A news story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune once again has inflamed my sensibilities. This time a jail guard and part time cop has beaten a puppy to death for supposedly “biting someone in the house” despite no one having registered a complaint about a dogbite.
Goddess help me, but I’m not sure how much longer I can contain myself. It’s so damn infuriating. I would give my entire worth to see this monster horsedragged, beaten within an inch of his worthless life, and locked away from polite society until his last day, then beaten again and left to die alone and naked in the wilderness. It sounds extreme, I know, but I’m sick to death of these heartless, murdering bastards. (same goes btw for rapists, pedophiles, and other similar monsters who prey upon the weak and defenseless humans, as well as animals)
I’d like to know, as a man, when did it become acceptable practise to throw kittens from moving cars and beat puppies to death? When did that become the benchmark of manhood? Did I miss a meeting? Did I not get the memo? WHAT? I understand intricately the effects of testosterone on the human body, and most days, I am all for it, but what kind of man does THIS kind of thing, and continues to call himself a man?
Might I add, as a servant of the public trust, I am apalled on an equally basic level. Cops, REAL cops just don’t DO this kind of thing. I’ve lived all of my adult life around cops and firefighters, and sure, there are a few bad apples, just like every other section of humanity, but those folks who sign up for this kind of work damn well should be above that.
Well, he seems unhappy about cruelty to puppies … come to think of it, so am I, but I’m inclined to extend that concern towards human beings too. You know, that whole “shall not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment” thing?
If you ask me, someone’s right to ‘no cruel and unusual punishment’ should be forfeited after the subject another living being to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ - especially if they choose to do this stuff to animals or children - the ones who can’t defend themselves. I’m not a violent person, and I don’t think a beating is the way to deal with these criminals - I’m also against the death penalty. But I would love to see these people thrown into a small dark cell with bread and water for a period of time - so that they have nothing to do with their time except think about what they did. Personally, I think if our prisons were a bit more like French prisons, we’d have a lot less crime to contend with.
Well, I happen to believe in human rights, and I don’t feel they should be forfeited in any circumstances. (And I’m not aware of France being significantly more crime-free than any other Western democracy, whatever its prisons are like.)
And, frankly, it worries me when I see decent people wishing suffering and death on anyone, no matter what the reason. It’s something I find deeply unsettling. But YMMV.
Well, I understand him to be upset over inhumane treatment of a dog. The issue as I see it is whether we actually forfeit our humanity by acting in an inhumane manner.
In my opinion - fuck the sonofabitch who kills dogs without justification.
I do understand what you’re saying. I do think it’s a normal human reaction, however, to feel anger towards someone who’s causing pain and suffering towards an innocent living being, like a child or an animal. But I also think it’s a gut reaction to want to see suffering from someone who’s done this. I know that when I read a story like this, I get angry and I want to see some sort of retribution. But when common sense takes over, I still want to see them punished but not as harshly as my initial reaction. I don’t think that he should forfeit his human rights because of this, it was just an initial reaction to the story, the same reaction I usually have to these sort of things.
I think what one needs to look at it how long the reaction continues, you know? If you’re still thinking that this guy should die, a week later, then I would worry. But I think it’s a normal gut reaction.
As far as crime in France, I don’t know if the crime rate is lower, but their prisons are much harsher.
Huh, did I miss something, I didn’t see a request for psychotherapy in the original post, or do you just get that as a matter of course (when needed of course)
I don’t know that I agree with this. I believe some crimes are so heinous that the person committing them has effectively checked out from human society and has abdicated the right to the same protections most humans should enjoy. Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot…just to name a few.
Does a person beating a puppy to death rise (or perhaps lower would be a better word) to this level? Maybe not but then again I feel someone capable of doing that is a potential Saddam Hussein who just hasn’t had the same opportunities to fully express their evil. In children it is a matter of psychological near certainty that cruelty to animals is a sign of a troubled person who will be likely to commit other offenses, quite possibly against humans, in the future. I don’t see why this isn’t a similar benchmark in adults (it may well be…I just don’t know).
To me the only thing legitimately protecting this guy from society staking him to an ant hill is society’s need to feel it is on a more moral plane and not stoop to this sort of thing. I believe that this should be considered so while I have a part of me that would like to see the guy drawn and quartered I would ultimately like to see him locked away forever in one of those supermax prisons where he is left to rot with only 30 minutes a day of outside exercise and zero (or near zero) interaction allowed with another living soul. Maybe then, forced into introspection, he might think long and hard on what it was he did.
Right, so … you don’t believe in actually torturing the guy to death, you just think he should be “left to rot” in inhumane conditions for the rest of his life? What a humanitarian you are, to be sure.
Look. There have been examples, all through history, of societies with draconian punishments. There are societies today which have the harshest of punishments for all sorts of infractions. They are not glistening crime-free utopias where everyone is happy; they are brutal police states where the people live in fear.
If you treat people like dirt, that’s how they’ll act. Confinement in an inhuman prison system does not make people introspective and amenable to reform; it just makes them worse. If you put someone through dehumanizing punishment, you will dehumanize them: why is this hard to understand?
And if we, as a society, want people to act with compassion and not with cruelty, would it not be a good idea if we, as a society, show that we value compassion, by acting compassionately and not cruelly ourselves?
Bloody hell. I am arguing that torture and brutality should not be part of our judicial system, here in the civilized Western democracies … and, apparently, this is a controversial view. Frankly, I think I’m right to be worried, here.
Steve. Some of your points are indeed valid, including this one…
“If you treat people like dirt, that’s how they’ll act. Confinement in an inhuman prison system does not make people introspective and amenable to reform; it just makes them worse. If you put someone through dehumanizing punishment, you will dehumanize them: why is this hard to understand?”
HOWEVER…
Here in the US, our society has lost, IMO, the properness, for lack of a better word, present in the citizens of the UK. There is little sense of order here, it is a fairly free and dynamic system, and frankly, I like it that way, but from time to time, it leads to situations and incidents like this one. You say that if you treat a man like dirt, he will act like dirt. I say, if the man is dirt from the beginning, so should he be until his actions prove otherwise.
As far as prison not being an agent of change, I think you’re right, it’s far too humane and permissive to be so.
There’s nothing inhuman about the American prison system. I’ve had occasion to send a few folks to jail, and day to day, it’s better living than some people will EVER have, what’s more, victims rights are equal, and even lesser in some cases to the rights of the convicted, that’s just sickening.
IMO, the problems (that are concurrent by the way) with the American justice system are A. We jail people for things that ought not be a crime B. We don’t keep those people in jail long enough for crimes worthy of extended sentencing.
For instance, in Illinois, a person carrying a 1/2 pound of marijuana can be charged and convicted of a felony, and jailed for 10 years. That persons neighbor can gun a person down in the street, and get the same sentence, and be OUT in five.
Steve Said…
And if we, as a society, want people to act with compassion and not with cruelty, would it not be a good idea if we, as a society, show that we value compassion, by acting compassionately and not cruelly ourselves?
No. To those with a bent for criminal behaviour, this makes us seem like easy targets. Who would you rather rob, a Hare Krishna or a Biker? (assuming of course there was something to actually ‘take’).
The reality is that we are FAR too permissive as a society in the first place, most often for political correctness, sadly.
Americans are arguably the most compassionate bunch on earth, but when that line is crossed and the trust breached, we prefer swift, and sometimes violent action.
Lastly, I save lives for a living, so I understand intimately the need for the preservation of human rights. However there are times when punishment needs to be as cruel, (if in fact equal to the crime) as it is swift, and sometimes cruelty is the only language that will reach people. A sad state of affairs to be sure, but no less true.
I hate to break it to you, but the idea that the UK is a more ordered, sedate, and “proper” society than the US is largely an illusion. It’s certainly not borne out by crime rates, which are roughly comparable between the two countries (the UK is ahead of the US in some areas, lags behind in others, as one might expect.) The idea that UK citizens will refrain from acts of heinous evil out of a sense of propriety is, sadly, not tenable.
And I say … we all begin the same way. All of us.
It is comforting for some people to think that there’s a fundamental divide between Evil People and Decent People. It’s a handy excuse for moral outrage, as shown in the OP; if we can dismiss some people as being just intrinsically Evil, we can justify treating them as the enemy, and taking whatever measures we like against them. There’s only one problem I see with this idea: it isn’t true. Any one of us is born with the capacity for all forms of good and all forms of evil. If I’m a good person (it’s possible - I’m law-abiding, go to church occasionally, kind to small furry animals and stuff), it’s not because I was born that way, it’s because I choose to be that way. And I can choose otherwise, any time I like. Give me what seems to me a good reason, and I can kill puppies and maim children with abandon. So can any other Good Person.
And the converse is true: any Evil Person can choose, if they want to, to be Good instead. All they need is a reason to do so … is fear of brutal punishment a sufficiently good reason? I would argue that the answer to that is “no”, based on the plain and simple fact that we still have crime and criminals, despite centuries of visiting brutal punishments on them. Crime rates vary according to a lot of factors, but changes to the penal system, by and large, aren’t amongst those factors.
There is no gene for Evil; there is no firm dividing line between the Bad People and the Good People. Any one of us can cross from one side to the other in a heartbeat. Take the guy in the OP: all we know about him is one action - certainly an evil act in itself, but is it sufficient to make him an Evil Person, irrevocably, irredeemably, for life? This one act wipes out any good he may ever have done in his life, any good he might yet do? I don’t think so.
On the contrary, I think prison has been shown to be a highly effective agent of change. Time and time again, we’ve seen stupid, confused, easily led teenagers put into the prison system, and seen it successfully change them, over a period of a few years, into case-hardened thugs with a sound practical education in crime, and a total contempt for the law and human life. And, funnily enough, the tougher the prison regime is, the tougher they have to become to survive it, so the nastier they are when they come out.
I’d argue, though, that prison has a pretty poor track record as an agent of positive change … and that this is a good practical reason for looking at reforms or alternatives.
And, in a civilized society, that’s the way it should be. One of the things that makes the twenty-first century a better time to live than, say, the fourteenth.
Except for the slight practical detail that cruel treatment doesn’t bloody work! Criminals are not reformed by cruel treatment, nor are they deterred by it. Back in the seventeenth century, Britain had the death penalty for murder, arson, rape, and the theft of any property with a value of more than five shillings. Did this stop people committing murder, arson, rape and theft? No, it did not. Conversely, when the death penalty was abolished for murder back in the Sixties, pundits predicted a resulting rise in the murder rates. Was there any such rise? No, there was not.
Fundamentalist Islamic law (can we agree that this is a notably harsh judicial system?) prescribes the amputation of a hand for a convicted thief. Sufficient deterrent? Clearly not, as there’s plenty of theft in strict Islamic states … in fact, Islamic law has to deal with the existence of repeat offenders - IIRC, a foot’s amputated for a second offence, and the death penalty invoked for a third. And there are third offenders … people are not reformed by the loss of body parts, or deterred by the threat of death. Never mind, for the moment, issues of morality - cruel treatment simply is not effective in dealing with crime.
I don’t know what prisons are like in the UK but here in the states they aren’t so nice (I’m not so sure where buttonjockey308 has been sending people that is so humane). I’m not talking about Club Fed here…I’m talking about state high security prisons. I recently watched something where they were interviewing prisoners and one guy mentioned he had to stab three people in his first day at the Fulsom State Prison to ‘protect’ himself. I can guarantee you if I were sent to such a place I’d be someone’s bitch if not dead or seriously wounded before the day was out. For my money the Supermax prison is preferable.
Besides, what the hell do you want here? We aren’t sending people to jail for a nice vacation. Jail should suck. Your arguments that having penalties, no matter how extreme, not working because we still have crime is silly. How many crimes do you suppose would be committed in an anarchy with no criminal penalties? I know that isn’t what you were arguing for but I don’t see where your stance that death penalties don’t stop murder works either. Putting murderers in jail for life, for 25 years, for 10 years or for one year would not likely impact murder rates either. Usually if someone is to the point of killing someone they probably aren’t thinking about prison.
I guess it goes to the theory behind incarcerating criminals. Are they there to be rehabilitated or are they ther to pay their debt to society? Rehabilitation is a dicey affair at best regradless of how the criminal is treated. Our prison systems are loaded with rehabilitation in mind. Prisoners can get an education, they can get work skills, they get counseling, they engage in structured peer groups and so on. This hasn’t stopped crime either.
In the end I see the man mentioned in the OP as being someone I do NOT want to be a part of society. I don’t care how he started out. I don’t care that as an infant he had the possibility to become a great humanitarian. I don’t care that his dad beat him inasmuch as that being an excuse for later bad behavior. TODAY the man is an evil and despicable person. He knew the law, he knows right from wrong (i.e. he’s not insane or retarded) and he chose to prey on a helpless creature. I honestly see his willingness to prey on a puppy as indicative of his personality and would label him as a threat to society…the next time it might be his kids or his wife or some poor schlub on the street who pissed him off. The man has abdicated his right to participate in society and should be removed from it. I think the Supermax prison is just fine but if you think a former jail guard and part-time cop will get more humane treatment in the general population in a prison like Fulsom then fine…send him there. For my money it is in that place he will get truly tortured but I suppose that is an arguable point.