make a living.

I see people on DU all the time talking about the importance of allowing criminals to re-enter the workforce to help prevent them from relapsing and simply living a life of crime. Does that logic exclude football players? If so, why?

If he'd been arrested for shoplifting while working at 7-11, he'd have lost that job and would never get it back.

To have him back on the field when his victim has just barely regained consciousness? Seems a bit premature, to be honest.

When did his wife regain consciousness?

I just pointed out that we believe businesses should be more understanding and willing to hire convicted criminals. People seem to suspend that belief in some situations.

The case is admittedly complicated by the fact that his victim isn't pursuing the matter, but it's not accurate to equate this case to cases in which a convicted offender can't find work after being released from jail.

Do we, as a community, think it is acceptable to not give people jobs because of a crime we know they committed, but they cannot be legally convicted of?

I guess I am fine either way, because we can demand it and, if economically smart, the company will follow.

Ray Rice would appear to qualify to be reinstated under that rule.

When he is reinstated, y'all can blame Goodell for soft-selling the first punishment. As is very obvious, Godell had all the information and gave him the piddling two game suspension. Then when the video (which Goodell almost certainly knew of, if he didn't see) caused a public furor, Goodell punished him again. That's all well and good, but the Players contract has an explicit stipulation barring multiple punishments for the same offense, so the indefinite suspension was illegitimate.

He's still got to get a team to hire him, which is probably a long shot.

Michael Vick spent several years in jail, and publicly suffered serious consequences for his crimes. Ray Rice looks like he got off nearly scot free, and I think teams (potential employers) will have a hard time getting over that.

Running backs are essentially a dime a dozen in the NFL.

A superior running back, in today's NFL, is only marginally better than a mediocre one.

Teams also will not want NOW and other women's groups protesting outside or during their games. Essentially, NFL teams are marketing organizations, and have spent an astronomical amount of time and money to appeal to women.

No team will willingly suffer the consequences of a hire like this, for a marginal improvement at this position.

I agree with so many teams going to a committee approach. I could see AP getting on somewhere, as he is one of the few that really dominate.

his previous team is doing just fine without him. Ray Rice will likely find offers but not at nearly what he was making because frankly there is little evidence out there that says you aren't right. Most dominate backs don't stay so for long and it is not hard to find a league average back that comes without the negative PR. I expect Rice to find a team in the off season after he's at least shown to be incident free for a year.

as a PR stunt to divert attention from the NFL's dishonest "what did we know and when" message.