When I first saw this headline, I thought it was another case of how we people off for hurting people, but punish them for hurting animals.
Then when I read it, I realised that if there was any anti-human bias, it was in the writer, not the courts.
"cruelty to animals, terroristic threats, arson, threatening a witness in an official proceeding, driving with a suspended license and possession of cocaine"
Of all those items, the most important to the writer was that he beat a puppy.
How about "drug-using arsonist sentenced after threatening witness".
That's exactly how it stuck me.
But, perhaps the writer thought it would get lost in all the other crimes reported each day.