It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment. Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.
Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done. For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.
Apparently those days are gone forever. Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation. Domestic violence is abhorrent. And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent. Although one would not know that by current standards. A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice. The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men. Women get a pass. Not sure why...but they do.
In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence. If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete. The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element. Is that right? Should there be a discussion about that. If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family? Does that make sense? Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything? Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge. Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion? Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic. Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.
And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also. It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events. Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise). And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.
Fair is fair. Equal is equal. What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.
Let us have this discussion...