Just for some perspective, if this were a person that had been killed, the highest charge that would be likely to be successfully brought against the guy in Wisconsin would be 2nd degree reckless homicide. This is based on a story I read citing 10 kicks to the dog and assuming no way to demonstrate intent. For perspective, a guy in a high profile case recently pled guilt to 2nd degree reckless and was sentenced to 9 years in (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/33815309.html).
Finally, I looked up the defendant in the state court database and he has a small, but important criminal record. Felony bail jumping charges as well as convictions indicating drinking problems (OWI/disorderly conduct). If this were his first incident with the criminal justice system he’d have a minimal jail sentence or possibly just be on probation. Also, he went to trial which is a guarantee of a bigger sentence. The county court knows him well and are probably glad to put him away. I think you’re probably dealing with an alcoholic, violent person who is out of control. Will prison change that? Possible, but unlikely.
Holy crap. When I clicked the initial link, I thought it was a dead dog. Remarkable that he survived in that kind of state. I don’t really get sentimental or misty-eyed with animals, but that story did get to me.
Because one is suffering, the other is not. We have a social agreement across all cultures that, for better or worse, we “rule” over the rest of the planet’s cretures, and therefore, generally speaking, have a “right” to control them, including ending their lives. Where many people, including myself, draw the line, is at causing them to suffer. They have no knowledge of death. They have perfect knowledge of pain, and the more highly developed animals have equally highly developed emotions, meaning that “pain” can be emotional and psychological as well.
So you are a vegan who forgoes leather, mousetraps and the benefits of animal research? Unless we go to considerable lengths expressly to avoid it, humans use animals. I don’t see anything wrong with the idea that if we are to use animals, and sometimes take their lives, we can try to be decent about it. It degrades us otherwise.
I heard a story once from a friend who is a hunter. He came upon a deer by the side of the road which had been mangled by a vehicle hit. It was struggling greatly to get up but could not. He quickly pulled over and dispatched it. The part that bothered him most was the other people on the road–the one who’d hit it and driven off, and the others passing by. He was upset that other people could see an animal in such obvious and extreme distress and not do something.
As to humans, I think most would agree, there too are non-lethal scenarios in which certain treatments are worse than quick killing. Advocating the death penalty is still accepted as a serious political position in our country (though in decline), but advocating torture for torture’s sake really isn’t.
Reading a newspaper story does not constitute putting up with the written behavior. Your definition of civilized society does not the end of the story make. Sweeping generalizations about your heartfelt compassion for mistreated animals and the potential effects of uncontrolled sociopaths amount to exactly zero in this particular case.
Just to be clear, I think the guy is a lowlife who deserves some punishment here. But not jail time. The few bits of information regarding the courtroom proceedings seemed to suggest a kangaroo court. Maybe one of the real lawyers will chime in.
You haven’t established that we should be preventing this behaviour yet. What makes a dog special? Or do you think people should also be locked up for pulling wings off flies?
I found a rabbit on the road that had its back end run over and was struggling to the kerb. I was with my wife and I got out, had a quick look and then killed it with one blow of the jack handle.
We were both upset, not at the death that I’d caused but at the suffering that others had done nothing to alleviate.
So for those that see no difference between suffering and death, well, I hope you are lucky enough never need enlightening.
I draw the line at any mammal, or any other creature rabbit sized or larger. And I’ll see fit to refine this arbitrary line as science learns more about sentience and suffering.
And if you are an adult an still pull the wings off flies then you shouldn’t be locked up but you should have your actions broadcast to the world and be reviled and ridiculed for your casual cruelty.
As far as we can tell, animals are on the planet to do two things - live and reproduce. Most people have no problem whatsoever with taking away these two things from an animal. What do you do when you get a puppy - get it neutered. Taking away its ability to reproduce, which, as far as we can tell, is its main reason to exist. People who claim to love dogs have no qualms about doing this. Why? It’s convenient.
Almost every wild animal suffers at some point, they fight, hunt, get hunted. This suffering is a normal part of animal life. Yet we seek to limit this suffering with one hand, pretending we are doing the animal a favour, while with the other hand we take away their most fundamental reason for existing. You don’t see the contradiction here?
This is not morality based on actual moral values, rather it is based on squeamishness and convenience. Folks feel like they are good, moral people if they order free-range meat. I doubt the cow sees it the same way.
Ok that’s where you draw your line, which you admit is arbitrary.
I personally don’t even kill spiders around the house. If a fly is there, I’ll let it out the window. I’ve no problem eating meat though. What I dislike is people who will eat meat telling other people not to hurt a cow. It’s hypocritical. I think killing an animal is worse than causing it discomfort.
If someone else kills a fly or a spider though, that’s fine. I don’t try force my opinion on them. Everyone has their own arbitrary level of tolerance for animal cruelty. Some people see no problem being cruel to dogs. Some people won’t even eat cheese. I don’t think we need to legislate for it.
UNLESS, we legislate for certain animals only. We could pass a law saying that dogs, cats and rabbits are now protected. There’s no contradiction there, and I would have no problem fining or jailing people who break the new laws, in much the same way as we fine and jail poachers now.
BTW: You say all mammals. So you’d never put down mouse traps or rat poison?
It’s strange that it needs to be stated, but here goes.
People kill animals for food and clothing and stuff because it serves a purpose. Yes, you can eat and be clothed without animals, and some people insist that not doing so is immoral, but it is a minority. Regardless, the killing of the animals is done for a purpose. Rats and mice and some other animals are killed because people view them as a threat in some way, whether it’s because they are potential disease carriers, threaten food stocks, or whatever else.
People who torture and kill animals outside of these, and similar, activities, are torturing and killing sentient creatures because they either think it’s fun or think it’s meaningless. People who think of pain and death as either fun or meaningless are, in some sense, broken. It’s just not a normal condition.
A) been kept indoors, in a cage, in confined conditions, unable to behave in a natural fashion and succumbing to numerous ailments, then killed quickly.
B) one that scrats around, being a happy chicken, then getting killed quickly.
The chicken is stupid and doesn’t understand one way or the other but it does suffer more one way than the other and no intelligence is needed to feel that. And I understand the consequences of my choice (B) just fine thank you.
No squeamishness or convenience needed, just good old fashioned empathy.
And I speak as one who spent my first two years out of school working in a local butchers and bakers that had its own abattoir. I’ve seen plenty of animal death, blood and gore but unnecessary suffering was frowned upon. You don’t treat animals as humans but if you are going to use them you owe them a humane quick death and the dignity of not wasting what they provide.
As you can tell, I’m rather vociferous about this.
People who hurt animals clearly do it for a purpose. They don’t do it by accident. Either it’s fun for them, or it relieves their boredom, or it’s a chance for a big bonding session with all their friends (in the case of hunters).
You & I might not see the attraction, but hell, I can’t see the attraction in Farmville either.
No, not poison. I have no problem putting traps down that kill instantly though. It is the suffering and purposeful torture that I have a problem with.
Upper bound: I don’t equate animals with humans, and I don’t think violence done to animals should be punished as harshly as that done to humans.
Lower bound: when someone kicks a dog long enough to kick it to death, that takes the sort of sustained violence and rage that is impossible for me to characterize as a one-off that should be overlooked or given a trivial penalty (by which I mean fine or community service that will have no lasting impact on his life) because he hasn’t done it twice.
Lower bound 2: Yes, killing an animal humanely is a far smaller sin, no matter how one views animal rights, than beating it to death. Same applies to people, for that matter: if someone was so all-fired angry at me that they felt they had to end my life prematurely, I’d much rather they do it with a bullet to the head that ended my life before I heard the shot, than by kicking me over and over again until my body finally broke down and gave up. Why should we view animals differently in this respect?
Lower bound 3: I, too, would want to send this guy a message, via a couple of months in prison at the very least, that violence of this sort is unacceptable. I think it’s best for all concerned that he receive this message before he does something similar to human beings.
I’d want to remove his kids from his custody. Someone like this shouldn’t be a parent. Next time he flies into a rage, one of his kids could easily be the next target.
The fact remains, you are using the animal and preventing it from achieving its fundamental goal in life. Why do you think people found the “real” world in the Matrix so horrifying?
For anyone who doesn’t know, in the Matrix the majority of the human race were kept in pods and farmed by aliens, while what we think of as earth was a false dream world the aliens created.
I think one could make the argument that if you are hunting with the intention of eating the prey that it’s not much different than buying a slaughtered animal, with the exception that the animal being eaten probably enjoyed a better life. I certainly don’t think most hunters gain enjoyment from injuring the animal - I would agree that there’s a social aspect to it, and very likely enjoyment, although I would think that the enjoyment, for many or some (not too sure, not being a hunter myself), would stem from the challenge of stalking and aiming and all of that stuff - maybe the enjoyment of the ruggedness feeling or connection with nature - rather than a focus on the ‘yay, death’ aspect of it.
I think the distiinguishing point, overall, is that if your doing it for ‘something’ (anything, really) then it lowers the chance that you’re some kind of freaked out psychopath who enjoys being cruel and watching things suffer and die. YMMV.
No, it doesn’t matter whether its with a bullet or a brick, murder = murder = the most serious crime someone can do to another person. Worse than battery, worse than rape, worse than torture. This is one of the points I’m trying to make - why should we view animals differently?
Would you advocate the same treatment for all hunters? Prison, kids taken away?