Insane

Remove all ads!

Hmmm... Hacken Slash's points are valid ones. We don't want offenders to gain celebrity and/or profit from the crime (interviews, meetings, etc) and community service at an animal shelter could be a good enough fitting punishment, anyway.

Hmmm... do we believe her? But the humane society's workers should get a big big fine, should that ever prove true.

 

What if sentencing like this was common? Then there wouldn't be the celebrity factor to deal with, would you support it then?

Anyway - I have no idea whether this is a good thing or not

 

Any celebrity factor a criminal like this would gain would be due to viewers actually giving a crap.

I've always been opposed to these nonsense laws that attempt to prevent a criminal from writing a book about his crimes in order to profit from them. Here's an idea: don't buy the book. Don't watch her on TV. Wow, what a concept. Oh wait, I forgot that most people are weaklings who simply can't resist the urge to buy books written by criminals. Thank God we've got the government to prevent us from doing such things.

 

Has anyone else noticed that "abandoning" cats on the street, provided they are not de-clawed, is not n the least bit cruel? Cats thrive like this. Just look at Rhode Island. Cats are the only pets people commonly have that are still wild animals. They have never been domesticated, probably never will be, and can take care of themselves just fine in the wild. And before anyone says I just hate cats or something, I love them, have 3 of them, and have spent all but 2 years of my life with cats. Cats are incredible creatures that live with humans for convenience, not necesity.

 

Cats, yes - they can survive on their own. But she dumped kittens. 40 of them. Most would have froze to death the first night, and the rest would've been picked off by coyotes or whatnot soon after. They wouldn't stand a chance, which is where the line of animal cruelty is crossed.

 

NOG,

I make your words my own.

 

She was given a CHOISE of staying out in the woods for the night, or to stay in jail for a month. How is that in total disregard of people's inviduality or personal freedom?

I agree with Death Rabbit. This entire thread is an excuse to leftish bashing, and I don't expect anything else from Svy.

 

Sorry, I hadn't seen the link. Now that I've read it, I think the sentence was fair and just. I would like to know what actually happened with the humane society, but I wouldn't be surprised if she had lied.
On the surface this seems like a huge leftist 'animal rights' thing that so many of us are sick and tired of, the kind of thing PETA would try and pull, but the details show this was just an inventive sentence.

 

Maybe you are right. I did not dig the details, but on the surface this kind of thing is typical leftist crap.
However, there are people who think "animal rights" and "ambientalism" are not leftist agendas.

 

Hey, now that you say it, why don't we allow torture of animals? After all, giving them rights is just leftist agendas and should be dismissed without further information.

indeed.

 

We do allow torture of animals, its called animal testing, and if it saves human lives, or even makes human lives significantly easier, I say go for it. The problem I have is when cosmetics companies test their products on parts of animals the product was never meant to contact (mascara in the eye and blood) with products that (mostly) will only be used by people with so little sense of self that they should be used for animal testing themselves.

 

@NOG:
Oh, hi Jonaleth.

I can see the rationale for the eye (proof for "WARNING: do not get in eye"), but the blood thing threw me a little bit; why would they do that?

 

@Fel: people get spots, grazes, and cuts in their hands and face from time to time. If you use make-up over a healing wound or a spot, there is a chance of the product seeping into your blood.

So, in your opinion, "the surface" is the only thing that matters to label a group of people, a behaviour, a law, or a way of doing things. The way in which the information is delivered, or the amount of information delivered is not important at all, or is it?. I'd like you to compare these two articles:

The first, from Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176303,00.html

The second, from the Aussie Daily Telegraph:
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17307085-5001027,00.html


Isn't it curious how Fox does not consider important to mention that the woman will be monitored to make sure she's safe, and doesn't freeze? Or that she had the choice between going to the woods and then to jail, or going to jail for a longer time, and she chose the woods? To me, that makes an important difference to the sentence.

Then again, that sort of information would destroy the potential of this article for cheap, gratuitous propaganda...

 

Fox alo go out of their way to show that the Judge hands out unusual sentences, implying that the judge is therfore unreliable, instable or anything else you wish to infer from that.

Curious things about this case to me are
1. As Fel pointed out the 2 parks is strange and does suggest pre-meditated and thereby more criminal behaviour.
2. She's an 'Animal Rescuer' and therefore one of the lefty activists that Svy was bashing. Irony anyone.

 

One tbing worth mentioning is that it is a common belief (justified by data, I'm not sure) that people who abuse animal soften end up abusing humans -- in other words, that animal abuse is a stepping stone to violent behaviour toward humans

 

Animal abuse is part of the triangle of early psychopathic behaviour in developing teenagers, the other parts of the triangle are Arson and bedwetting.

Those who have these tendencies as a child can end up becoming full-blown psychopaths and or sociopaths and go on to become serial rapists/killers or serial killers, usually after some trigger event.

Animal abuse per se is not necessarily a stepping-stone towards violent behaviour of any other kind, but is an almost certain indication that the abuser was an abusee in the past.

 

No. I meant when I hear this animal rights stuff it screams "leftism" within my head. Of course the surface is not what matters...

 

You're kidding me...she should be shot! (With one of those belly cannons so she can't eat for a week; I'm not advocating murder.)

 

In terms of medical research, I agree that "Animal Rights" is a load of crap. However, if a human has possession of an animal, I think that both left and right, Liberal and Conservative, Gay or straight, Male or female -- pretty well everyone with a soul would agree that causing that animal physical pain is wrong.

 

Fel:
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. She needs to be beaten over the head many times by thousands of unsharpened pencils. That will teach her!
Interesting fact that (periferally) relates. Did you know that ~90% of the animals 'rescued' by PETA, often from good homes, zoos, and the like, are euthanized. Aparently Peta thinks its better for them to be dead than to live under proper human supervision.