Should it be a serious felony? Do you think animal cruelty is more serious than drug possession?

Any other thoughts?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Answers

No, Ma'am, we don't take animal cruelty seriously enough. I take it very seriously as I'm about to stangle my cat to death.

I'm just kidding, of course. Little kids and animals-- you've hit the Jim Valvis soft side. I say anybody who would hurt a defenseless creature doesn't deserve a second chance, let alone a third. Put the ass in jail. Let him get a taste of Bubba.

That should manage his anger just fine.

But I have to ask, Beth, when was the last time you were picked up for petty theft or possession of crystal meth? Yeah, me neither. There are rules and you've got to play by them. And the last thing a child molester needs to be doing is smoking crack. Know what I mean? If he's gone that low-- how long before he's a danger to children again? No time at all.

I'm a liberal too. But I'm not a liberal for monsters. I'm a liberal for good people who suffer. The monsters are on their own.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Definitely not serious enough.

As the owner of three precious dogs who I treat like like royalty I've got no sympathy for this guy on his third strike. I can't say I've never rapped my dog on the nose for being bad, but I'd never even think of beating them to death.

Children and animals are defenseless creatures againgst adults. They need to be protected and cherished.

I tend to agree with the three strikes law. It's not as if they didn't know what was coming. It's not as if these are good people gone wrong. You know, when a person steals food because they are homeless and hungry, I've got sympathy -- I'll reach in my pocket and do what I can. But when a two time child molester beats a poor puppy to death, I've got nothing for him. Should we set him free to do the same to a child?

I am, however, disgusted with the prision system. It's so over crowded and overburdended that it's not helping these people learn to function in society. Some would argue that it's not their right to be rehabilatated, but that's a whole different thing. I personally think we should do what we can to help these people become functioning members of society and our current system is really falling short. More crime happens in prisions than in most cities.

Anyway, as always, Beth handles interesting and thought provoking topics.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

"I'm a liberal too. But I'm not a liberal for monsters. I'm a liberal for good people who suffer. The monsters are on their own."

Let me get this straight, Jim. Amphetamine possession: monster. Burning a cat: not a monster.

I guess there are two things that riled me up about your post. One, that you claim to have this categorical knowledge of who's a monster and who's not. Two, that you say that we "don't take animal cruelty seriously enough," but then you joke about it, and then you pose this weird question to Beth, intimating that she's mad only because it's her back yard, and that drug possession really is a more monstrous act that animal cruelty.

I think that drug abuse stems mostly from a desire for escape, and a desire for those reactions the drug causes in your brain and nervous system. Which aren't such monstrous desires. If you're taking a drug that makes you prone to committing acts of violence, that's bad judgment, and society should protect itself from you, and try to rehabilitate you, if it can. But if you're maiming an animal--where does that come from? Somebody who wants to hurt or kill another creature, what motivates him?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Being that I am currently nursing a seriously malnourished, abandoned 8-month old kitten back to health right now, I'm not feeling overly charitable towards people who are cruel to animals.

I do not and probably will not, ever understand why some people treat their pets/animals as OBJECTS or toys. Why is it so easy to forget that these are living breathing creatures that share living space with us? Sure they may not have the same brain capacity, but that doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I admit, though I spoil my cats rotten, that on occasion when Tiger has swiped my feet with his claws through the covers one too many times at 5 am that I get a little testy and yell and toss him out of the room a bit roughly. But I have never, EVER purposefully done anything to injure my cats and I certainly would never DUMP a house cat, essentially leaving them to starve to death slowly. People who dump their house pets REALLY really get my goat.

Like with children, I believe that there is a big difference between what constitutes appropriate discipline and what crosses the line into abuse.

Fines and sentences for dumping and mistreating animals should be. Maltreatment of any animal should be qualified in the same manner as child abuse.

It's a simple matter of respect for the other life-forms that inhabit this planet, especially the animals that have chosen to form bonds with us and in most cases, enrich our lives so much.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Where did I say that someone who burns a cat is not a monster?

I think you have misread me. I never insinuated that Beth is mad about anything happening in her backyard. I insinuated that we play by the rules, that we personally have never been caught in possession of drugs and petty theft, and that if we can keep clean in such a manner so can a violent offender. We were talking about multiple offenders, weren't we? We were talking about a guy who molested a child and then went and did drugs or something else. Weren't we? I don't know where you got any of this. You're assuming a flame war where there is none.

Anyway, no, drug possession should not carry a life term in and of itself-- as a first or even multiple offense-- but if that person is already a proven danger to society and then gets caught with them-- it's far worse, in my opinion. Makes them much more likely to hurt other people and thus pose a greater danger to the society. The courts agree with me on this-- so I'm not exactly pulling it out of thin air. When releasing a violent criminal, the courts look for stability. If it not there, it behooves them to remove such persons before more innocent people or animals or whatever get hurt.

I reserve the right to call anyone a monster. Child molesters and animal abusers are on the top of that list. Like I said, I don't think they should get a second chance, let alone a third fuckup. Others are not so bad, but, to be honest, I've no real love for junkies and thieves either.

Hope this clears this up.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

I don't think there's really any doubt that animal cruelty is worse than drug possession. By definition, one of them involves hurting another, while the other does not. (Drug use might be considered harming oneself, and might make one more likely to harm another, but in and of itself having drugs is not harmful). I do think that should be the deciding factor. And I do think animal cruelty should be treated similarly to cruelty to humans- it is serious, but with variatons on the degree of severity (I don't think someone who doesn't feed their dog enough, or kicks it, is anywhere near as much of a problem as someone who beats a dog to death).

And lets not touch the subject of what happens to people who steal pets to kill, shall we? That always shocks me, because it seems to be treated like someone stealing your tv, or a potted plant from your porch.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Oh, I see it now. It's the word "too" in "I'm a liberal too." As if Beth was a liberal for monsters and I'm not. No, no, no. I certainly didn't mean that. Many apologies, Beth.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

No, we don't treat animal cruelty seriously enough. I'm sickened by stories of cruelty to animals and I think it is a marker for people who may go on to do worse things. Bedwetting, firesettting and animal torture are the three childhood things that serial killers are said to have in common.

Not that I don't think that animal cruelty is horrible and should be a felony even if the person never goes on to kill humans.

I think it's more serious than drug possession - it's a different kind of a crime, to me. The way armed robbery and battery seem worse than insurance fraud.

I'm pretty soft on drugs, anyway.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Animal cruelty is unacceptable. It should be punishable by forcing the person to work, under supervision, with vets, animal rescuers and even ALF (Animal Liberation Front) if necessary - let the bastard see the horror over and over again, make him hold a wounded dying animal in his hands.

Break the bastard down. Don't lock him up - it only adds to the desensitization.

If that doesn't work - exiled to Antartica.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Not serious enough. I think it should be a felony.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

fwiw, Jim, I understood your answer the first time.

And agree...

Having been the victim of violent crime (as a child and an adult)it is logical to me to see the patterns of behavior as a primary indicator of what someone is capable of doing. When they have been warned and they make the choice to continue, then to me, they're deserving of the toughest sentence possible, especially when the crime, in this case, is *similar* in violent nature to the child abuse. It telegraphs a mindset and a choice.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Okay, I've gotta say it... Wouldn't bedwetting be a common childhood trait among almost any group you can name? It's not like it is a rae thing, or even a conscious choice (like setting fires or abusing animals)

But that was off topic, so I'll go away now.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

Cruelty to animals is bad, but, I think, not felony-bad.

As a biomedical researcher who sometimes does experiments on animals, every day I confront the fact that our society values the rights of humans far more than the rights of animals. And I think this is how it should be. I feel guilty every time I have to inject a mouse with tumor cells, but I know that it is necessary if we ever want to find more effective treatments for the thousands of children who are afflicted with the type of cancer I study.

Another interesting point to consider is the distinction between different "levels" of animals. Humans value the lives of animals with large brains far more than those with small brains. For example, the most common type of mousetrap on the market today is the "sticky trap": a piece of cardboard containing a chemical which smells good to mice, and a powerful adhesive which ensures that the steps the mouse take onto the piece of cardboard are his last. However, there is nothing in the trap which actually kills the mouse--this happens gradually as it dies of thirst, unable to move, frequently attempting to chew his own limbs off in a futile attempt to escape.

To visit such a cruelty on a pet animal would be unspeakably horrifying to most of us. But to do so to a mouse is perfectly acceptable and legal. When you start to consider how small the differences really are between mice and cats or dogs or rabbits, the concept of "animal cruelty" seems rather nebulous.

Responding to some other points raised:

Punishing someone based on what their behavior indicates that they _might_ do is a very disturbing concept to me. Perhaps if our prison system were more geared towards rehabilitation it might actually make some sense. But consider this: in fifty years, I'd be willing to bet that our knowledge of the human genome will allow us to predict who is likely to engage in criminal behavior based on their DNA. Should we lock those people up, too?

And finally the question as to whether animal cruelty is more serious than drug posession also seems pretty ambiguous. Are we talking about someone with 5 cannabis plants in his basement, or someone with a kilo of crack?

The posts in this forum seem to all view drug posession as a victimless crime, but drug abuse clearly ruins lives and families.

It is interesting, though, that one of the main rationales for stiff sentences for drug offenses is that drug abuse tends to be correlated with more serious crimes, which is the same logic many posts here seem to be advocating with respect to animal cruelty.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

Animal cruelty is, indeed, a serious matter, and should be left to trained professionals. The meat industry, the shoe industry, the fur industry, the cosmetic testing industry, whatever. Amateurs have no place trying it for themselves, and will most likely bungle the job entirely.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Perhaps a bit more seriously... yes, being cruel to animals is a Bad Thing, but a felony? No way. Not even close.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Yes, cruelty to animals should be a felony. Yes, it's way more serious than any kind of drug possession. The drug laws and the so - called war against *some* drugs in this country make no logical sense whatsoever and they don't *work*, so don't even get me started on that topic.

And the light penalties for so many *violent* crimes make no sense either, whether you're talking crimes against people or animals. Something is indeed fucked up with the way "most people" prioritize things like this in their minds.

Heaven forbid people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies in private so long as they are not harming anyone else. But some nutcase can beat an animal to death and through it in the trash and that's not really such a horrible thing? And it's a nutcase who already molested children and got caught twice? Which makes me wonder how many times he did it and didn't get caught.

But children and animals are powerless - they don't vote. And the guys who own all the drug businesses in this country, both the legal ones and the illegal ones, do vote, and the lawmakers pockets are being lined by *all* of the drug sellers (who want some drugs to stay illegal and some to stay legal, and it's not based on which are more dangerous or costly to society).

Judy

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Can't we all just get along and go back to sharing happy puppy stories?

In principle, I think that someone who is cruel to animals is a greater danger to society than, say, someone who possesses marijuana. In practice, I'd like it to carry the possibility of serious prison time, but I'm very uncomfortable making this somebody's "third strike."

I am adamantly opposed to the "Three Strikes" law, FWIW. No offense to Xeney, of course, but I thi

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Whoops, wrong button... Let's try this again!

Can't we all just get along and go back to sharing happy puppy stories?

In principle, I think that someone who is cruel to animals is a greater danger to society than, say, someone who possesses marijuana. In practice, I'd like it to carry the possibility of serious prison time, but I'm very uncomfortable making this somebody's "third strike."

I am adamantly opposed to the "Three Strikes" law, FWIW. No offense to Xeney, of course, who I'm pretty sure voted against it but I think this was a case of Californians voting for something without really examining the consequences. Then again, I grew up and still live in the Washington, D.C. area, so I probably shouldn't be criticizing anyone else's state government...

--mike

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Killing is killing - animal or human. Taking a life, I think, requires a certain detachment from society...and a lack of respect for life. The guys crazy - lock him away. But 25 yrs ?? I don't know...I wouldn't want him living near my kids and I for a start. Yes, I like the idea of the 3 strikes idea. The rules are the rules. You choose. Follow them or don't. Suffer the consequences.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

Well, I for one am used to having political opinions that don't fit comfortably into either "liberal" or "conservative" envelopes, speaking as the vegetarian environmentalist capitalist gun nut who digs working with the homeless, so all I can say is that it's natural to run into these kinds of "contradictions." All it means is that life isn't that simple. Personally, I think that behavior should be punished, not ownership of substances. Owning some pot or crank or a gun isn't a punishable act; getting stoned and then driving, snorting crank and beating someone up, or murdering someone with a gun are punishable acts because they cause harm. In the same sense, owning a puppy doesn't make one guilty of harming an animal, but beating it does. Basically, my bottom line is trusting that most people are capable of taking care of themselves with things like pot, guns and puppies; it's the only way that people CAN learn to be responsible with dangerous or fragile items! If someone proves to be a danger to themselves or others when exposed to dangerous objects, it's time for their spanking. But I believe in giving people that chance: it allows those who are not "monsters" to live as they choose, and gives the "monsters" just enough rope to hang themselves--or get hanged.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

This guy has molested children and tortured animals and we're wondering if we should put him away??? Anyone who has read about serial killers knows that a very large percent started out by killing small animals. The next step is to start killing something bigger. Yes, its more serious than drug possession.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

Yes, There is no reason at all to haarm a loving animal. We call ourselves civilized! I realy question that statment. True humanity showes mercy to the weak. How can we clame the title, when we(mankind) feel it is ok to drown puppies, and kittens in a bag, poisn, shoot, or torment animals for fun. I believe in justice for all. I believe that a crime must be paid for. I believe that a person who abuses and animal should be punished to same degree of the abuse. I had two of my dogs poisened. one a scotty, the other a "57" the pain was the same. The loss just as deep, the rage just as strong. The fine they received, mearly a slap on the wrist. My feeling was and still is: A life was taken, not out of self defence, not out of hunger, not out of "sport!?"(to make hunting a real sport-give the animals a wepon also!!) but mearly out of spite, some warped joy of killing a defenceless pet. If curalty to animals were a felony (Class A), or if they did that to a human, They would have been in prison for a long time. No creature deserves to be abused, after all the most prolific serial child molister has rights, and must have his right observed, how then can we deny the rights for animals who have done no harm to anyone. Felony yes, with punishment to fit the crime.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 1999