Yes, but how many cruelty stories do you hear on the news that are followed up by, “We received x number of calls from people hoping to adopt the animals…”?
[sub]Dobermans are so much cuter than those little rat dogs.[/sub]
If there had been a big ugly doberman in that car, I doubt Mr. Dipshit would have been putting his hands in there in the first place. I own a perfectly nice, but large, dark dog myself and people cross the street when they see us out walking. My other equally large but light-colored dog doesn’t seem to be nearly as frightening. Right or wrong, that’s a perception lots of folks have and I’m sure that Leo’s looks had something to do with the outcome of his case, whether it’s fair or not.
Funds aren’t likely to be raised to “find the killer” if most people have a pretty strong suspicion of who the real killer already is. That’s the case with Jon Benet, and I don’t see anyone donating money to “find the real killer” in the OJ case either.
All that aside, I don’t think the presence or absence of money as a reward to catch a criminal should lead people to judge the worthiness of the cause or the values of the people who donate the money. If we’re going to do that, then we have to say that what people do with their money isn’t their own business anymore.
I think we all like the idea of equally and fairly applied justice, but it doesn’t exist. The lack of consistency and fairness is amplified by the media, too, who only play up cases they know are likely to get people worked up (and therefore watch/read their coverage). Television, especially, does a very good job of manipulating peoples’ emotions and using commonly-held perceptions and prejudices to their advantage.
I can only speak for myself, but the crimes I find most outrageous and shocking are when I hear of someone taking advantage of someone/something else that can’t fight back. I think that’s a big factor in the Leo case. Remember Susan Smith, who drowned her two little kids? And then lied about it? The sense of outrage about that case easily, at least in my part of the country, outstripped the emotion surrounding the Leo case by a wide margin. The sentiment I heard most often expressed about that case at that time was astonishment that a mother could strap her sleeping babies in a car and then just let them drown. What’s more defenseless than a sleeping child? And what’s more shocking than a mother who planned the deaths of her own kids?
There isn’t any way to rationally explain why some things capture our emotions more readily than others. It’s just the way things are, and I am glad, for one, that the guy who threw Leo into traffic is going to have to pay for it with more than just a slap on the wrist. Sounds like he’s got some other trouble coming his way too. Sucks to be him.
I hope that I didn’t come across as having said that. Like I said in my original message, I think that it’s a horrendous act. At the time, I just didn’t see how it was horrendous enough to justify that much of a fund, and that much coverage.
To tell you the truth, my mind has been more or less changed. I can definitely see the parallel between Leo and, say, a baby, or some other helpless creature in the same situation. So, yunz all pretty much won me over.
However, I’m still gonna stick by my original point that a person isn’t evil or sickening or whatever, just because they don’t see a dead dog as very much of a “worthy” cause. Therefore, I don’t think pezpunk should have necessarily “lost faith in the boards” over it, but hey, he’s him, I’m me. I’m willing to move on.
Kudos!