I didn’t watch the video, and didn’t intend my comments to be related to it. I’m just trying to determine what the elements of cruelty are – whether they include intentions as well as actions, and whether an act that is cruel to one species is cruel to all species.
That’s one thing I’ve found about prosecuting animal cruelty cases: I don’t have to negotiate. If the defendant’s attorney asks for a reduction in fine or sentence, I just say, “Nah, we can let a jury look at these pictures and see what they do to him. They’ll be a lot meaner than I will.” They know I’m right.
Last one I had involved a Great Dane that was so starved, it weighed 29 pounds. A Great Dane’s skeleton weighs about that much.
How does the sentencing compare to people convicted of crimes that could be described as ‘cruelty to humans’?
I think a lot of this has to do with the idea that animals are innocent and can’t deserve the maltreatment they receive. We all too easily believe that humans deserve to suffer for their real or imagined behavior.
I don’t want to get dragged into a “too much/not enough” hijack, so I’ll just say: an appropriate fine, jail sentence probated unless incarceration is indicated by the criminal history. The offer is the same I would offer for an assault of the same misdemeanor class.
I think your zeal is leading you to underestimate the amount of distress the deaths of horses caused to soldiers. John Keegan is only one of many historians to note that soldiers who have served alongside horses almost universally bitterly lament the deaths of horses in battle and report long-lasting emotional trauma.
I tend to think we view the animals as largely innocent in ways we don’t really allow ourselves to assume about humans. It’s worth noting, in regards to the OP’s point about movie violence toward humans, that “slasher movies” traditionally target their violence toward “teens having sex” (i.e., sinning) as well as less sympathetic characters who could (wrongly or rightly) be said to “have it coming.”
Cruelty to animals also doesn’t produce nearly as much economic benefit as cruelty to people.
I’m not sure I agree: if you look at Michael Vick, he has been able to be forgiven for some pretty horrible abuse of dogs, but OJ Simpson wasn’t.
Well, Vick went to jail and served his sentence. Simpson wasn’t convicted, and so most think he got away with murder.
I basically agree with the OP.
I think many people have more empathy for animals than humans.
There are two contributing factors:
Firstly, as a practical matter, it’s necessary to harden ourselves to the suffering of humans. I know you suffer like I do, but I also know your basic needs are equal in magnitude to mine – and I have enough trouble trying to fulfil my own basic needs. And I need to be wary of bad guys out there, some of which may try to use my empathy to take advantage of me.
The second factor is how we tend to perceive animals in the modern world. Most people believe that animals, at least mammals, suffer physically, and to a large extent mentally, like us. Many people believe animals can show affection and even love. But most people don’t see animals as ever being evil or spiteful; if they’re ever aggressive, that’s just a knee-jerk instinct.
So they’re perfectly innocent, much more so even than a human infant.