I remember there was this story a while back in California. In an incident of road rage, a man takes a woman’s little dog, and throws it into oncoming traffic. No further description was given, but you can image what followed. The public was so outraged, he was given the maximum penalty under California law at the time–three years. Image that. 3 years!
I know some animal welfare activists also argue animal cruelty can lead to other antisocial behavior down the road. 10 to 20 years does seem appropriate to me, at least in cases of extreme cruelty. But surely anything more 3 years would be better.
The United States certainly needs to have an even higher proportion of its population in prison. It may still be number one in the developed world now, but how secure is it in that position? Lengthy, punitive sentences for drug offenses and crimes against actual people may not be sufficient for the country to maintain its status at the top for very much longer.
Really a different issue; attacking an animal is a violent crime after all, not a nonviolent one. Exactly the sort for which there’s the best argument for prisons being necessary.
Still, American prisons are terribly designed for anything but producing criminals and enriching the prison industry. Given that, a large fine that has to be paid in installments might be better at discouraging such behavior without making the criminal more dangerous. If someone knows that abusing an animal means they’ll have to pay a large chunk out of their paycheck as a penalty for the next 10-20 years, perhaps that’ll make them watch themselves.
I know you’re all going to find this hard to believe. But I honestly thought I was posting this one in Great Debates, not General Questions. Because yes, I know the difference between a factual question and a debate:). Anyways, Moderators, feel free to move it at your leisure.
Oh, boy. I’m getting lax in my old age, I’m getting lax…
Three years in prison for killing someone’s dog seems draconian to me; something like 90 days in jail plus restitution and a fine is more proportional to the actual wrongness of the act.
10 to 20 years would make a farce of the criminal justice system.
Also some fiscal responsibility: Do we as a society want to spent $500k - $750K to incarcerate a single individual for that long? (it’ll cost even more if the guy develops significant health problems while incarcerated.) That money would vaccinate a lot of needy kids, provide drug and alcohol rehab for lots of addicts, etc. etc.
Animal cruelty as a sign of psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies involves things like torturing animals, not simply killing them, or killing them for pleasure. Most animal cruelty is neglect, or more minor physical abuse. Both those kinds of cases are prosecuted when discovered. I’m not aware that we need to crack down that much more on it. I know of cases where both rich and poor have been prosecuted (although the rich probably don’t end up with convictions in most cases). So while I’m happy to have prosecutions of known cases of animal cruelty, I’m just not seeing cases where that isn’t done.
Out of curiosity, I looked at my state (Kentucky)'s laws. Throwing a dog in front of an oncoming car doesn’t qualify as a animal cruelty under our statutes, so the crime would be criminal michief in the third degree, a misdemeanor carrying a penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $250. Almost exactly what I thought would be justice in the crime described in the OP.
I’m much more comfortable with Kentucky law in this instance.
There was a news item recently on the subject of animal cruelty and they did show some crazy things, with people mutilating animals in ways that are clearly very sick. That’s quite different to someone beating the dog or kicking a cat.
One of the officers recounted the story of capturing someone who had been torturing animals in horrific ways. When she arrested him he thanked her because he had been progressing to larger and larger animals and he wasn’t sure how much longer animals would enough for him :eek: Made the hair on the back of my neck stand up!
They also said that about 90% of these absolute sickos get away with it, because they don’t do forensic investigations for animals. If it is an indication that someone might eventually move on to humans it might be worth devoting the resources to tracking them down.
Nah, why would you do that? That’s not the law anywhere, is it? Anyway, getting tough that way would obviously not act as a deterrent, it never does. Tough sentences in general are a terrible deterrent.
I’d say therapy. In the Netherlands they might get sentenced to “TBS”: therapy and only let out when they’re deemed safe. I dunno if they would, for animal cruelty. Maybe if you could show a clear link between that kind of behaviour then progressing to humans. Or if, like the guy mentioned in the programme, they indicate themselves that they really need help.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit silly, I mean, we know tough sentencing does nothing. Discussing it in relation to a particular crime doesn’t change that. But it might be relevant to discuss other ways of getting “tough” on animal cruelty, and reasons we might want to do that.
As long as “getting tough” doesn’t just mean “throw people I don’t like into prison”, sure.
Therapy’s a good start, though as noted, something like the Netherlands’ TBS would be very difficult to implement in the U.S.
There’s a cultural element to some animal cruelty, like dogfighting, whereas torturing animals in private is more of a mental health issue. They should probably be addressed separately.
See, my thought is, if it’s a dog belonging to someone else (as stated in the OP), then the perp should also be charged with theft by criminal deprivation of property–which would make it likely a 3rd-degree felony in my state, given the inability to make meaningful restitution and the average value of a purebreed dog (or if the court took into consideration the intangible value of a beloved one-of-a-kind object)–the threshold for felony theft here is a mere $2000 of value. Hell, the act might also count as a terroristic threat or some such, and at the very least also criminal mischief or reckless endangerment given the killing method.
That’s the wrinkle I think you’re missing in this specific case–it’s not the guy’s own dog, it’s someone else’s, and he killed it in a particularly dangerous way (throwing it into traffic) mid-argument (“road rage” also having been mentioned).
Much as it might pain some people, I think you’re probably closer to right in the case where someone kills their own dog.
I knew it was another person’s dog. The statue for Kentucky reads:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the third degree when:
(a) Having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys, or damages any property or
(b) He tampers with property so as knowingly to endanger the person or property of another.
To be criminal mischief in the second degree, the value would have be more than $500 but less than $2000. The average dog is less than $500, I assume.
I didn’t consider whether it would also be theft, I am not a lawyer, as must be obvious. Reckless endangerment is “wanton endangerment” in Kentucky. I suppose throwing a dog in front of a car could be wanton endangerment in the second degree, which is:
(1) A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.
It’s a Class A misdemeanor, so up to 12 months in prison and fines of $1,000 to $10,000.
Now I’d like to know more about the actual California situation, and what the perpetrator was convicted of to earn 3 years in prison.
