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.
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.
My example was a little apples to oranges, I admit. But it just seems to me to be excessive punishment. Even if the guy is a wacko, and he sure seems to be one, there must be some other way to handle him/her other than throwing them in prison for 4 or 5 years. And who needs new laws to help us live our lives. Not me.
Amen.
Exactly what I would do. Its called love - you love that dog and he loves you back. The difference between other animals and dogs is that dogs give you unconditional love back. How could you kill something that loves you back?
Agreed. Yours come readily to mind. If what you're preaching is conservatism, I want no part of it.
Well, unlike the PETA dipsticks, most rational people can differentiate between killing an animal for food and killing one for peeing on the floor.
They can live happily in their tin-foil hat universe, while most of us chomp on our nice juicy steaks. On the other hand, anyone who isn't disturbed by the wanton killing of an animal because the person lacks a concience or self-control probably would need to re-evaluate what is important.
No offense intended, but I think that you are just as extreme in your views as the PETA crowd. There is a happy medium, and most people can figure that out.
Excellent post, Bella.
This fellow is misguided.
Ah yes, the Bible does say we get to do what we want with animals: "You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Sorry the guy should walk no matter how sick and repugnant you think this is. The guy would have gotten less time for rape or robbery. What's really sick in principle and practice is giving animals any rights at all. It's a sick sick sick world that criminalizes puppy killing and legalizes baby killing.
I'm afraid this sicko will come out more dangerous than he went in.
I think he should have been subjected to some serious psychiatric study ... even more for society's good than his own.
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.