Apparently, a 27 year old New Jersey woman got into a dispute with her neighbor over a parking spot and then broke into the neighbor’s house grabbed their pet dog and then threw the dog into traffic where it was struck by a car and killed.
She pleaded guilty to burglary, animal cruelty and theft charges and Essex County prosecutors will recommend that she receive a six-year state prison term when she’s sentenced July 14. Barnes also would have to pay up to $2,600 in restitution and would be barred from owning, buying or living with animals for 10 years.
I’m not disputing the sentence in this case. But I see these kinds of cases are often resolved in very different levels of penalties and IMO, that is just not fair. How can it be that the personal feelings of prosecutors and judges can affect cases so markedly? Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?
One thing that disturbs me is when the prosecutor said, “She broke into someone’s home and killed their dog and they watched it happen. Not too many things are more disturbing than that.” I would think that a great many things are far more disturbing than that and consequently, I think that statement indicates a very strong bias on the part of the prosecutor. Most any crimes that involve loss of a human life are bound to be far more disturbing.
My problem is how sometimes cases like this are resolved with a prison term of a few months whereas other times they are resolved with a term of a few years.
My point is that there is often great inconsistencies and I can’t understand how that can happen in a judicial system that is supposed to treat everyone in the same way.
I’m not so concerned on the specific sentence was that was imposed. I’d just like to see the same sentence imposed on everyone.
Everyone crime is not the same, in addition to the imperfections in the system. So point to another case of someone breaking into another person’s home and killing their dog and we can compare them.
In this case, the woman was a danger to society, clearly acting in a rage, and she caused greater harm.
I assume “Not too many things are more disturbing than that.” meant relative to the crime she was charged with, not in comparison to a murder charge.
Who says the system is supposed to treat everyone in the same way. Hell, right here in Seattle in the 1990s the exact same crime (grown 100 marijuana plants) might get you 30 days in State Court and 5 years mandatory in Federal Court. It would just depend if the joint task force sent the paper work the state or federal prosecutor.
In the case of the dog killing burglar, I would guess her prior history, how “out of control” she seemed, and whether she expressed remorse all factored in. And, of course, the culture and laws of the jurisdiction. Within one court system, people do try to compare one case to another when arguing what a “fair” sentence would be. The judge, of course, has probably sentenced 1000s of people, and also (hopefully) aims for proportionate sentences based on severity of the crimes.
I don’t understand what you mean here. I was indeed thinking of most any kind of case. My problem is that I think the prosecutor is extremely biased.
This is definitely a terrible crime and deserves a very stiff penalty. But it’s not reasonable to make this out to be on the same level as the crime of the century.
The prosecutor is really stretching the truth to try and get a more severe sentence and IMO, that is just not fair.
So, throw her in jail for ten years if you like. But it’s wrong for the prosecutor to make out like this is the crime of the century just to get an extreme sentence.
She pleaded guilty to burglary, animal cruelty and theft charges. It’s not the crime of the century but it’s pretty bad as cases like that go. Plenty of people commit theft and burglary and are cruel to animals, but how many take someone’s pet and kill it in front of them? The prosecutors job is to convince the judge to hit her with a penalty that fits this crime, that doesn’t get done by soft-pedaling the story.
I see she “will have to participate in anger management and drug and alcohol counseling.” In addition to that, I’d give her mandatory service in an animal shelter. Perhaps she could find her lost soul there. I don’t normally like the idea of service to animals as a “punishment,” but in this case it might be appropriate.
I’ve suggested this before. People who are convicted of certain categories of animal cruelty crimes should be required to go on a public registry just like sex offenders. And they should have to go door-to-door in their community and tell people what they’ve done. I think it’s legally justifiable - people who commit crimes against animals often go on to commit crimes against people. And the public shunning is a bonus.
