I saw an irritating headline over at Pajamas Media, "Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?" Without even reading the column, let me answer the question, "No." Michael Vick doesn't deserve a second chance, neither do you, neither do I.

Giving someone a second chance is an act of grace. Yet, we use the language of entitlement to describe an act of grace. Grace, by its definition is unmerited favor. It is something that you don't, by definition, deserve. When people speak of deserving a second chance, or of deserving mercy, they're making a fundamentally flawed proposition. They are using the language of merit in place of the language of grace. Deserve is the language of justice. Justice is ultimately when you get exactly what you deserve, and most of us would not be happy with that outcome.

Part of the reason why our society is less gracious than in year's past is we believe that we deserve acts of grace. We think we deserve a second chance, we deserve mercy, we deserve to be forgiven, and we deserve to be given a break. No, if we deserved any of those things, we would not need them. However, as we think we are entitlted to them, we don't appreciate them when we get them. And because we don't appreciate that we've been given something that we don't deserve, we will often repeat the conduct that led to the offense in the first place and once again expect what we believe we're entitled.

The question should not be, "Is X entitled to a second chance?" rather it ought to be, "Should we give X a second chance?" It's a far more profound and gets to the heart of the matter.