On May 18, 2014, after witnessing his 4-year-old son push another boy, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson grabbed a tree branch and struck the boy multiple times, leaving welts across his body.
Since the incident, Peterson has adamantly defended his actions, stating that his intentions were good, and he struck his son for the sole purpose of bettering the boy.
On Nov. 14, the running back pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor child injury charge. On Nov. 18, the NFL suspended him for at least the remainder of the season.
While politicians, media pundits and members of the general public have praised the tough suspension, I can’t help but wonder whether the action was fair, just or even beneficial for Peterson or for the NFL.
Peterson’s punishment unfair
As unpopular as it may be to say this given the nature of the charges levied against Peterson, the fact of the matter is that the running back’s punishment at the hands of the NFL was unfair.
Over the past half-decade, numerous NFL players have committed crimes ranging from non-violent misdemeanors to felony drug charges, gun charges and vehicular manslaughter. More often than not, the NFL has turned a blind eye to such matters.
Take, for instance, the case against former New Orleans Saints wide receiver Dante Stallworth, who received a one-year suspension after striking and killing a pedestrian while driving drunk in 2009.
Earlier this season, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was initially suspended for two games after knocking his wife unconscious. San Francisco 49ers linebacker Aldon Smith was suspended for half a season after pleading no contest to drunken driving and weapons charges.
The NFL has employed an “arbitrary, inconsistent and uneven discipline process since the beginning of the season,” said NFL Player Association director DeMaurice Smith, discussing Peterson’s suspension earlier this week.
Given the precedent of light suspensions for often-serious crimes, I agree with Smith. Peterson’s indefinite suspension was unfairly harsh.
Peterson’s punishment unjust
In addition to being unfair, Peterson’s suspension was unjust given the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty.
Regardless of the alleged facts surrounding the case, the fact of the matter is that Peterson pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor reckless assault.
While some might argue that the alleged facts of Peterson’s case distinguish it from normal reckless assaults, in the eyes of the law, Peterson is no different than any other petty criminal.
In the eyes of the U.S. justice system, justice will be served by levying probation, community service hours and a $4,000 fine against Peterson.
For the NFL to play the role of judge and greatly increase that sentence usurps the U.S. justice system and thus, seems unjust.
Peterson’s suspension benefits nobody
Last but not least, Peterson’s suspension for disciplining his child benefits no one. In such situations, harsh punishments such as incarcerations or suspensions do nothing.
Throughout his NFL career, Adrian Peterson was a model citizen who represented the league well. The running back was never a criminal, and when he struck his son with a switch, he was not ill-intentioned.
Sure, he was ignorant, but so are millions of other parents in this country.
Instead of suspending Peterson indefinitely, the NFL should have reinstated their star running back and educated him regarding proper disciplinary methods. By doing so, the league could educate countless other parents.
By providing such education and resisting a lengthy suspension, a fair result could have been accomplished, justice could have been served and parents throughout the United States could have benefited.