I understand where Greg Couch is coming from here. He's a rational guy and he makes a rational argument about the appropriateness of Michael Vick owning a dog again.

On any number of levels, it's creepy. You won't get any argument from me there.

You will get an argument from me about whether or not he should be allowed to own an animal again.

If you say he shouldn't, then you allow for no possibility that the concept of redemption actually exists. I think it does. I think to believe otherwise is to basically give up hope on human beings, and the world will be a dark place indeed if that ever happens.

Here's the skinny: Vick has paid his debt to society. He's done everything, and more, that he's been asked to do. And while you'll never get rich banking on the sincerity of any individual, he seems to have fully embraced the hideousness of his crimes and is honestly trying to make amends for them.

Look, I get that for some people, there will never be any forgiveness. I even get why they feel that way. And I'd be fully onboard with them if the man resumed buying pitbulls and other fighting dogs again.

But a pet for his kids?

I think that's a totally different dynamic. And if you say he should have been barred from purchasing it, who are you hurting?

Not Vick. His kids. Who didn't have anything to do what their father did.

What purpose does that serve? And what principle of justice?