I'm going to chose my words really carefully here, so please don't think I'd advocating something that I'm not. With that said, I find the argument, that's been made by some folks, that someone like Miller shouldn't be allowed to play pro hockey, perhaps ever, to be interesting/curious. Just step away a moment from the discussion around whether or not he as an individual has done enough to show remorse and make amends for his actions - for the record, as I've already said here, I don't think he has, and I don't think the Bruins should have signed him. But I'm just talking purely in the abstract, about a person who has done what Miller did, as a minor. Presumably the argument against allowing him to have a hockey contract is largely that he doesn't deserve to earn lots of money, and pro athletes in some sense at least are supposed to be role models and stand for integrity, inclusion etc.
Ok, if that's the case, where's the line drawn? It so happens that Miller is good at hockey and wants to make a career out of it - that's his desired path. The rewards that come with it are purely secondary. But if that is barred to him, what else is too? What occupations is he allowed to perform? And where's the threshold for redemption? What does he have to do and/or prove to earn back the right to be a hockey player, or a doctor, or a mechanic, or anything else? This raises all sorts of interesting ethical questions for which there are often no easy answers.
