Man Gets 18 Months For Beating Puppy To Death

MaineToday.com ^ | 12/08/04 | Alan Crowell

[exnavychick]

... he will come out unemployable and hardened and there is a good chance he will have been turned into a real threat to society.
___________________________________________________________

Here's the rub, my friend. By killing the puppy-who wasn't killed for food, or because it was attacking him-he has ALREADY demonstrated his threat to society! He preyed on something weaker than him and that couldn't properly defend itself...what do you want to bet that several humans might very well fit into that category? THAT is the point.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

and there is a good chance he will have been turned into a real threat to society.

As opposed to now, you mean. < /sarcasm>

[blinachka]

OMG that is sooo sick. He deserves to be beat up himself!

He likely will be when his fellow inmates find out what he's in prison for...Apparently those who harm children or animals seem to get their butts kicked when in jail..some sort of convicts code or something...

[leadpencil1]

In the old days (and it probably still happens), when the farm cat or dog had another litter, it was into the burlap sack with a rock and into the river off the bridge. Not nice, but we better start rounding those people up if the majority on this thread have their way.

[steve-b]

those who harm children or animals seem to get their butts kicked when in jail

Er, I don't think that's quite the correct verb....

[ScottM1968]

I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

I have also stated that people are not property, as animals are.

We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.

Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property.

My argument is the only rational answer.

[chris1]

Anyone who would torture a domestic animal death would probably do the same to a human.

[Muleteam1]

Sound logic. Let me know when you run for judge. You've got my vote.

I think some of these people were seconds in the movie called "Hang 'em High." Sort of scary for our jury system of justice.

Muleteam1

[Americanwolf]

they already do...

[steve-b]

I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

OK, so we've confirmed that in your world, the two killers in Msg#77 would get precisely the same punishment. Check.

[superiorslots]

To all you people who think this guy received too harsh a sentance:

Work in my wife's veterinary clinic for a while a see abused pets. You will change your tune. I'm still bothered by stuff I saw that happened 7-10 years ago.

[wideawake]

Putting down animals you can't afford to feed is different from getting your jollies from killing animals.

Get it?

[exnavychick]

My bad...I was actually trying to reply to ScottM1968. Sorry!!

[ScottM1968]

And you would be appropriately sent to jail for murder or attempted murder.

[Durus]

What do you think would have happened "in the old days" if some stranger had come onto the farm and killed a productive farm animal just for some kicks?

[fritzz]

Your point is well taken. An animal is physical property and should not be treated any differently than vandalism.

But, with all the cuddling, softness and best friend stuff, you might as well pack in this logic. Soon, juries will be awarding pain and suffering to the owners of dogs, etc.

[steve-b]

We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

Manslaughter is also among "people", and thus logically equivalent if the distinction between "somebody who isn't likely to ever do it again" and "somebody who chooses to be a thug" is rejected.

Really, I would have thought that DU, not FR, was in need of this sort of Moral Philosophy 101 lesson.

[najida]

Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.

That is up to the individual who has a pet or an animal in their life to decide. To many, MANY people, they have great value in more ways than can be counted...and not all monetary.

My argument is the only rational answer.

Darlin', if they ain't a liberal statement, I don't know what is! :)