Rant #1,621: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

The Aroldis Chapman domestic violence mess has finally been judged by Major League Baseball, and you really have to ask yourself if the punishment fits the crime.

Last October, Chapman, then still a Cincinnati Red, got into a violent altercation with his girlfriend at their home. He allegedly choked her, and then took a gun and shot several shots into his garage.

The police came, he was taken away, but his girlfriend declined to press any charges. She was not hurt, had no marks on her body, and without her cooperation, any legalities were thrown to the wind, and there was no case.

However, MLB was alerted to what had supposedly happened, or didn't happen, and that is where the problems started.

Can you punish a player for a heinous crime that, according to this situation's outcome, might not have happened, or if it did happen, there were no legalities pursued, so in the eye of the law, there was no crime committed?

You might remember that the National Football League ran itself into a public quagmire that it could never free itself from with its own players involved in domestic violence.

The league was slow to act or did nothing, and the public backlash against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell was quick and all encompassing.

Certainly new baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred did not want to get into that, but how do you handle a crime that, at least according to the law, was not committed?

After a long review, Chapman was given a 30-game suspension, which will take place at the beginning of the regular season, which pretty much means that he will have April and part of May off, and that is that. He can still participate in spring training, but he will lose about $2 million in pay for his indiscretion or possible indiscretion.

It is not a stiff punishment, per se, but it is a punishment.

Again, how can you punish someone for an action that the law of the land found to not have happened or at least without the cooperation of the other party, could not be tried to the fullest extent of the law?

There is a behavior clause in each and every baseball contract. It is rarely invoked, because by and large, major league baseball players behave themselves. There have been times here and there where the clause has had to be invoked--it certainly came up during the Alex Rodriguez investigation--but generally, it is in each contract and sits there unused.

But in this case where Chapman's conduct came into question, whether anything as heinous as what we originally heard actually happened or not, it put a stain on baseball, a stain on Chapman, and that stain had to be taken care of.

And that is why MLB is allowed to punish a player who, legally, didn't do anything, or at least didn't do anything that was punishable by the law.

Not only is there a behavior clause, but there is also a domestic violence policy in place in MLB, and that is where they got Chapman, even though he might not have done anything related to domestic violence.

The mere possibility is enough to suspend him.

As I said, this is very complicated.

Chapman throws the ball 100 mph on occasion, but he also threw himself for a loop by even the suggestion that the actions against his girlfriend occurred.

Even the suggestion that he did something threw off the Los Angeles Dodgers, who originally wanted this player on their team. They backed off on a deal with the Reds, and the New York Yankees came into the picture.

Having to deal with the ARod backlash over the past few seasons, the Yankees still couldn't be prepared for the backlash they got over their trade for Chapman.

But they are weathering the storm, having said they knew what they were getting into when they traded for him, and would monitor the steps leading up to any punishment, crossing that bridge when they got there.

Well, they got there all right, and Chapman, to his credit, won't fight the charge. He had said in the past that he would, and the player's union backed him.

But he came to his right mind on this. Take your punishment, learn from it, and don't involve the union or your new team in this shenanigan.

As it is, MLB is not done with domestic violence cases.

Really, the Chapman case might be the appetizer, but the main course is coming, and coming soon.

Jose Reyes is involved in another such case, but his case is actually going to trial in early April, right as the 2016 season commences. And there is also the Yasiel Puig case to deal with, another one that appears to be headed to court.

So Chapman's case may set the bar, but the Reyes and Puig cases, and their outcome, will really show how strong a stand MLB is going to take on such matters.

Chapman got 30 games, and even that is kind of odd, since PED users can get 50 games for their first misstep, and ARod got an entire year off to ponder what he did.

What's worse, beating up your partner or taking PEDs?

Again, this is very complicated, but it doesn't lessen the impact of domestic violence, one of society's worst crimes.

And you have to applaud MLB for doing something about it, right at the get go, and not putting its head in the sand like the NFL did.

They certainly learned from what the NFL went through, that this is not the way for a league to act when one of its players does something so appalling.

But again, it all goes back to that behavior clause in the MLB players' contracts, and the domestic violence policy that was recently enacted.

Without that clause and the policy, Chapman would have gotten off scott-free, but on the other hand, the law never prosecuted him for his supposed actions.

This is a legal quagmire, indeed, but MLB has taken a stand, and you can't argue with them.

Let's see what happens in the Reyes and Puig cases. Based on the Chapman case, even if found innocent, they will receive suspensions for their supposed actions.

Will the union back them, or will they take their punishment, even if it was found that they did nothing wrong or at least legally, they did nothing wrong?

Just the suggestion that they were involved in such heinous activity is enough to suggest that they should receive some punishment, but what happens in a situation where the significant other simply lied, for whatever reason, about such a situation--will the innocent player still receive a punishment simply by being implicated in a lie?

It becomes a "he said, she said" thing, and people do get themselves entangled in situations that may find them to be stupid, but not legally liable.

Yes, this is complicated, isn't it?