Should Charges for Animal Cruelty be Tougher?

[Katganistan]

That’s not a excuse. This was murder plain and simple and they need to be taught a lesson and made an example of

It's really not murder. Shit thing to do? Yes. Something that should be punishable by the court? Absolutely. But murder? No.

Pretty much.

[Legatra]

What do the current charges for animal cruelty look like/how tough are they currently?

[Ideal Britain]

Humans are capable of understanding animals have feelings in their teenage years. Empathy starts at 18 months.

Teenagers are more easily provoked but how could they have been provoked by an innocent swan.

I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.

Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.

[The Blaatschapen]

I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.

Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.

That sounds like an ideal britain

[Purple Rats]

I mean, sure, they should get in some deep trouble and maybe a pretty significant fine/community service to straighten them out but it is just a bird.

Birds die all the time, it's nature. In this case it wasn't, but I don't know how much of a difference that really makes.

Humans also die all the time, it's nature. (even if our living conditions are not exactly a "nature", we are still animals as well.)

[Purple Rats]

And for the ones who ask "Why should I care about animals", I could ask the same "why should we care about humans then?"

Because "not caring about humans" means you're a sociopath and it doesn't work very well in human society.

Which, mind, is what enables you to live as you do.

Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.

(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)

[Page]

I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.

Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.

Have prisons ever made someone less sadistic?

[Ifreann]

Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.

Have prisons ever made someone less sadistic?

The people they kill arguably cease to be sadistic.

[Salus Maior]

Because "not caring about humans" means you're a sociopath and it doesn't work very well in human society.

Which, mind, is what enables you to live as you do.

Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.

(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)

Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.

To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?

Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.

However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?

Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.

[The Blaatschapen]

Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.

(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)

Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.

To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?

Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.

However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?

Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.

The community removing a swan is different than a bunch of kids from said community removing a swan.

[Salus Maior]

The community removing a swan is different than a bunch of kids from said community removing a swan.

That is very true, but the point remains that animals don't have inherent individual rights beyond what humans decide to give them, and can be revoked according to the will of such.

[The Free Joy State]

Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.

To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?

Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.

However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?

Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.

The community removing a swan is different than a bunch of kids from said community removing a swan.

Method of removal makes a difference, too.

There is a difference between someone from the community who is capable (a vet or trained warden from the RSPCA) humanely capturing a troublesome swan and then moving it safely away from human settlements and the community gathering together and kicking it to death.

Even if the swan was a nuisance and the community doesn't want it around, the second method of removal is still inhumane and says something rather dark about that community.

Just as, if a family doesn't want a dog anymore, its still inhumane and a very poor reflection on them to dump the animal on the highway, rather than find it somewhere safe to go.

[San Lumen]

What do the current charges for animal cruelty look like/how tough are they currently?

Not tough enough to deter sick people from killing unborn baby swans

[Ifreann]

What do the current charges for animal cruelty look like/how tough are they currently?

Not tough enough to deter sick people from killing unborn baby swans

I keep telling you, harsh penalties don't prevent crime.

[James_xenoland]

No, and in fact they should never ever rise above the level of fines.

[Ifreann]

No, and in fact they should never ever rise above the level of fines.

When the punishment for a crime is just a fine that essentially means that it's legal for the sufficiently rich.

[San Lumen]

No, and in fact they should never ever rise above the level of fines.

No they should not.

[Vetalia]

I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.

Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.

That's far too harsh for first-time offenders, especially at that age. All you would be doing is making them even worse.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No, and in fact they should never ever rise above the level of fines.

When the punishment for a crime is just a fine that essentially means that it's legal for the sufficiently rich.

With the naive "same fine for the same crime" model, yes.

But let's abandon that. You're opposed to imprisonment as punishment right? You're opposed to punishment at all, but I can't work with that.

The jury decide if the person is guilty. Sometimes the jury is allowed to say how guilty; I approve of that. Then the judge applies a punishment "to fit the crime" and hopefully is guided by the jury's idea of how egregious the crime is.

Now the point of punishment is to hurt the convicted person. To hurt them a lot for a serious crime, or just hurt them a bit for a marginal crime. Hurting them "a lot" is taking all their money, plus putting them in debt to the state. Hurting them just a bit is taking maybe 20% of their money.

So it's pretty simple. Equal punishment is the punishment that hurts the same amount for the same crime. Just assess the convict for wealth and income, and confiscate a share of their current wealth and a percentage of their future income. A bigger share for a worse crime, a smaller share for a lesser crime.

[Thepeopl]

When the punishment for a crime is just a fine that essentially means that it's legal for the sufficiently rich.

With the naive "same fine for the same crime" model, yes.

But let's abandon that. You're opposed to imprisonment as punishment right? You're opposed to punishment at all, but I can't work with that.

The jury decide if the person is guilty. Sometimes the jury is allowed to say how guilty; I approve of that. Then the judge applies a punishment "to fit the crime" and hopefully is guided by the jury's idea of how egregious the crime is.

Now the point of punishment is to hurt the convicted person. To hurt them a lot for a serious crime, or just hurt them a bit for a marginal crime. Hurting them "a lot" is taking all their money, plus putting them in debt to the state. Hurting them just a bit is taking maybe 20% of their money.

So it's pretty simple. Equal punishment is the punishment that hurts the same amount for the same crime. Just assess the convict for wealth and income, and confiscate a share of their current wealth and a percentage of their future income. A bigger share for a worse crime, a smaller share for a lesser crime.

Like they do in Finland.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/ ... ur-income/

[Nobel Hobos 2]

With the naive "same fine for the same crime" model, yes.

But let's abandon that. You're opposed to imprisonment as punishment right? You're opposed to punishment at all, but I can't work with that.

The jury decide if the person is guilty. Sometimes the jury is allowed to say how guilty; I approve of that. Then the judge applies a punishment "to fit the crime" and hopefully is guided by the jury's idea of how egregious the crime is.

Now the point of punishment is to hurt the convicted person. To hurt them a lot for a serious crime, or just hurt them a bit for a marginal crime. Hurting them "a lot" is taking all their money, plus putting them in debt to the state. Hurting them just a bit is taking maybe 20% of their money.

So it's pretty simple. Equal punishment is the punishment that hurts the same amount for the same crime. Just assess the convict for wealth and income, and confiscate a share of their current wealth and a percentage of their future income. A bigger share for a worse crime, a smaller share for a lesser crime.

Like they do in Finland.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/ ... ur-income/

And Switzerland too it says. Several interesting things in that article, tho mostly related to driving.

[The Emerald Legion]

Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.

(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)

Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.

To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?

Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.

However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?

Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.

So is starting fires and wetting the bed.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

This, really. Jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone, but mental health care might.

Either rehabilitate them or lock them up for life; preferably the former. The last thing we need is a potential future serial killer to be let out of jail because we couldn't give them a life sentence for animal cruelty.

[Ideal Britain]

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.

This, really. Jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone, but mental health care might.

Either rehabilitate them or lock them up for life; preferably the former. The last thing we need is a potential future serial killer to be let out of jail because we couldn't give them a life sentence for animal cruelty.

Some prisons do rehabilitate.
Look at Norway or Sweden.

I would put them in jail and give them mental healthcare

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This, really. Jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone, but mental health care might.

Either rehabilitate them or lock them up for life; preferably the former. The last thing we need is a potential future serial killer to be let out of jail because we couldn't give them a life sentence for animal cruelty.

Some prisons do rehabilitate.
Look at Norway or Sweden.

I would put them in jail and give them mental healthcare

If you jail them now, in countries like Canada or the USA, it doesn't matter how much mental healthcare you give them. The memories of getting raped and beaten in jail are going to haunt them the rest of their lives in ways no therapy could hope to overcome.

You dream of a hypothetical world where Canadian and American prisons could be as humane as Norway's? Great, when you get there, you let me know. In the meantime, use prison only on those whose need to be made examples of to strike fear into the hearts of criminals outweigh any value in "rehabilitating" them.