NationStates

https://www.smalljoys.tv/mother-swan-broken-heart/

A swan in Manchester died of a apparent broken heart after several teens destroyed her nest causing her partner to leave her. Swans often mate for life. Who raised such monsters that they would do something so awful? I hope whoever did this is caught and charged to the fullest extent of the law possible.

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.

What do you think NSG?

I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

What do you propose?

San Lumen wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

What do you propose?

I’d impose jail (adults) or correctional time (teens) depending on the severity of the animal abuse and the circumstances by which it happened. Community service is another one. But not just any type, something quite time consuming and physically taxing, and expunging of records can be done upon completion. You don’t necessarily want to ruin a teenager’s life, but rather make them aware that actions have very real consequences.

Welp.

That's my day ruined.

Animals are not people, it is true. But animals can feel pain and fear and suffer.
People who abuse animals should honestly be fined and be placed in some sort of rehabilitation program. If they are repeat offenders, then perhaps being placed in mental health care until they are rehabilitated is necessary.

One of the "triad" of serial killer indicators is torturing/killing animals, so it's really not the 'no big deal' some seem to think it is.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What do you propose?

I’d impose jail (adults) or correctional time (teens) depending on the severity of the animal abuse and the circumstances by which it happened. Community service is another one. But not just any type, something quite time consuming and physically taxing, and expunging of records can be done upon completion. You don’t necessarily want to ruin a teenager’s life, but rather make them aware that actions have very real consequences.

That's not a bad idea. Punishment for something like should be very severe. it breaks my heart someone could be this cruel.

Don't charge them with murder, but definitely be tougher. People need to learn to respect animals.

Katganistan wrote:Animals are not people, it is true. But animals can feel pain and fear and suffer.
People who abuse animals should honestly be fined and be placed in some sort of rehabilitation program. If they are repeat offenders, then perhaps being placed in mental health care until they are rehabilitated is necessary.

One of the "triad" of serial killer indicators is torturing/killing animals, so it's really not the 'no big deal' some seem to think it is.

thats not a bad idea either.

Geneviev wrote:Don't charge them with murder, but definitely be tougher. People need to learn to respect animals.

Why not? it would teach them a lesson and possible deter others from doing something similar.

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Don't charge them with murder, but definitely be tougher. People need to learn to respect animals.

Why not? it would teach them a lesson and possible deter others from doing something similar.

It would do that. But these teens were young and probably didn't know better, and that should be taken into account.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why not? it would teach them a lesson and possible deter others from doing something similar.

It would do that. But these teens were young and probably didn't know better, and that should be taken into account.

Didn't know better? They killed the offspring of another living thing, broke her heart, and killed her too. Saying they didnt know better isn't an excuse and therefore it should not be taken into account. This was murder plain and simple and should be treated as such.

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It would do that. But these teens were young and probably didn't know better, and that should be taken into account.

Didn't know better? They killed the offspring of another living thing, broke her heart, and killed her too. Saying they didnt know better isn't an excuse and therefore it should be taken into account. This was murder plain and simple and should be treated as such.

Murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. It requires the intent to kill, which would require them to be aware of what they were doing. If they were not, and I think they weren't, it is not murder.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Didn't know better? They killed the offspring of another living thing, broke her heart, and killed her too. Saying they didnt know better isn't an excuse and therefore it should be taken into account. This was murder plain and simple and should be treated as such.

Murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. It requires the intent to kill, which would require them to be aware of what they were doing. If they were not, and I think they weren't, it is not murder.

Murder doesnt have to be premeditated. How could they not have been aware of what they were doing?

I wouldn't call it murder but it does need to be resolved

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. It requires the intent to kill, which would require them to be aware of what they were doing. If they were not, and I think they weren't, it is not murder.

Murder doesnt have to be premeditated. How could they not have been aware of what they were doing?

They were probably too young to realize the consequences of their actions or that animals can experience pain.

And premeditation is generally included in the requirements for first degree murder.

Harsher punishments do not prevent crimes.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Murder doesnt have to be premeditated. How could they not have been aware of what they were doing?

They were probably too young to realize the consequences of their actions or that animals can experience pain.

And premeditation is generally included in the requirements for first degree murder.

Doubtful.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

A lot more harshly but it's not murder.

The pieces of excrement that did that should get at least 5 years though.
They caused extreme distress to an animal for absolutely no reason so why should anyone care about them going to jail?
They shouldn't have done that and there was no extenunating circumstance meaning they felt backed into a corner (unlike with some charges of violence against animals or people).
Lock em up and publicly name and shame them.

Charging them with murder is excessive, and I don't believe that the primary purpose of punishments should be to deter other crime (if charging them with murder would even deter anything).

Though I wouldn't be opposed to making the punishment tougher, or adding rehabilitation to it.

No, not only should they not be tougher but they should be entirely removed. Animals are NOT people. And to restrict the rights of your voting populace for the sake of non sentient critters is frankly moronic. We only do it out of a wrong and moronic sense of sentimentality. And that is not a good reason to do anything. Animal rights should instead be rolled back and entirely removed so that beasts can once again take their rightful place as property.

PS. This does not mean I condone killing other peoples pets or livestock. That's property damage. And property damage should be dealt with with cruelty and wrath.
PPS. I am also not against conservation. Maintaining a functioning ecosystem is in the higher interest of all humans not dying horribly so concessions have to be made to that. Just as long as we remember we are doing it for humans sake and NOT for natures sake. It's a keep your slave alive and healthy so that it can keep working your field efficiently sort of deal.

Charged with murder? No. Prosecuted by the full extent of the law? Yeah. I feel that those who are particularly cruel to animals are often mentally ill in some way shape or form, with those sorts of cases, rehabilitation and psychiatric evaluation should come in tandem with the punishment.

Ideal Britain wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

A lot more harshly but it's not murder.

The pieces of excrement that did that should get at least 5 years though.
They caused extreme distress to an animal for absolutely no reason so why should anyone care about them going to jail?
They shouldn't have done that and there was no extenunating circumstance meaning they felt backed into a corner (unlike with some charges of violence against animals or people).
Lock em up and publicly name and shame them.

I think that is a reasonable punishment

Purpelia wrote:No, not only should they not be tougher but they should be entirely removed. Animals are NOT people. And to restrict the rights of your voting populace for the sake of non sentient critters is frankly moronic. We only do it out of a wrong and moronic sense of sentimentality. And that is not a good reason to do anything. Animal rights should instead be rolled back and entirely removed so that beasts can once again take their rightful place as property.

PS. This does not mean I condone killing other peoples pets or livestock. That's property damage. And property damage should be dealt with with cruelty and wrath.
PPS. I am also not against conservation. Maintaining a functioning ecosystem is in the higher interest of all humans not dying horribly so concessions have to be made to that. Just as long as we remember we are doing it for humans sake and NOT for natures sake. It's a keep your slave alive and healthy so that it can keep working your field efficiently sort of deal.

Please tell me your not serious. Animals don't exist to be our slaves and its quite shocking and heartbreaking that people believe this

They probably had no idea of the consequences. I dont value any animals life over a humans. Except maybe reallly extraordinarily shitty people. Maybe send the kids to voluntold at the humane society for a summer, or with the dnr if Britain has any legit forests left (?).

This is what happens when there is a societal disconnect with nature.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:They probably had no idea of the consequences. I dont value any animals life over a humans. Except maybe reallly extraordinarily shitty people. Maybe send the kids to voluntold at the humane society for a summer, or with the dnr if Britain has any legit forests left (?).

This is what happens when there is a societal disconnect with nature.

I agree.
Society would connect with nature if humans viewed themselves not as sovereign but as god's subjects,
like animals.