters, they’ll have more rest for him to extend the season.

P.S. Kick Pacman out of the league already, damnit.

by Trepidation on Jun 19, 2009 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What happens on the Field - should it stay

One of the points in this column got me thinking about how we expect players to act on the field – "He has drawn criticism from a fair number of players for the zeal and inconsistency with which he hands down fines for hard hits, even hits that are deemed legal by the referees on the field"

Jumping the sports barrier – there was some controversy about LeBron James walking off the court in anger after losing the Eastern Conference finals to the Magic, because he did not show proper respect. I have no problem with this, because he’s competing.

I know Goodell wants to clean up the image of the NFL, and in some respects he is correct. On the field, however, when players are throwing themselves around, hits are going to be hard and unless they are blatantly illegal or out of line, the fines for hard hits are stupid. Off the field, however, his attempt to clean up how the players act is laudable. Athletes are role models – they get paid millions to violently hurt themselves on the field, yes, but they are also paid those millions for the stress of being in the public spotlight.

Having said that, the comparable punishment of Stallworth and Allen is ridiculous. DUI’s should be treated harsher around the board, because it’s just bloody stupid. Athletes are young and all that, but so are lots of people. They’re paid to represent a community.

by Jerikantilles on Jun 19, 2009 12:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree

It’s caused me to really lose respect for Goodell. Noble cause and well intended, but he’s a sherriff shooting from the hip. Even between Belichick and that Cowboys coach who was taking steroids because of some medical condition. No consistency. The Cowboys coach, he’s on the staff, and steroids is publicly the more deplorable form of cheating, and it’s more egregious in that regard. He could have been lying about taking them himself. I understand suspension. But there were no suspensions from Spygate.

Whether Belichick was adequately punished or not is arbitrary. I didn’t think it came close, but I faced solid reasoned arguments from those who think it did. I don’t care to argue that, but simply that Goodell’s judgment is all over the map. Knee-jerk reaction. Consistency is sorely needed, and establishing some defined protocol for the breadth of issues that athletes find themselves in would display proactiveness over reactiveness.

by jacobstevens on Jun 19, 2009 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I just want to interject a question, and have enjoyed this discussion from many of it's participants.

Do you think the vagarious punishments create a deterrent? I mean if an athlete knows that a DUI is a set 2-game suspension, he might be able to live with that consequence and risk making that choice. If the same athlete is presented with that choice (to drive drunk or not, etc) and the punishment from the NFL could be almost anything from 0-lifetime ban, well, wouldn’t that make someone think twice? Maybe not in the irrational state of drunkenness does a person evaluate said punishments, but with fair certainty would such considerations be made with other off-the-field choices that would likely bear consequences handed down by the league. I wonder if Goddell is using random punishments as a deterrent towards future infractions of the policy.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 19, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good question

They probably don’t directly serve as a strong deterrent, but the awareness that these spectacles bring about, probably provides an opportunity for reflection that guys who maybe were otherwise a little breezy and wouldn’t have considered consequences of their actions as much would then ponder a bit more and come out on the other side a bit more mature, and with more restraint. Dunno if that makes sense. But as a pure deterrent, probably not.

by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh kinda...

The thing with this case is that the prior DUI folks were setting the foundation for the punishments under Goodell.

For example:

Lofa…never had a prior incident, didn’t receive a suspension. Whereas Allen messed up prior to his latest DUI, so he got suspended. If Lofa messes up a 2nd time, then he’ll get Allens penalty.

Now we’d all like to think…a DUI is a DUI…stupid mistake no matter what the outcome is. However prior to Stallworth, no one had actually drove while intoxicated and actually KILLED a man. Yes it was the same mistake as Allen, Lofa, Lynch, etc….but obviously they didn’t kill a person. That right there instantly makes this a whole other issue that needs to be handled on it’s own. There’s no way you can sit there, suspend him 4 games by saying …oh he made the same mistake as Allen so I’ll punish him the same…while it is correct in theory, there is no way that would be an acceptable punishment for such a horrible dumb decision.

Now that Stallworth has gone further than everyone else with the whole DUI, then maybe now he’s the foundation for the punishments to come after him….he obviously took the actions of a DUI and took them to the next level…since he did something beyond everyone prior, then he needed to be punished as such…and people after him will be punished based on this decision.

With that said…I would have punished Lynch much harder than what he got. This guy did a hit and run for starters. Stallworth actually stopped and was very cooperative with the police and investigation. Lynch drove off and left a person laying on the street and then preceeded to do a run-around with the law, not talking with cops and hiding out. It took him like what…a week or two before he talked? He painted himself guilty right off the bat and obviously lied about what happened.

So Lynch’s punishment is the wrong one in this entire bunch…While yes, Stallworth did make a mistake and it showed that he cared about his actions…he still fucked up big time and his punishment is just in my book. If he cares or not…it doesn’t matter. His actual court sentence was extremely light anyways, he should consider himself lucky.

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Jun 19, 2009 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He didn't really take it to the next level.

The guy he hit had been working all night, was elderly, was in a hurry, and jay-walking. Stallworth was driving on a busy street in a busy metroplex, so was obviously going with the flow of traffic. I don’t see how his intoxication had any impact. An old, sleepy guy stepped off the curb in front of him. The sober guy in the car behind Stallworth would have hit him too.

I’m not defending drunk driving here. I’m just saying in this case that Stallworth did not “[take] the actions of a DUI and took them to the next level”.

by bewrong on Jun 19, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not fair to speculate and draw baseless conclusions about the mechanics of the accident.

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's also a major exaggeration to use 'baseless'.

by bewrong on Jun 19, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baseless: (adj.) Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded.

Unless you were at the scene, it’s pretty difficult to know the exact circumstances. It’s also difficult to know how impaired Stallworth was or was not, and how exactly that affected his actions. We don’t know that the victim was “sleepy”, and we don’t know that the sober guy behind Stallworth would have hit him as well.

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While I disagree, this is basically opinion v. opinion.

The only resolution is for me to quit; the sooner I do, the less I agitate you.

by bewrong on Jun 19, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are always welcome to have an opinion. That's what makes conversation interesting.

Please remember the difference between an opinion on a topic (like most of the comments and my original piece) and facts.

by abender20 on Jun 19, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not the same mistake

You are comparing intent with these examples and calling it “the same mistake.”

Say a bank robber carries a gun to a crime. The robbery was late at night and no one was there. Suddenly a guard jumps him and there is a struggle. The bank robber doesn’t even pull the gun but it fires anyway and kills the guard. That is murder, regardless of intent.

I don’t consider a DUI fatality to be any different. You kill someone while (knowingly)breaking the law. In essence, you step inside a vehicle, with a loaded weapon, and may or may not pull the trigger on someone.

Trash my analogy all you want, but if while you are breaking the law, someone dies, then that is murder. No matter how remorseful you are, your actions have caused irreparable harm. Goodell’s punishment reflects the outcome, not the intent.

It’s unfortunate that

by Havik on Jun 19, 2009 2:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Killing someone while breaking the law is not murder.

It’s a homicide and can be, like Stallworth’s was, a manslaughter. Murder requires premeditation.

by John Morgan on Jun 19, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Usually that's the case...

But not always. If someone is killed in the commission of certain felonies, the penalty of murder can apply. DUI have usally been treated differently, but intent to murder is not always a prerequisite. In the above instance, simply carrying a gun to a robbery supplies the required intent.

I agree with the comments about intent vs outcome. The law balances all sorts of things, a simple DUI is judged less harshly than a DUI where someone is killed. Intent, outcome, negligence, etc, the law must balance all those factors. Sadly, when looking at Goodell’s track record punishing players, I think we’ll find that the law is not really any more consistent than the commissioner himself. Should it be done better, now? Absolutely.

by d.alexander on Jun 19, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Felony Murder It's Called

A killing that occurs during the commission of a felony (burglary, robbery, rape etc.) is considered murder, legally speaking, and the perpetrator is eligible for the same level of punishment as if they’d walked up to the victim on the street and just gunned them down.

Additionally, anyone who is a co-perpetrator is also guilty of felony murder. So, if instead of being drunk, Stallworth and I were speeding away from a bank robbery we’d just committed, and ran a pedestrian down, we’d BOTH be guilty of felony murder regardless of who was driving. Similarly, if he and I are holding up a jewelry store, he goes nuts and blows away the store clerk, I’m on the hook for felony murder even if I didn’t have a weapon.

Most of the time, with criminal law, you are responsible for the outcome of your actions (or the likely outcome of your attempted actions), not on what you may have truly intended to do. What John said earlier is also true, enforcement of DUI laws is very lax. There’d be little question if Stallworth had killed this guy by accidentally shooting him. It’s generally considered poor form to carry a loaded gun around, and the law will come down on you if someone ends up dead because of that. But getting behind the wheel of a car when intoxicated just isn’t considered as reckless, even though the potential harm to other people (and the perpetrator too) is arguably much higher.

by Kumar on Jun 21, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

unfinished thought

It’s unfortunate that bad things happen while we are being stupid (DUI), but we are punished for what we do. Not what we don’t do. Tatupu got McDonalds while drunk. Stallworth killed someone. It should be a lesson to try and be stupid as little as possible. Who knows what are actions will cause.

by Havik on Jun 19, 2009 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There is either something wrong with the justice system, the NFL, or both.

Michael Vick kills a bunch of dogs, and he gets a couple years time. Donte Stallworth runs over a guy and ends his life, and he gets 30 days. He’s also suspended indefinitely. Leonard Little did the same thing, got 90 days in prison but only an 8 game suspension. If Stallworth misses more than that many games, something is wrong.

Or maybe I’m not looking into the fine details of either situation, that could be true as well. But from a glance, it’s just so odd…

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 19, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And for the record, I dislike Roger Goodell and the job he's done since taking over if that has to do with anything.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 19, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vick was jailed for RICO.

The cross state line gambling involved in the dog fights is what brought him down. It is a serious offense. He too got off easy.

by Built2Spill on Jun 19, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

RICO?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jun 20, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

RICO for short. Put in place originally to ease in prosecuting the mafia, it increases penalties if the defendant is acting as part of a criminal organization. Bad Newz Kennels was going to be considered a criminal organization so they could hit Vick with a heavy sentence. He would have faced a long, long time in jail if there hadn’t been a plea bargain.

by thebyron on Jun 20, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have a friend who was in a DUI accident.

The other driver, in a head-on collision mind you, suffered a broken leg. The driver, who had a passenger that suffered a minor injury and that caused the accident got 17 months (of which 10 months was prison time) on two counts of vehicular assault. That person, unfortunately, was not a millionaire..

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 19, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs