 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / January 2004Bad men get 3 years - warning - graphic story
About time people have to serve jail time for cruelty. This happened in the UK. I hope the US gets a hint. From http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8529125?source=Evening [quote] Two burglars who beheaded a cat and cooked a live mouse in a microwave in Greater Manchester have been jailed for three years each. Steven Browitt and Andrew Maloney used a blunt axe to behead Greta, a blind 19-year-old tortoiseshell cat, during a break-in in Wigan last August. They left her severed head on a living room coffee table for owner David Byrne to find when he returned home. Browitt and Maloney, aged 35 and 26, both from Wigan, also killed Mr Byrne's pet mouse Snowy by putting it in the microwave along with some vegetables. The pair, who also ransacked the house, broke windows and smeared food around the kitchen, admitted burglary with intent to cause criminal damage at an earlier hearing. They were each sentenced to three years imprisonment when they appeared at Bolton Crown Court. Judge Gillian Ruaux said: "This was a wicked and malicious crime in which you showed a callous indifference to the suffering of the victim's animals and the suffering of the victim himself. "The only view I can take is that Mr Byrne had been singled out for this attention. I don't know why." [/quote]  Signature-- ~kaeli~ Press any key...NO, NO, NO, NOT THAT ONE!!!!!! http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > About time people have to serve jail time for cruelty. > This happened in the UK. I hope the US gets a hint. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Two burglars who beheaded a cat and cooked a live mouse in a microwave > in Greater Manchester have been jailed for three years each. 3 years is a start, but I think it should be much more. Governments everywhere need to take animal cruelty much more seriously. -Kelly >3 years is a start, but I think it should be much more. Governments >everywhere need to take animal cruelty much more seriously. > >-Kelly You bet. Three years is probably more than they'd have gotten in this county/state though..three years probation, maybe. They just don't take animal cruelty as seriously as they should. It's better than it was, but there's a long way to go in the US. Sherry >> About time people have to serve jail time for cruelty. >> This happened in the UK. I hope the US gets a hint. If you look more closely, it seems that they got three years not for animal cruelty but for burglary with intent to cause criminal damage. Quote:they "ransacked the house, broke windows and smeared food around the kitchen, admitted burglary with intent to cause criminal damage." I think in the states you can get up to five years for animal cruelty alone. I don't know how much you'd get for just burglary and criminal damage. > I think in the states > you can get up to five years for animal cruelty alone. I don't know how much > you'd get for just burglary and criminal damage. Don't know, but at least in California, I think the breaking and entering part alone is a felony. SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- They should have gotten the same thing they put those animals through. The sentance is way too light in my book. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > > About time people have to serve jail time for cruelty. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > attention. I don't know why." > [/quote] > They should have gotten the same thing they put those animals through. You think they should've been decapitated with a blunt axe and / or microwaved to death? > The sentance is way too light in my book. I do agree with this though (well, apart from the spelling of 'sentance', ha ha). Steve. > > They should have gotten the same thing they put those animals through. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve. Steve, What do you think would be appropriate? I don't mean this to start (or jump into) an argument, but just wondering. Sort of along the same lines, from time to time I think of a tiny kitten that somebody dumped in our neighborhood years ago. It was in a semi-rural area, and summer with temperatures close to 100F. I don't remember what made me go out and look down the street at that time, but I did and I saw this spunky kitten walking up the street toward me, ignoring the stares and hisses of neighborhood cats and barks of dogs. When the kitten arrived at my feet, I saw that she was about 6 to 7 weeks old and her eyes and face were covered with something like puss. I spoke to her, and she purred her little heart out. I cleaned up her face and gave her some water, because I knew she would be dehydrated in the heat. She drank, and then I gave her some food, which she gobbled down. I did not want to expose our resident cats to whatever she had, and could not afford to treat her, so I took her to a vet who was known to be involved in rescue work and left her at the front desk. I could never understand how someone could let such a sweet innocent baby get into such a condition and then abandon her in the middle of summer, most likely to die an unnecessary and miserable death. I'm normally a non-violent person, but I would have no problem with sentencing the person who was so merciless to that kitten to be staked out in a public place in the middle of a hot summer day, completely at the mercy of people who passed by. (A nearby anthill would be optional.) Some people would probably look and go on about their business. Maybe someone would give the person water, maybe food, maybe a kick, maybe freedom. Maybe not. So, if we agree that sentences are way too light for animal cruelty, just how harsh are we willing to consider they should be? Annie (...) > Steve, > What do you think would be appropriate? I don't mean this to start (or jump > into) an argument, but just wondering. Belatedly, sorry, for the thread passed me by... Don't know! However, the burglars' actions were clearly both animal cruelty and cruelty designed to upset the animals' owner. Double the sentence they actually got? (...) > I'm normally a non-violent person, but I would have no problem with > sentencing the person who was so merciless to that kitten to be staked out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, if we agree that sentences are way too light for animal cruelty, just > how harsh are we willing to consider they should be? I think it should depend on intentionality of the abuser. Intentionally cruel behaviour should be treated very harshy. In such cases, the abuser has made a special effort to act inhumanely. Cruelty via ignorance or simple idiocy - hopefully education could work in such cases. Emotionally, I think there is a pleasing symmetry in staking the crims out, or other eye-for-an-eye punishments - I wouldn't say that I'm a non-violent person especially! However, that seems a bit like regressing to the middle ages. An uncomfortable idea, and I'd not follow that path. Basically - I don't know what an 'appropriate' sentence is, just that the 3-yrs the perps got in the case mentioned in the OP doesn't seem enough, to me. I guess that if I were the judge, 6 years with no prospect of early release might do. If the crims were younger, then the sentence might be made longer, so that they would miss the freedom of their prime years. Difficult. Steve. > > So, if we agree that sentences are way too light for animal cruelty, just > > how harsh are we willing to consider they should be? >Annie > I think it should depend on intentionality of the abuser. > Intentionally cruel behaviour should be treated very harshy. In such > cases, the abuser has made a special effort to act inhumanely. Cruelty > via ignorance or simple idiocy - hopefully education could work in > such cases. snip. > Steve. I agree that there is a difference between deliberate cruelty and ignorance or idiocy. I'm sure there is not a single person who has not ever caused harm from ignorance or totally stupid actions. Most of us, when we realize the unintended result, will learn and try to make it right, or if that is not possible, modify future behavior. The problem, as I see it, is how to handle the cases of those psychopaths and sociopaths, who, without remorse, give up their humanity, without losing our humanity in the process. The abusers in question probably would be just as likely to do something equally as bad after serving six years rather than three. You are right that the decision is difficult. Annie > I agree that there is a difference between deliberate cruelty and ignorance > or idiocy. I'm sure there is not a single person who has not ever caused [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are right that the decision is difficult. > Annie The problem is societal. We won't rid the world of animal cruelty until children don't shoot other children and animals are not mere property. How do you convince someone that hurting animals is bad when they see violence, drug abuse, and other horrible things on a daily basis? How do you convince them that chopping the head the head of a cat is not cool when they see deer heads mounted on walls, dogs pitted against each other for sport (either by fighting or racing), horses abused in rodeos, and fingers cut off cats for convenience? The justice system doesn't even give child abusers 6 years sometimes. Children are neglected as badly (or worse) as animals in some places and the parents get sympathy for being poor and not knowing any better. How many stories did you see last summer where some idiot left their kid in a car? I know I saw at least 3 just here in Chicago. I mean, you look around at the world and animal cruelty is but one sin of so many. You can treat the symptom, but it doesn't do much - you have to cure the disease. Don't ask me how. There's better minds than mine who can't solve that one. I just know that locking up everyone who did harm to people or animals, intentionally or out of ignorance, would result in more people in prison than on the streets. Signature-- ~kaeli~ If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages? http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace >We won't rid the world of animal cruelty until children don't shoot >other children and animals are not mere property. >How do you convince someone that hurting animals is bad when they see >violence, drug abuse, and other horrible things on a daily basis? > [..] >The justice system doesn't even give child abusers 6 years sometimes. And sometimes, those animal abusers turn into child abusers later on. I remember the case in Indiana several years ago (5? 6?) about the 2 IU students (I hate to call them students) who burned that cat, which resulted in an outcry and getting Indiana's animal cruelty law changed to a felony from a misdemenor. I wonder now whatever happened to them. I would be 50/50 that they are either now in prison for something "worse", or on the loose after having done something that will put them there.. Jim Witte jswitte@bloomington.in.us Bloomington, Indiana, IU >They should have gotten the same thing they put those animals through. The >sentance is way too light in my book. And the light is way too dim in your lantern..... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.