Printable View
You could also make the case that it's not wise to be stopping to kill and clean an animal while you're in the middle of E&E, no matter how hungry you think you are. I've had some experience killing and cleaning small game also, and a small knife or nearly-sharp rock nearly always trumps just ripping something to pieces. Something tells me the kid that committed the crime wasn't hungry, however.
I am torn on how I feel about this situation.
On one hand, this guy is a sick fuck, and people who are willing to abuse helpless, innocent animals like this certainly have some severe problems (and probably a propensity to do such things to humans as well).
But we don't punish people for what they MIGHT do, nor do we punish people for the evil in their hearts and minds. Furthermore, an animal is not a person, and really in our legal system it is just property. I don't know if serious jail time is really appropriate for destroying some property.
I would feel more comfortable with a civil judgement - even if the civil judgement is severe. I think the idea of the government using its police power in a situation like this makes me a little bit uncomfortable.
A significant monetary judgement for intentional infliction of emotional distress would leave me with a better sense of appropriate justice being enforced.
Personally I'm against financial judgements for things like "Emotional distress" for several reasons, mainly because it enforces the idea that there is nothing in the world more important than money.
I'd like to see more creative sentancing. How about the guy is sentanced to a sufficiently large number of hours comunity service doing volounteer work for a homeless animal shelter or something? I also don't think the idea of a financial reprimand being a deterent in this situation is a valid one in the same way as the thought of the pain in your hand doesn't stop you punching a wall when you're in that much of a rage. For that matter how does having to give up half of his paycheck help the kitten or other kittens? And you can't exactly claim he should pay her on the grounds of destruction of property because you then state living things can be property...
I've always held that the punishment should fit the crime. Drop him in a pit with a hungry tiger.
Doing it this way answers most of the problems with this case.
Was it moral? Well, that's for God to decide. If He has no problem with it then the tiger won't eat him.
Will the man learn the error of his ways? You bet your ass he will.
Will the tax payer have to spend thousands, if not millions, of dollars dealing with the problem? Hell no! Zoos already have Tigers close enough that the price of gas to ship the man there will not exceed a couple hundred at worst.
Will it deter future acts by other members of society? I know I sure as hell wouldn't do it!
Does it fix the emotional distress of the woman? Well, I can't really say no. Then again how big of an emotional attachment can you have to a kitten? It's not like it's been in your life for years. It's not a child that was a part of her for 9 months and now is a part of her in a different, yet equal, way. It was a kitten. As for the fear she might have been in of the man, think of what he'll be expereincing. I bet she didn't shit her pants like he will.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to say that if God has a problem with it, He'll throw the guy into a pit with a tiger?Quote:
Well, that's for God to decide. If He has no problem with it then the tiger won't eat him.
So you would do something like that if the penalties weren't as harsh?Quote:
Will it deter future acts by other members of society? I know I sure as hell wouldn't do it!
So we're going to kill a guy for something that you say is not equal to the worth of a person, when we don't even use capital punishment for most murders (of actual people)?Quote:
Then again how big of an emotional attachment can you have to a kitten? It's not like it's been in your life for years. It's not a child that was a part of her for 9 months and now is a part of her in a different, yet equal, way
Sign me up!
Le sigh
When sarcasm is argued something is lost....
PS: I was just kidding
Hmm. Don't know about that. If you rob someone, that's a crime, and the police will come down on you. If you destroy someone's property, is that a crime or is it something for the victim to have to sue you?Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I would feel more comfortable with a civil judgement - even if the civil judgement is severe. I think the idea of the government using its police power in a situation like this makes me a little bit uncomfortable.
There does need to be some sort of judgement, though. I like the idea of community service involving animals, but somehow I don't think it's all that much better than any other punishment - his action wasn't fundamentally a kitten-killing, but doing something to the owner of that particular kitten.
Totally agree on all points. Though, if he'd have eaten some of the kitten he'd probably have a shot at some sort of insanity defense...Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
You could also make the case that it's not wise to be stopping to kill and clean an animal while you're in the middle of E&E, no matter how hungry you think you are. I've had some experience killing and cleaning small game also, and a small knife or nearly-sharp rock nearly always trumps just ripping something to pieces. Something tells me the kid that committed the crime wasn't hungry, however.
I'm fine with the guy going to jail, but that shouldn't preclude a civil case against him. I think the ex-girlfriend has some clear damages that she should get restitution for. Get the guy coming and going. Send him to jail to become some burly dude's bitch, and make him fork over some cash.