Skip to comments.Man Gets 18 Months For Beating Puppy To Death
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.
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.
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! :)
I never commented on your positing. I only said what I have stated.
You put words into my mouth by saying I thought such things.
A drowning death for a newborn pup is a lot more merciful than beating a 4 month old puppy to death with your fists.
This sicko didn't euthanize an animal; he tortured it for 2 months until it finally died. Big difference.
Well, that too...but first they get a good beatdown...and then they become Bubba's personal shower-toy...(oh yuck!)
Nope. Shooting an obviously out-of-control thug on a rampage in your own home (which is presumably where one's pets are to be found) is clearcut self-defense. Any DA who would bring charges needs to be removed from office.
At the very least, he should be sterilized. Just imagine how he'll deal with a baby or toddler that doesn't potty train fast enough for him.
You said that it was unjust to consider likelihood of future crime when handing down punishment for past crime. That statement inexorably leads to the conclusion that the two cases described in Msg#77 are to be punished identically.
You staked out your position; you're stuck with its logical implications.
Statistically speaking, those who have become serial murderers started out torturing and killing animals.
Your post confirms who's a DUmmy and who is not. Lord help anyone who deals with you on a daily basis.
Give it up... you know there is a difference between now and then. Was it wrong then to do that sure.. it was pretty damn cruel to kill an animal that way, but there were not laws on the books then that they could be charges with. there are now, and we know much more now about how to determine whether the psychology involved is a socio-path or a farmer that need to control population.
Animal rights activists take your argument and extrapolate it to its logical conclusion--that any animal cruelty is wrong.
This means all slaughter of animals is inherently wrong, regardless of intent.
We must retain an "animals are property" stance or we are all screwed if we eat meat.
And that kind of logic is how people like James Mayhew slide in under the radar, until they start killing off fellow humans. If his crime is prosecuted for being the henious act that it is, all to the good. He should also be psychologically evaluated while in prison, to determine the extent of his likely pathologies, and therefore his risk to society in general. After he serves his time, he ought to be followed up with by a shrink if he has a serious mental problem, as a condition of his four-year parole. As a previous poster stated, the fear of punishment is usually the only thing that keeps people like that under control. Sadly, even that doesn't always work.
Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.
This gives me a glimmer of why you take the position you do.
OMG that is sooo sick. He deserves to be beat up himself!
Disagree. 5 years hard labor would have been much more fitting.
No way. I'm all for locking up sick sadistic freaks like this nutbar. Luckily, I'm confident that a vast majority of Americans share my views.
"We can shun people who do gross things to animals, but what more should be really do, when we gleefully look forward to a nice fillet mignon for our personal pleasure?
Well, now. I eat meat. I hunt. What I do not do...ever...is intentionally be cruel to an animal, pet or wild.
Yes, my cats are my property. If you steal them, you'll get to go to jail. If I beat them to death, I will go to jail.
We have laws about cruelty to animals. You can slaughter meat animals if you wish, but you can't beat a puppy to death just because it peed on your floor.
Amazing that you cannot see the difference. Please don't have any pets, OK?
Most conservatives do not tolerate senseless cruelty in anyway. Beating a puppy to death because it isn't housebroken is not at all related to killing a a dog that is attacking you.
Unless you are a metrosexual who is that offended over your carpet getting soiled.
My dog for instance is a mixed mutt that I got from the humane society. If he were out on the street, he'd probably be picked up and euthanized. Pretty much worthless.
And yet, I care more about that dog than I do about most humans. If someone came up and killed my dog deliberately, I would probably shoot that person or tear them apart. I wouldn't care about prison or the monetary worth of a dog. I'd just kill the SOB. I can't explain it logically but rest assured it is true. People get upset about these things.
Should the law be written to reflect our emotions? Probably not. Just realize that my dog is not some cow or chicken, he's my partner. The law can't really account for that.
"My argument is the only rational one," by contrast, is not.
Hence, the gentle visual reminder, earlier. :)
You seem to think that common sense of the people is not very great... I think our politicians and law makers know where to draw the line. You don't give you fellow man much credit.. and after you arguments here I am not willing to afford you much credit either.
Then following your logic, I'm definately not disordered. 5 years seems about right for sadistically beating a 4 month old puppy to death. I'd never let the monster that did it to a 4 month old human infant see the light of day, so all is well. Human life is treated with significantly more value.
That being said, it's disturbing as hell that we actually have freepers who think this was fine and dandy.
WOW! Now that is very liberal! VERY....~~~ sigh~~~
To borrow from you, sweet cheeks, how sad to see such on FR ;)
You may not recall the big animal rights protests of the late 80's and early 90's, but they logically made the same argument all of you are making. But they rightfully made it against any killing of animals.
I am a geezerette, so I remember Sherman's March to the Sea.
What people are against on this tread are saying (for the b'zillionth time...so pay attention)
They are against the intentional suffering of animals. NO ONE HERE as said that they don't want any animals killed. We just know that those who torture animals for fun, are dangerous, mentally ill, and do it to PEOPLE at a later date.
I have skinned, gutted, scaled, plucked and cleaned many a supper. But everyone one of those critters wasn't the end result of a twisted minds day at play.
It they had been, the owner of said twisted mind would have been skinned, gutted, scaled and plucked.
You see, their perspective is perfectly consistent. When you buy it in part, you buy it in whole because our juries can see the logical progression.
No darlin' you are the one that doesn't get it.
(Lean closer sweetie, I think your hearing is defective)
Pleasure derived from killing/torturing said animal is what we are condemning.
The "animals have rights" line of thought will force vegetarianism upon us all. Which is precisely what PETA wants.
Oh please! You sound like Daddy who swore desegregation would end the white race by 1972. He also thought a black model on the cover of Glamour in 1969 was clear evidence that communists had taken over New York (OK, so he was half right)
No one will become vegetarian against their will. As a society progresses, we become more humane and aware of needless suffering. Practices considered OK a 100 years ago are now viewed as 'inhumane' (Bear baiting, check reigns (sp) etc).
We also become extremely aware of the strong correlation between those who get off on torturing an animal and the progression onto human victims.