Almost a year ago, in BC Canada, a dog walker pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after putting 6 dogs that did not belong to her in the back of a truck until they all died of heat stroke. (Link)

She was sentenced to 6 months in jail (as well as other restrictions about her owning or working with animals). It was applauded by many as good, "serious" sentence. 

While the sentence was surely more than a slap on the wrist, I believe to kill 6 dogs by basically allowing them to cook to death should of yielded a stronger sentence. Say, 12-18 months, along with monetary compensation to all the families who lost their animals. That's 2-3 months a dog, and I think that is much more fair that 1 month per dog. I'm not sure if the judge had actually given out the sentences per animal, but one month seems very little to me. 

But then I thought "should the same sentence be given out for cruelty to say, a pet hamster? How about a wild animal?" It's interesting how we feel more pity toward domestic and larger animals than we do toward smaller and wild animals. In my opinion, all animals (minus insects, and some other non-mammals and non-birds) should be legally viewed as the same. If there is unneeded suffering and death placed on an animal, there should be a serious punishment, period.

Do you think the current view of animal cruelty in the court system is appropriate? Do you think she should of gotten a harsher or milder sentence? I general, what kind of punishment should be given to people who cause suffering and death to animals? Also, are all animals equal?

Light Knight :   I'm going to go a bit off track with my reply, but I'll get to my point eventually.  Sure it is horrible to treat dogs (or any animal) that way.  It's awful, but personally I think this world has got it's priorities seriously twisted, although it's to be expected.  I am going to throw sand in the gas tank and ask the following question - Why does no one even bat an eyelid when people are killing babies in the womb, but they want to crucify a dentist that hunted and killed a lion that was glorified by the international community and hardly known in its own country?  To be honest, I have never even heard of Cecil the Lion until recently and I live in South Africa.  You can go and ask the Zimbabwean tribes as well - to them Cecil the Lion was just another lion to be feared since they walk daily in fear of lion attacks.  If a lion wants to kill and eat me or my kids I will sure as hell put a bullet / arrow / spear / flail / morning star  in its head without blinking or thinking.  I know, I digress, but people are focusing and throwing millions of dollars at animal rights groups and disproportionately esteems the value of animal life so much so that the most dear and valuable thing in this world - human life - is left in the gutter, literally.  Do not get me wrong for one second - I love and respect animals.  I do feel that people who causes any living thing to suffer due to negligence or for their own twisted enjoyment, should get a harsh punishment, however, I value human life much more than any animal.  Unfortunately the general worldview does not share this outlook and the evidence is all around us.

SoL@R : I would say that, in general, people in our culture (and most others) view human life as more important as animal. For example, the punishment for homicide is much, much more severe than killing an animal. In fact,  most people contribute to the killing on animals by buying meat. And, I believe most people agree with me in that killing an animal for food is OK as long as they are not raised or killed in a cruel way (minus vegetarians). So, very obviously, we think human life is more important than animal. 

But we can do two things at once. We can prosecute people who have maltreated animals, AND people who have maltreated humans, and we do. I too believe media and facebook hype made the Cecil the Lion story what it was. I mean, animals are hunted and killed for sport (often injured for hours) all the time, and no one batts an eye until someone puts a picture on facebook. I think such killing for sport, especially when not quick and painless, should be completely illegal, in all cases, not just Cecil's.

As for abortions, that is a different subject entirely, because those aborting do not actually believe they are killing a human. Is that right or wrong? That's for another thread.

I think the punishments aren't nearly severe enough. There are enough studies that show strong correlation between animal cruelty and future violent behaviour. Why is an animal (many of which are defenceless or dependent) any less than a child in the eyes of the law when it comes to this sort of stuff? While I don't think people should get 25 years for killing a dog it seems pretty pathetic to sentence someone to 6 months in jail for killing 6 dogs.

Obviously animals die and that is part of the normal life cycle but if anyone is purposefully killing animals just to hurt them then that person is not only dangerous to animals but is or will become dangerous to humans. They should be in prison or an institution getting help and for longer than 6 months.

Wow, that's horrible. Based on what I've read from the link that you have provided, I'd have to say that it was a decent punishment. Remember, not only did she get 6 months in prison but she is also permanently banned from dog walking ( for profit ) and she can't own an animal / pet for another 10 years. That, plus the 6 months, seems like a good enough sentence to me and the owners didn't seem to disagree with the ruling ( from what I know). However, it was disturbing to find out that she was lying at first by telling the police and owners that the truck had been stolen. They later knew that it wasn't the truth and she was trying to cover up the whole story. It is possible that the judge could have been a little harsher on the ruling because of fact that she lied to police.

The courts seem pretty fair when it comes to animal cruelty, as well as any other illegal activity ( murder, theft, etc. ) which obviously has little to no comparison in the event that these certain activities involved humans instead of animals. But there are some situations were animals are killed by humans accidently and everyone just ignores it. Example, if you were driving on the road and happen to hit a domesticated animal ( dog, cat, or other ) unintentionally, you would not be subject to any punishment. Of course, you would want to try to avoid the animal but you're not going to drive on the wrong side of the road and get yourself killed just to evade a dog ( squirrel, cat, or other ) in the road. And most people wouldn't stop if they hit an animal while driving because we, as humans, are more important. I'm sorry for saying that bluntly but it's the truth. Now, if that specific situation were to involve you hitting a human while driving on the road, that's a Completely different story.

But the people who purposely ( or even accidently, in some situations ) cause bodily harm to animals should seem some sort of jail time. Whether it be minimal or not, depends on the severity of the crime. Some domesticated animals ( mostly dogs and cats ) could be considered as "children" on a personal level, but not legally, so the rulings won't be as harsh and leave most owners disheartened. Most of the other types of animals ( cows, deer, lamb, etc. ) are considered a food source for humans and obviously aren't as equal as the domesticated ones that are cared for in the average household family. However, I've heard that there are some of those who consider slaughter houses as animal cruelty, and on some level or another they're right.

I have always said,"Let the punishment fit the crime." For example if some dumb@$$ nukes a pet in the microwave,shove him into a giant microwave and nuke him to death. I think a lot of punishments handed down to animal abusers are laughable and basically a slap on the wrist. And PETA and their supporters are the worst of the bunch. There was a dog taken from around my area by PETA and then it was killed,they had the nerve to send a freaking fruit basket to the family. I would want their heads on a plate if they ever touched my dog.

I'd say throw em on a arena with hungry lions gladiator style

I am an animal LOVER. My dogs have always been my closest friends. That being said, not all animals are created equal. In a situation where neglect can be proven, the first thing that need to happen is a mental evaluation. Paid for by the offender. People who victimize the innocent don't always stop at animals, and that's a huge red flag for future behavioral issues. A few hundred dollars and a fine is a joke for what some sick pukes do to cats and dogs. WHEN they get caught. In some places in the world the treatment of animals is borderline psychopathic compared to others though. But animal experimentation is a different story. I'm not talking about the Russians sewing two dogs together but the millions of human lives that have been extended or improved through the practice. Every person in the civilized world owes thanks to their sacrifice. Do I want to work in that lab? No way no how. Will I take the medicine that has been tested on a cute little bunny? Yep. So will everyone else. I must say I'm against testing on the higher primates however. Too intelligent.

I agree to some extent that animals, wild or domesticated, deserve "humane" treatment. If not to make their meat taste better - apparently cows know when they are to get slaughtered, and it makes the meat tougher - then at least to stop the sad spectacle of circus animals. I am in no way a fan of PETA, but I agree that their fate CAN be called torture. Unlike dogs, bears have not had over 10,000 years of domestication and their wild instincts are very strong. They do NOT deserve to be locked in a cage and beaten for human pleasure.

However we need to draw a line. Animal "cruelty" is often invoked by vegan extremists (there is no other word) to ban meat consumption altogether. I will not get in the whole "meat causes climate change" (if it does, it is BARELY) debate, but one of the reasons why primates and humans have become more intelligent and bigger: lots of protein. Not only that, but the saturated fat meat provides is actually good for health. Plus animals like chicken, cows, goats, etc. are raised for the explicit intent of eating them. Otherwise they would have been in nature and would have hunted them anyway.

Finally, although pro-lifers would never consider ME as one of them, I can not help but wonder why animals seem to have more rights that foetuses. A Canadian woman once shot her womb (where lied her unborn child of about 8 months) and did not get ANYTHING. Killing the baby once it is born is murder; but when does it stop being murder?

In short: while not humans, animals still deserve respect. They also deserve to be property if we are to keep them alive. It worked for animals like the scimitar oryx or the black rhino, who are now raised in ranches and have their numbers multiply.

For the most part- I just want to Parrot what SoL@r has already said. I think that people don't have their priorities straight and people seem much more concerned about animal cruelty than the life and death of unborn human infants. On the other hand, I'm not certain we really need to punish people for certain kinds of animal cruelty. Take swatting a fly for example. We often kill them more because of the annoying buzzing sound that they make than for any diseases they may incubate or spread.

I just don't get it. In the Bible are we given any consequences for being cruel to animals? Well, the Torah instructs man to be stewards of the earth. We're given dominion over the beasts and we're told many more things about what we can do with animals. Not so much consequences. Thou shalt not Muzzle an Ox while it treads grain. And- if you find a mother bird by the side of a road, you may take the chicks, but not the mother hen. Here are two small commands off the top of my head which gives us some guidance on what kind of respect we are to give various beasts. These seem to me to be more common sense teachings than standards demanding punishment if broken, yet at the same time, I can see appropriate action being taken based up the standard of; "An eye for the value of and eye, and a tooth for the value of a tooth." Which Oldschool brought up. Though we must remember that since animals are below us, damage done to them, is not to be as severely paid back at all as damage done to a human. No?

That woman that did that deserved 6 bullets in the head. That was inexcusable. Just like those PETA jerks that kidnapped a dog and it died and had the nerve to send a freaking fruit basket to the owners. I have no qualms about beating the snot out of people. Some people deserve and need that. But an animal that is raised to be a pet depends on us for love,attention,food,and its own well being. An animal would rather avoid humans than attack them.

As for the killing babies and fetuses issue. I support killing it if it endangers the mother's life,or if it will be born with a defect or deformity. And I do not mean like the color of its eyes. I mean serious ones,like palsy,retardation,missing limbs,genetic defects. Maybe I am an a$$hole,but there are tons of unwanted kids out there and those born different have virtually no chance. I also support killing the fetus if the parents cannot care for another life. Like I said,you can call me whatever you want,but adoption agencies have backlogs of tons of kids that they cannot place in a good home. We have to be realistic,people.

I also realize that I answered this post. I just detest how stupid some people really are.

I guess the conversation was bound to go towards its present direction

Oldschool777 : I am pretty much the same way regarding abortion. Before the first trimester, limitations should not be to harsh. Yes, it is a human life, but in a way it is better off dead than mistreated of abandoned.

Sword legion : Mistreating farm animals is counter-productive anyway. If you do not take care of your horses, you lose a means of transportation. If you mistreated your cows or pigs, you lose an important source of food (and fertilizer too). Also, animal cruelty is usually motivated by the "cuteness" factor. Dogs and cats are at the forefront because they are cute. And so are, to a certain extent, many circus animals. I remember once a children's magazine that talked about koalas' overprotection that depleted eucalyptus forests. However people did care as much about wombats, considered ugly.

janus :

That is true, in fact I had just remembered to quote Proverbs. (or was it Psalms?) "A wise man regardeth the life of his beast."

I believe it on the cuteness thing too. People forget logic more often than emotion unfortunately. . . not that it's good to live out of balance on either one.

janus; 
Sword legion :  

The whole Cuteness factor is really obvious when talking about food. 

How many people would be disgusted at the thought of eating dog. They would thinks it's terrible. Yet, a pig is as intelligent as a dog (some say more so) with a very similar personality. How is it fair that we think it's OK to stuff pigs in tiny rooms, never see the light of day, be seriously injured and juiced up on antibiotics, and then killed (sometimes in really awful ways, like being crushed in a compactor style thing), but the idea of killing a dog for food is "just wrong"?

Thank you Janus. I would personally allow it to the third trimester,sometimes abnormalities cannot be detected until later. Or there are times when a situation changes for a woman and she knows she cannot probably care for another life properly.

Light Knight : I guess the cuteness factor would only include piglets. Adults, in the average psyche, see pigs are filthy animals that do not deserve much consideration. Same thing for sea animals; in Quebec there is presently a hype to protect belugas because of the possibility for the construction of either a methane terminal or one to export oil sands from Alberta. Would there have been the same fuss has it just been fish?

Oldschool777 : Despite, yes, ever-changing situations that would result in sub-optimal development for the baby after the first trimester, I have a hard time accepting abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. And with the recent Planned Parenthood controversy, I feel even more hesitant.

Hate this junk.

Oh yeah,  that person deserves a longer punishment. I say at least 15 months or so In jail.


I mean c'mon now, if you don't like the dogs, then at least give'em to someone whom will care. or try to locate their owners.
How would you feel if your body cooking up?

Just reading that hurts.. heartless people >
What is wrong with humanity?

*exits out of thread*

I would accept it under the mother's life is in danger,the baby will be born with a defect or genetic disorder,or forgive me,if the mother is unable or unwilling to care for another life properly. As for the Planned Parenthood thing,the way they are doing it is disgusting,but advances can be made. There are tons of advances that were made with corpses and fetus remains. Yes,it is distasteful,but doesn't the needs of many outweigh the qualms of a few?

Oldschool777 : If so (PP) it can NOT be done on the public dole. I also agree about the parents' ability to raise the child. But if the child is viable... can adoption not be an option?

SuperCrash64 : Some are just sadistic by nature. However we are still talking about animals and not humans. Yes, they are living creatures with some feelings, but they do NOT have the same rights as humans because they lack reason. Making the distinction is vital; otherwise we would have serious problems by letting all these animals (most of whom are NOT adapted for wild life) loose.

I don't know. I think we have way too many people as is. Something needs to change. As for adoptions,they are already overloaded with unwanted kids.