www.ditl.org

i have no objection in principle to the eye for an eye theory of justice....but in this case....who do you cut off the girls tails?

left buttcheeck, or right?

How about do what they do in the wheel of time - a large branding on the forehead so that everyone who sees you can tell you're a criminal

MetalHead wrote:How about do what they do in the wheel of time - a large branding on the forehead so that everyone who sees you can tell you're a criminal

We would, but for silly little things like "freedom from cruel and unusual punishment" and so forth. Shame, really. I for one would love to use the "eye for an eye" logic; it would certainly be interesting living in a world where everyone is blind!

Not everyone. Just the troublemakers.

Varthikes wrote:Not everyone. Just the troublemakers.

It's not up to you to define any of this. Thankfully.

Realistically speaking, what punishment should these people receive? Community service, plus mandatory psychological evaluation and possibly treatment. Jail time should not come into the picture; it's not like they killed a person. Animal life has inherently far less value than human life does, and the sentence should reflect this.

However, those who abuse animals in childhood, demonstrating a desire to gain pleasure by inflicting pain often progress to abusing humans in adulthood. Come down on them hard enough at this stage and there's at least a chance that this might be averted.

Captain Seafort wrote:However, those who abuse animals in childhood, demonstrating a desire to gain pleasure by inflicting pain often progress to abusing humans in adulthood. Come down on them hard enough at this stage and there's at least a chance that this might be averted.

You can't use a crime that you think they might commit based on anecdotal evidence to justify a harsh punishment today. Give them some kind of mandatory psychiatric treatment, but don't fuck them up for life. You don't know for certain that they will become murders or sadists later in life, you simply can't punish them for a hypothetical future crime.

I'm all for deterring crime through harsh measures. I'm the guy who believes that my country should adopt the Thai model and give police the authority to shoot and kill drug dealers on sight. But in this case, there's no justification in punishing them in an unnecessarily harsh manner. It may be tragic, but ultimately it's just a cat.

I Am Spartacus wrote:It may be tragic, but ultimately it's just a cat.

And where do we draw the line?

I Am Spartacus wrote:You can't use a crime that you think they might commit based on anecdotal evidence to justify a harsh punishment today. Give them some kind of mandatory psychiatric treatment, but don't **** them up for life. You don't know for certain that they will become murders or sadists later in life, you simply can't punish them for a hypothetical future crime.

I use the word "often" because not all those who a cruel to animals become serial killers, but it is one of the warning signs, as researched and published by phsyciatrists. Come down hard enough, make it abundantly clear that inflicting pain on others, animals or not, to get your kicks will not be tolerated, and you might prevent this bunch adding to those statistics.

Captain Seafort wrote:
I use the word "often" because not all those who a cruel to animals become serial killers, but it is one of the warning signs, as researched and published by phsyciatrists. Come down hard enough, make it abundantly clear that inflicting pain on others, animals or not, to get your kicks will not be tolerated, and you might prevent this bunch adding to those statistics.

No. You cannot punish someone for a crime you might think they'll commit in the future. Make psychiatric treatment mandatory, but you can't justify sending them to prison or something.

Tiberius wrote:
And where do we draw the line?

Humans. Animal life simply has no value when held up against human life.

I Am Spartacus wrote:No. You cannot punish someone for a crime you might think they'll commit in the future. Make psychiatric treatment mandatory, but you can't justify sending them to prison or something.

I can justify sending them to prison, for cruelty to animals. You say animal life is of lesser value for human life, and I agree - that's why I'm not advocating throwing away the key or introducing them to a length of Bridgeport hemp. Nonetheless, if it is not made abundantly clear to these two that inflicting pain on another living creature for kicks is not acceptable, there is the clear risk that they'll "graduate" to treating humans the same way. Better to nip the problem in the bud and remind them of the rules that society lives by.

I Am Spartacus wrote:Humans. Animal life simply has no value when held up against human life.

Life is life. No matter what species it is. And, animals do feel pain just as we do.

Cruelty to animals is still cruelty.

I Am Spartacus wrote:

Tiberius wrote:And where do we draw the line?

Humans. Animal life simply has no value when held up against human life.

Why not? This isn't speciesism, is it? What does Human life have that animal life lacks? And you aren't forgetting that Humans are animals, are you?

Captain Seafort wrote:

I Am Spartacus wrote:No. You cannot punish someone for a crime you might think they'll commit in the future. Make psychiatric treatment mandatory, but you can't justify sending them to prison or something.

I can justify sending them to prison, for cruelty to animals. You say animal life is of lesser value for human life, and I agree - that's why I'm not advocating throwing away the key or introducing them to a length of Bridgeport hemp. Nonetheless, if it is not made abundantly clear to these two that inflicting pain on another living creature for kicks is not acceptable, there is the clear risk that they'll "graduate" to treating humans the same way. Better to nip the problem in the bud and remind them of the rules that society lives by.

Very well, I bow to your logic.

Tiberius wrote:

I Am Spartacus wrote:

Tiberius wrote:And where do we draw the line?

Humans. Animal life simply has no value when held up against human life.

Why not? This isn't speciesism, is it? What does Human life have that animal life lacks? And you aren't forgetting that Humans are animals, are you?

You bet your rear end it is. We are humans, we live in a society of humants, and we are the dominant life form of this planet. Anything else inherently is inferior to us, and has no rights. We have dominated this planet, and as such we own it and everything on it. Animals are essentially inanimate property to be used as we will. Animal life thusly has value only as long as we can find a use for it.