Animal Cruelty (1 Viewer)

[porculator]

That definitely fits the bill as aggravated cruelty, and I hope it is prosecuted as such.

If I was to tell you that dozens of cattle on the West Bank of Jefferson Parish have starved to death, drowned in canals (due to no access to water), and died of malnutrition and exhaustion in the last 6 months would you think the owner is guilty of cruelty as well? According to Louisiana law, such acts are not aggravated - intentional and direct acts of cruelty - rather simple - as a result of non-action - cruelty to animals. Do you think the owner is insane or evil in that case?

For what it is worth, I would like to see ALL aggravated animal cruelty cases require jail time, along with a lifetime ban from owning or keeping ANY animals. For simple cruelty I think discretion is needed, but I lean toward still seeing them serve some time, and not merely pay fines.

As for the first question--just a lazy jerk really. He'd be insane or evil if he did it just to watch them suffer I suppose. But it would be pretty expensive to buy a bunch of cows just to watch them starve, and then not be able to eat them after that. The point of the legal system (supposedly) is to rehabilitate and/or prevent future crimes, not necessarily to punish. For people guilty of simple assault, fining them and/or not allowing them to own animals in the future accomplishes that. For aggravated cruelty, often the people are screwed in the head, and act upon other people's animals, so a fine or a being barred from owning animals doesn't really help anything. That's the difference.

Here's another question: what does it make people in the U.S. that buy fur and other animal products from other countries with no animal cruelty laws, where the animals are skinned alive because theres no point wasting money/time killing them? Are we innocent because we choose to look the other way? The people that commit the action are not breaking any laws, and only do it because we'll buy it. We know that it happens, but out of sight out of mind I suppose.

 

[Galbreath34]

I'd expect that fur is fungible.

We can control ourselves individually, and we do. I don't think there's any semi-transparent market for lower priced furs produced as you describe versus "humane" kill furs. So it's not like there's a distinction in the market between them.

It's pretty much the same with any consumer product. Every now and then there's some expose or scandal about child labor in a sneaker factory or the like, but honestly unless you buy everything from communes you know, there's something to shake your head about. Are there OSHA safety and health standards protecting seamstresses in China? Do workers making toys get medical help or even time off work from inhaling fumes when something goes wrong at the plant?

The image you mention is dramatic, but I don't think a 100% US ban on any imported fur would impact production. Any loss in immediate volume would probably lower the price and increase volume elsewhere. Maybe it's out of sight out of mind as you suggest, but even in mind, it's not as if your actions as a consumer would actually end or change the practice you don't like, unless you can unite all consumers around the globe more or less.

 

[jpcdolphan]

I'm not a supporter of cruelty to animals or anything, but to be clear this does not mean that every person who is cruel to animals is a sadistic serial killer in the making.

It wouldn't bother me to have him run over by a garbage truck anyway.

Just to be on the safe side.

I mean, even if he isn't a nascent serial killer, I seriously doubt we would be snuffing out the next great neurosurgeon or anything.

 

[Jared1979]

Code of Hammurabi would fit well here.