Should Charges for Animal Cruelty be Tougher?

[Vetalia]

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

Why are you so devoid of humanity that you can't understand why? I feel sorry for you.

[Vetalia]

Well if anyone else saw what I did a minute ago...that escalated quickly.

[The Free Joy State]

Charges for murder are probably a step too far. But animals feel pain; they are not insensate.

We should certainly criminalise the abuse of animals where it is not already criminalised and prosecute to the full extent of the law. Adults should definitely face jail-time (with a period of commitment to a secure mental health facility considered as an alternative, if more appropriate for their specific needs).

As for minors, considering the extent to which animal abuse is an early warning sign of psychopathy in children and young people, any minor caught abusing an animal should probably be routinely psychologically assessed and sent either to a mental health facility or to a young offenders institution, if they are not deemed mentally unwell).

[New haven america]

1. Why are you going into the territory of aggressive animals if they tend to claim areas away from human habitation?
2. It seemingly does as you getting attacked by wild animals is apparently common.
3. Why not?

1. ... Is literally the only argument you know how to make to snidely question people's character?

2. Animals don't know how to write and therefore don't put up legible signs. Nor do they always choose convenient locations.

3. This happens when you live in a rustic place. Snakes, birds, all manner of things will move into your area and if you don't make a point of trying to drive them off, you lose your space to them.

4. Because, having empathy for venomous snakes living in your back yard gets you or your loved ones bit and dead.

1. No, but in this case the examples you've been providing are so specific I can't help but feel this comes from more of a place of personal experience rather than logical thought.
2. That doesn't answer my question.
3. That happens everywhere. Did you know we live in a society?
4. You know people, colleges, cities, etc... have services to move venomous snakes away from your property if they were to make their way there, right? Pretty cheap too as they like to study how the animals move across the areas.

[San Lumen]

Why would you willfully hurt another living creature for no reason? Animals may not be sapient but they definitely feel pain and experience emotions.

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

Are you freaking serious?

[Geneviev]

Why would you willfully hurt another living creature for no reason? Animals may not be sapient but they definitely feel pain and experience emotions.

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

Because it isn't harming anyone? Because it's helpless?

[The Alma Mater]

Why would you willfully hurt another living creature for no reason? Animals may not be sapient but they definitely feel pain and experience emotions.

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

To feel superior?

[Page]

I often wonder if making animal cruelty charges a felony is enough to make heartbreaking stories like this stop. Perhaps if these teens were charged with murder it would make others think twice about doing something similar and make people have more respect and care for other creatures.

Animal cruelty is terrible but extreme retribution is not the answer. Teenagers especially do not have fully developed brains, their impulse control and empathy is significantly lower than that of adults. They need counselling and therapy, not a murder charge.

[Ideal Britain]

I often wonder if making animal cruelty charges a felony is enough to make heartbreaking stories like this stop. Perhaps if these teens were charged with murder it would make others think twice about doing something similar and make people have more respect and care for other creatures.

Animal cruelty is terrible but extreme retribution is not the answer. Teenagers especially do not have fully developed brains, their impulse control and empathy is significantly lower than that of adults. They need counselling and therapy, not a murder charge.

Teenagers are capable of understanding that's wrong,
it appear pre-meditated so not "Impulse control issues".
There are 10 year olds in my family who know that's wrong.
They need time in a young offenders' institution not for some mug to take their side.

[Ideal Britain]

Animals are non-sapient and should not have rights unless endangered or are subject to property rights.

Your sig implies you're a Christian, are you not aware of your faiths history of trying to minimize animal suffering? There are several biblical verses supporting that viewpoint, and various church traditions also support it.

Proverbs say that a righteous man "regards the life of their animal"

[Ideal Britain]

What do you propose?

Gibbets.

What if they're 13?

[USS Monitor]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

[The Free Joy State]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

[Risottia]

Perhaps if these teens were charged with murder

Murder is the voluntary, unlawful killing of a human person. Swans aren't neither humans nor persons.

Instead of changing charges, the Parliament could just raise the minimum sentences for cruelty.

[Esternial]

It's a potential flag for more serious problematic behavior, so it should definitely trigger a procedure somewhere to aim at preventing any escalation of cruel conduct.

[The Alma Mater]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

Then again, a normal human needs about 200 grammes of meat per week. Anything extra is for pleasure.

So is there a moral difference between killing animals because sadism gives you pleasure and killing them for the pleasure of their taste ?

[The Blaatschapen]

Why would you willfully hurt another living creature for no reason? Animals may not be sapient but they definitely feel pain and experience emotions.

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

You never had a dog, have you?

[Esternial]

Why would you feel empathy for another living creature that doesn't have it for you?

You never had a dog, have you?

Or any pet capable of melting your still beating heart with the immeasurable radiance of its goofiness and/or adorableness.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It's a potential flag for more serious problematic behavior, so it should definitely trigger a procedure somewhere to aim at preventing any escalation of cruel conduct.

I agree, and courts should have the power to order therapy along those lines. So it should be a crime BUT not so serious a crime that others dread to report it. Animal cruelty typically happens in private, so police or social services are heavily dependent on someone reporting it. Friends and family just won't if the expected punishment is years in jail.

[Risottia]

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

How about cats and dolphins then? Are they artificial?

Natural =/= good.

[Esternial]

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

How about cats and dolphins then? Are they artificial?

Natural =/= good.

Yeah, plenty of mammals are inherently dicks, let's be honest.

[Kragholm Free States]

Goodness no. If someone's causing animals undue pain for nothing more than personal enjoyment, then therapy might well be a wise course of action - acknowledging, of course, that such behaviour sometimes progresses to harm against humans, and it's best to nip it in the bud before then.

We absolutely should not, though, be stripping humans of life and liberty for actions committed against non-humans. Animals are ours to use, regardless of whether one approaches that from the notion of God granting us that use (I don't), or from the simple fact that life is inherently competitive and often ruthless, and we as a living species are not as far removed from that as some might want. A shark or a bear or whatever else would have no qualms about using us for food, they simply lack the intelligence or the need to do so in an organised systemic manner, or to expand that use to other purposes such as transport.

Obviously the situation is rather different if harm done to an animal constitutes a property crime against its owner - attacking livestock or pets, for example - but the charge should there be one of property damage. Notably I believe the case in the OP might be able to be prosecuted on these grounds, since swans are the property of the British Crown.

[Agarntrop]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

If you think animal slaughter is in any way always painless, well, you're wrong.

[New haven america]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

Factory Farming? Yes. The general use of animals as food and humane slaughter? No. There's a stark difference between killing something as quickly as possible and having it's body go to an actual used vs. Being cruel just because.

Also, most humans actually can't be vegetarian or else they risk starvation and or needing dozens of different vitamin supplements to be taken daily to survive. I can't be vegetarian for example because my body doesn't actually do a good job of digesting and absorbing most fruits and vegetables, so I'd only be eating plants out of sheer hunger at that point and subsisting off of vitamins for the rest of my life.

[The Free Joy State]

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

If you think animal slaughter is in any way always painless, well, you're wrong.

I'm not so naïve about where my meat comes from, no.

But I'm talking about intent.

Should animal welfare in the meat industry be tight, of course.

But it seems overly simplistic to pretend there is no difference between the farmer who cares for his animals, maintains good welfare practises, and kills them in a way to minimise suffering -- which generally means stunning -- for food for a species that are natural omnivores and someone who seeks out a helpless animal to torture, deliberately causing them the maximum amount of pain for nothing more than some twisted personal gratification.