On Punishing Cruelty to Animals
Chris has a question
ACT is for tougher sentences for violent crime, as am I. But, do you support this idea: For any conviction of cruelty to animals, an automatic life-time ban on owning or managing animals? I mean, if you are going to get tough on people who hurt and abuse other people, surely it makes sense to get tougher on the scum that are cruel to animals? Some of the present sentences handed down recently for quite horrific instances of animal cruelty are absolutely pathetic. What do you think?
I'm certainly with you on tougher penalties for animal cruelty. Whether its torturing kittens or deliberately leaving cattle in a paddock with no water or shade for three days, I consider animal cruelty right up there on the crime scale.
Generally I think penalties are too soft for most crime, but cruelty to animals (and children) should both be dealt with much more seriously.
That said, I don't support lifetime penalties for any crime except the most heinous murders.
I do believe in redemption and I think almost everybody should be left with at least a little hope in their lives.
The guy who neglected his farm stock in his '20s, when he was way out of his depth and struggling to hold his marriage together, may not be the same guy who in his '60s wants a cat for company.
So I do believe animal cruelty should be taken seriously, but think we have to be bit more flexible than issuing blanket lifetime bans.
ACT is for tougher sentences for violent crime, as am I. But, do you support this idea: For any conviction of cruelty to animals, an automatic life-time ban on owning or managing animals? I mean, if you are going to get tough on people who hurt and abuse other people, surely it makes sense to get tougher on the scum that are cruel to animals? Some of the present sentences handed down recently for quite horrific instances of animal cruelty are absolutely pathetic. What do you think?
I'm certainly with you on tougher penalties for animal cruelty. Whether its torturing kittens or deliberately leaving cattle in a paddock with no water or shade for three days, I consider animal cruelty right up there on the crime scale.
Generally I think penalties are too soft for most crime, but cruelty to animals (and children) should both be dealt with much more seriously.
That said, I don't support lifetime penalties for any crime except the most heinous murders.
I do believe in redemption and I think almost everybody should be left with at least a little hope in their lives.
The guy who neglected his farm stock in his '20s, when he was way out of his depth and struggling to hold his marriage together, may not be the same guy who in his '60s wants a cat for company.
So I do believe animal cruelty should be taken seriously, but think we have to be bit more flexible than issuing blanket lifetime bans.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
9/23/2006 01:48:00 PM
7 Comments:
Don't get your drift, sorry, Murray.
I agree with what you have written, Trevor. My thinking was more from the heart than the head. Although maybe if someone actually started calling for lifetime bans then tougher sentences might follow as some sort of compromise.
Be unfaithful to a wife, never be allowed to marry again
Go bankrupt once, never be allowed to own a business again.
Fail to tape Sopranos once, never be allowed to watch it again.
Sorry Murray, but i don't go in for such inflexible penal regimes.
I think Dostoyevsky got it right in "Crime and Punishment"
Raskolnikov murdered two old ladies with a hatchet. The Russian authorities didn't hang the piece of shit. They sent him to do hard labour in Siberia.
After 12 years or so his self righteous attitude started to change. Eventually he was able to reform himself and start a new life.
Moral-even the worst of us can change. A good penal system must try to keep some hope alive.
I assumed Murray was mocking my idea with sarcasm.
Its all becoming clear now....
I thought it was fairly obvious, but also very humourless. The idea was really that calling for tougher sentences - in the extreme - would hopefully lead to compromise tougher sentences in the future. The question is, are the parties who claim to be tough on crime also willing to be tougher on crimes against animals.
I take it Murray is supportive of the death penalty for murder, as that is proportionate?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home