This Kind Of Strikes Me As Crazy

[Retribution]

http://preview.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/animal-abuse-gains-traction-as-a-serious-crime-with-jail-more-often-the-result/ar-BB6oHmK

Alright first off I am in no way condoning animal cruelty nor am I saying there should be no repercussions for that sort of behavior. I do not mean that in any way, shape, or form so please do not twist my words to try and say I am advocating that.

BUT! It seems just plain freaking nuts to me that in many cases one can face fewer repercussions for abusing a human being than an animal. In fact do something horrible to a human and there will be people clamoring for understanding of your plight because you were abused, come from poverty what have you. Do the same to one of our furry friends and no one will call for understanding. Instead all seem to want your summary execution (a bit extreme but I am trying to illustrate a point).

When I look at things in that light I kind of feel like we have lost our collective freaking minds someplace. I mean I get that there should not be animal abuse, but it is utterly opposed to every moral compass I have to place an animal higher than a human being.

[Oniya]

I think there is something in the collective consciousness that puts a 'higher outrage' status on crimes against the helpless.  Take your same scenario, but instead of 'one of our furry friends', substitute in 'a small child' or 'an 87-year-old grandmother', or 'a person with severe mental handicaps'.  I bet you'd see the same level of reaction.

[Retribution]

I get what you are saying Oniya, but still in the case of child or elderly we are talking about a person. And again I am not trying to devalue animals, hell I got one heck of a menagerie at home. But still I do not loose track of the fact they are animals. Biologically speaking most emotions ascribed to animals are an act of personification something we biologists learn in our first classes. To quote one of my professors "animals are all fundamentally selfish and uncaring." Humans are supposed to be above that, but it blows my mind a mass murderer will still have people calling for mercy....but dear god do not kick a puppy.

[Oniya]

I'm not trying to equate the animal to a person - I'm pointing out the relative defenselessness of a domesticated animal to a healthy adult is similar to that of a child etc. 

[Beorning]

To offer another perspective: look at some of the crimes that are committed toward the animals. Some of them are examples of insane cruelty. People who would do some of these things to another person would never get out of prison... Is it any wonder that such crimes are harshly punished?

[Retribution]

But you will get paroled for murder many times. Try to put someone to death for murder and the anti capital punishment crowd is up in arms. In my home town the local animal shelter consistently raises more money in contributions than the shelter for homeless people. Again not advocating cruelty to animals but from the cause and effect standpoint I feel like one can get off easier for shooting a person than a puppy. This is just flawed in my world view.

[Beorning]

But you will get paroled for murder many times.

Don't people convicted for animal cruelty get paroled, too?

Try to put someone to death for murder and the anti capital punishment crowd is up in arms.

Oh, that's something different. Note that people that are against death penalty aren't necessarily against harsh sentencing. They are just against the idea of *killing*.

In my home town the local animal shelter consistently raises more money in contributions than the shelter for homeless people.

That's sad, of course... I guess that the reason for that is simple, if brutal-sounding: it's easier to empathize with cute animals...

Again not advocating cruelty to animals but from the cause and effect standpoint I feel like one can get off easier for shooting a person than a puppy.

I don't know what's it like where you are, but... would you honestly get a lower sentence for shooting a person than for shooting an animal?

[Retribution]

I might be overstating but here is a quote from the article I linked.

"Had it been a person he kicked, Mr. Robinson, 22, most likely would have received a quick plea bargain requiring no jail time — if, that is, he had even been arrested. And had he kicked that gray cat a few years ago, a similar outcome might have awaited him.

But now, every time Mr. Robinson has appeared in court in Brooklyn, animal-rights activists have surrounded him, attending his hearings and calling for a jail sentence. He has not even received a plea offer from prosecutors — extremely rare in misdemeanor cases.

[Beguile's Mistress]

In a case where someone is worrying about animal abusers being prosecuted more harshly than those who assault, torture and rape or kill humans, perhaps we should campaign for more stringent penalties for crimes against people.

[Retribution]

In a case where someone is worrying about animal abusers being prosecuted more harshly than those who assault, torture and rape or kill humans, perhaps we should campaign for more stringent penalties for crimes against people.

I think anyone who has read much of what I have posted here would realize I am all on board with that statement. I not only support the death penalty but I think it should have an express lane.

[Kythia]

I might be overstating but here is a quote from the article I linked.

"Had it been a person he kicked, Mr. Robinson, 22, most likely would have received a quick plea bargain requiring no jail time — if, that is, he had even been arrested. And had he kicked that gray cat a few years ago, a similar outcome might have awaited him.

Well, sure.  But the two situations aren't comparable are they.  He kicked the cat "several yards".  If I randonly and arbitrarily punched a person so hard they flew back several yards (something I'm totes capable of doing, BTW) then I think we'd be looking at jail time as well. 

From the article :

Mr. Robinson’s case drew particular wrath because his actions were captured in a video that went viral. He lured the cat toward him with an outstretched hand. As the cat approached and sniffed him, Mr. Robinson kicked it several feet into the air, as his friends cheered and Mr. Robinson hopped around, laughing.

Seriously, comparing to kicking a person seems to be the wrong comparison.

[Caehlim]

I love animals and pointless cruelty against them just seems so completely wrong to me. However I still find myself agreeing with you, that the level of public outrage just seems to be somewhat excessive. Justice is better served by level heads and careful decisions than a howling mob.

Jail times have always seemed arbitrary to me, I can't imagine why a particular number of years is okay whereas a different number of years is not. I personally think people should be in jail until we have reason to believe that they will no longer commit crimes anymore with an active focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. None the less, the idea of it being higher for crimes against an animal versus analogous crimes against a human seems to not quite add up.

[Retribution]

Caehlim -> my point exactly.

Kythia -> I see the point you are trying to make, but unless someone suspends the laws of physics I doubt that one human is going to be able to propel another for yards or feet.  And what he did is reprehensible, I never said it was not, the end punishment when compared to other crimes involving humans just plain seems skewed to me.

[Beorning]

Well, sure.  But the two situations aren't comparable are they.  He kicked the cat "several yards".  If I randonly and arbitrarily punched a person so hard they flew back several yards (something I'm totes capable of doing, BTW) then I think we'd be looking at jail time as well. 

You are capable of doing what??? 

Anyway... there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: a cat is a small animal, much smaller than a human. So, it's less resistant to harm. I'd say that kicking a man and kicking such an animal isn't exactly the same thing, then.

Also, there's the matter Oniya mentioned: animals are helpless. They usually don't expect to be harmed by a human and are incapable of defending themselves. Abusing them is like abusing a trusting child, then...

Finally, based on the article, what that man did wasn't just "kicking a cat". He lured the cat toward himself in a premeditated way, then violently kicked him. He could've killed or seriously cripple that cat by doing that! If you're looking for a similar human-related crime, it'd be inviting someone toward a driveway and, then, running them over with a car for fun. Don't tell me you wouldn't get jail time for that...

[Kythia]

I did specifically mention I'm capable of doing that actually, Retribution.  On a good day with the wind in the right direction I reckon I can punch people about ten yards.  More if I can take a run up.  My record is seventeen yards but that was a relatively small person and I'd been eating a lot of spinach.

The point is, you're not comparing like for like.  Your "other crimes involving humans" are not the same sort of crime.

[Caehlim]

Anyway... there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: a cat is a small animal, much smaller than a human. So, it's less resistant to harm. I'd say that kicking a man and kicking such an animal isn't exactly the same thing, then.

I'm reluctant to say this, given the risk of it being interpreted as a moral statement when it's just a pedantic mention for accuracy. But...

Cats have a fairly different bone structure to humans and a capability of resisting impact that in many cases can exceed our own. It's why they're better at jumping and falling than we are. They also have a spinal cord that works differently to ours making spinal injuries less likely to result in paralysis. Based on the physics of a kick both force and pressure would have been identical when applied to either a human or a cat and I suspect the added flexibility of feline physiology may have actually made a cat more likely to survive this attack uninjured rather than less.

That said it remains reprehensible and I doubt the person involved had any care or consideration for these facts and most likely would have been quite happy to inflict serious injury. Apologies for the random tangent.

[Retribution]

I got your point I just do not agree 

For curiosity though I did a google search and picked the top link. As you can see the penalties get worse the more severe the crime:

http://www.lancearcherlaw.com/assaultandbattery.php

Having said that from work I know those maximum penalties listed are seldom if ever applied. They are more there for fear factor than anything else. For example, the standard penalty I deal with at work is subject to a maximum of $10,000. 95% of the cases though just get a warning and those that get pursued never are penalized over $1500 on the first count. A differing field but tossing it out there for comparison. I would rather not give more details of my work on the internet if it is all the same to you. Also keep in mind the attorney that published this link like as not wants to make the repercussions sound worse in order to get more clients.

[Sabby]

My position on this. With domesticated animals, they only come in one flavor, and that's 'completely dependent on human beings to even live in society let alone be healthy and comfortable'. These are beings that have absolutely no ability to protect themselves or live in this environment and owe every second they have on this Earth to a functioning human adult. They can't live here without us, and they can't live in the wild alone. We took them from the wild and went "GEE aren't you cute, let me just selectively breed you for several thousands of years so you look and act more appealing to me, and lose all ability to survive without me". Congratulations, you made this lifeform absolutely dependent on you. Now be a responsible human and take responsibility for what you've done. These animals should be entitled to protection from you because you made them what they are.

A human has at least some measure to live independently, for the most part. For whatever reason, some can't, whether that be through severe disability or some other unfortunate situation, and those poor people should also be entitled to some measure of assistance, but the difference is that it's no ones fault. With dogs, cats and other domestic pets, they need help because we made them need help. They are dependent by design.

Now, do I consider animal cruelty to be a greater evil then human cruelty? I really couldn't answer that. I see the circumstances leading to both forms of cruelty to be so drastically different that I have trouble comparing them.

[consortium11]

In my home town the local animal shelter consistently raises more money in contributions than the shelter for homeless people.

It's a pretty common occurrence; in the UK there's a donkey sanctuary which is infamous for bringing in pretty vast amounts of donations (roughly £20 million a year) while the RSPCA (the biggest animal protection charity) only gets slightly less in donations then the NSPCC (the biggest child abuse charity).

One point to note here is essentially marketing; it's sort of "cute" and "cool" to buy someone a sponsorship of a donkey as a present; you get updates, fake letters, photos, a cuddly toy etc etc. It's a lot harder to do a package like that for an abused child and it's a somewhat morbid subject to give a donation as a gift. As above buying someone a donkey sponsorship as a gift is kinda cute... donating £50 to a child abuse charity comes with a whiff of self-righteousness and almost an accusation.

To pick up on one point that you quoted from the article (emphasis mine):

But now, every time Mr. Robinson has appeared in court in Brooklyn, animal-rights activists have surrounded him, attending his hearings and calling for a jail sentence. He has not even received a plea offer from prosecutors — extremely rare in misdemeanor cases.

People may say justice is blind but it rarely is and at times it does react to public pressure and opinion. If you took a "normal" assault, had a video of it go viral and then had activists show up at every public appearance, constantly campaign and keep the issue in the public eye I imagine the eventual sentence would be considerably harsher than one that hasn't had so much attention paid to it. Judges actually explicitly mention this in some sentencing decisions; they'll note how the public attention demonstrates how serious a crime this is.

[Retribution]

I cannot say I disagree much with anything any of you have written. I guess what just sticks in my craw is I value human life more than animals even as a biologist by trade. When I see things that seem to flip that upside down it bothers me *shrugs*

[Formless]

This may not be my place since my country does not practice any laws towards animal protection.

But I do notice that some cases of ' Animal abuse ' gets the attention much more than other cases. It strikes me as odd. But unless a humans' rights case is blown out of proportion by the media , it won't get as much ' social time ' as an animal abuse case on social medias.

[lilhobbit37]

Think about it like this:

If a man picked up a child, and impacted his foot into that child's ribs (aka kicked the child very hard) and on video celebrated that fact, along with other onlookers, do you think he would be in any less trouble?

Also according to your quote it says "every time" as in this is NOT the first time.

Repeat offenders do get harsher punishments do they not?

He obviously did not learn that abuse is not permitted. Were it a human being he had kicked on film and celebrated about, he would be facing harsh punishment as well.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Cut a wild bird's head off with a knife, and people will go crazy and scream animal cruelty.

Rightly so, perhaps.

But we don't think twice about eating chicken, do we?

Well, that's different. We need to eat to survive. The chickens you buy in the store are killed for human consumption.

Ok.

Well what if I buy a whole chicken in the store and then just throw it in the garbage?

You would say that I was wasteful at most, but the accusation of animal cruelty would somehow get lost.

My point is that its more of an emotional thing than a logical thing. Your average non-vegetarian could care less about how many farm animals are slaughtered. They'll walk down the meat aisle as if they are walking past red and brown play-dough. It's only the the cute, fluffy ones that people really care about.  Likewise, nobody cares about the ugly, poor, dishevelled inmate who's getting the chair next Tuesday for manslaughter or rape.  We just say, "Well, he deserved it, so it's OK." Try to give an attractive woman like Jodi Areas(sp?) the chair, and people are suddenly more reluctant to kill the cute and the fluffy.

[Caehlim]

Cut a wild bird's head off with a knife, and people will go crazy and scream animal cruelty.

Rightly so, perhaps.

But we don't think twice about eating chicken, do we?

A friend of mine worked at an abattoir, killing animals professionally for a living and he was specifically tasked with the killing itself. For him at least, I know there was nothing cruel about what he was doing. He was ending the lives of animals as painlessly as possible because it was his job and people wanted to eat meat. He told me once that the worst thing about the job was how boring and repetitive it got in the long term.

Someone accepting as their job the task of killing hundreds of animals that were specifically, bred, raised and designated for death and meat production their entire life is different to someone who takes an animal that has been accepted as a companion into our world with a specific role of providing and receiving affection and then harming them because it provides them with amusement and a thrill. One is a dreary part of our social order, the other works against it and is generally the first sign of a dangerous personality disorder.

Arguing over the morality of meat production is another discussion, however one is certainly more antisocial than the other and fits in better with our justice system (although often I think the mental health system would be a better area to handle it).

[TaintedAndDelish]

But is the rationale and reason for doing it what makes it cruel or not cruel? Or do we simply use "Oh, its for good reason" or cleanse ourselves of the guilt that we might feel if we allowed such creatures to be close to our hearts?

I agree that its cruel to inflict needless pain, or torture, so too is the ending of one's irreplaceable life. This theft of one's life is the greatest harm one can do to another being. You can recover from torture, but not from death.

From the animal's perspective, their purpose for having been bred is not a factor in the ending of their lives - whether its done in a humane way or not. From our perspective as humans, the reason for breeding them has the consequence of making us feel less guilty.

I think the fact that we feel such pity and compassion for prey type animals, has more to do with our separation from the hunting and butchering side of food preparation. If it were not for that, we would be forced to kill and butcher those animals ourselves and learn to not feel guilty about it. Those who view such animals as friends would be less likely to eat them and more likely to be vegetarians or to miss out on the benefits to eating meat. ( I don't mean to bring up vegetarian vs carnivore diet ).