Posted on 12/08/2004 12:45:36 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
SKOWHEGAN -- A 26-year-old Fairfield man was sentenced to 18 months behind bars Tuesday for beating a 4-month-old wolf-hybrid puppy to death with his fists.
James Mayhew pleaded guilty to aggravated animal cruelty in Somerset County Superior Court. Superior Court Chief Justice Nancy Mills sentenced Mayhew to five years in prison with all but 18 months suspended. Mayhew will be on probation for four years after he is released.
Kennebec and Somerset County District Attorney Evert N. Fowle said Tuesday afternoon that his office treats animal cruelty cases seriously because studies show a link between abuse of animals and violence against humans.
"People who would abuse or torture innocent animals are people who would do the same (to humans) under the right circumstances," Fowle said.
It was the second time in less than a week that a prison sentence was handed down for the relatively rare felony charge of aggravated animal cruelty in Fowle's jurisdiction.
In Augusta last week, Superior Court Justice Joseph Jabar sentenced a Randolph man to four years behind bars for running over and killing his girlfriend's pregnant cat.
Jabar said the act amounted to domestic abuse because it was an attempt to control his girlfriend. One witness described the man "howling and laughing," before killing the cat.
In the Mayhew case, Fowle said there was no link to domestic violence. The Fairfield man was apparently upset because the puppy urinated in his apartment.
"He beat the dog to death because it urinated inside his residence, but the dog urinated because it was scared to death of him because of past abusive treatment," Fowle said.
Police said the puppy was beaten over a period of two months and died on July 31.
An autopsy concluded the puppy had a broken rib, a severely bruised lung and bruised muscles around the head and ears.
Police said at the time of Mayhew's arrest, a veterinarian who performed the autopsy concluded the puppy either bled to death or suffocated on its own blood.
Mayhew had no other pets or animals at his Mountain Avenue home. He apparently had seen the dog advertised for sale and bought it at eight or six weeks old.
... 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.
As opposed to now, you mean. < /sarcasm>
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...
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.
Er, I don't think that's quite the correct verb....
Anyone who would torture a domestic animal death would probably do the same to a human.
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
they already do...
OK, so we've confirmed that in your world, the two killers in Msg#77 would get precisely the same punishment. Check.
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.
Get it?
My bad...I was actually trying to reply to ScottM1968. Sorry!!
And you would be appropriately sent to jail for murder or attempted murder.
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?
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.
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.
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! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.