Kitten cruelty sentence cut

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

A human baby possesses none of the qualities you list. A newborn human baby is incapable of laughing, dreaming (dreaming in the sense of fantasizing about future possibilities), attempting to control it's future, etc. Therefore according to your logic, the torture of a human baby is nothing to be overly concerned about. A baby doesn't have a consciousness, so it's no matter if it is in pain.

This is about the capacity to empathize when you see another living thing experiencing pain. If you see another organism (whether a human, or a cat) experiencing pain and terror, and you *feel* nothing at all, then congratulations, you have one of the key indicators of sociopathy/ psychopathy, i.e., the inability to empathize with others.

You're largely correct here, and what's in evidence is that the baby is not considered to have a full measure of rights, either. Instead he is essentially the PROPERTY of his parents, held in trust for HIMSELF until he reaches a stage of (supposed) maturity of REASON.

The argument, though, isn't at all about the capacity to *empathize* when you see another living thing experiencing pain. Aside from the truly psychopathic, I don't think the majority of us would behave like the kid in question nor do I think we would enjoy observing such a thing. True, if you *can't* empathize there is probably something not quite right in your noggin'!

In any case, the important fact is this: Man's rights are derived from his nature, specifically his ability to reason and think, from the fact that he is *self aware* and has certain requirements (freedom of action, freedom of thought, etc.) in order to sustain his life (you know, the life which belongs to HIMSELF).

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Just how cruel do you have to be to an animal before you go to jail? Why is the intentional infliction of pain and terror of a kitten not considered to be a moral outrage?



Kitten cruelty sentence cut

By Kim Arlington
March 16, 2005
From: AAP


A TEENAGER jailed for 16 months for setting a kitten on fire has had his sentence reduced on appeal to 100 hours of community service.

Matthew Staines, 18, of Tregear, was found guilty of aggravated cruelty to the 10-week-old kitten, named William.

William was doused with petrol and set alight at Mount Druitt, in Sydney's west, in January.

He was found cowering under a house with second degree burns and later died after an operation to reconstruct his skin.

Staines was sentenced last month in Penrith Local Court to a minimum eight months behind bars.

He immediately appealed against the decision to the District Court, which last week overturned the maximum 16-month jail term and ordered him to perform 100 hours' community service.

The decision outraged the RSPCA and NSW Opposition, which said Staines should have gone to jail.

Staff were shocked and frustrated by the "heartbreaking" appeal decision, RSPCA NSW Chief Inspector Don Robinson said today.

"For the safety of other animals, this individual should be behind bars," he said.

"This outcome makes the RSPCA wonder at the community's perception of our ability to safeguard animals and to alleviate their pain and suffering.

"Perhaps a stronger penalty may have acted as a deterrent to others considering torturing animals for a bit of 'fun'."

William was burned less than two weeks after closed circuit television footage captured an attack on an eight-week-old kitten at Seven Hills railway station, also in Sydney's west.

The kitten, named Shelley, was allegedly stoned, stomped on and run over with a bicycle.

Christopher Leigh Herreros, 18, and a 15-year-old youth were charged with aggravated animal cruelty over the incident and are due to reappear in court this month.

NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden also criticised the appeal decision, saying Staines had committed an evil act and should have been sent to jail.

"One hundred hours of community service is a slap on the wrist for what is a very cruel, and in fact evil form of behaviour, which should be punished as it was intended to, by a jail sentence," Mr Brogden said.

I'm more outraged by the legal atttempt to kill Terri Shiavo.

Terry Shiavo is already dead. The form that lay in the hospital bed is not her; the part of her that was Terry Shiavo is *gone*.

Jason

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Just how cruel do you have to be to an animal before you go to jail? Why is the intentional infliction of pain and terror of a kitten not considered to be a moral outrage?



Kitten cruelty sentence cut

By Kim Arlington
March 16, 2005
From: AAP


A TEENAGER jailed for 16 months for setting a kitten on fire has had his sentence reduced on appeal to 100 hours of community service.

Matthew Staines, 18, of Tregear, was found guilty of aggravated cruelty to the 10-week-old kitten, named William.

William was doused with petrol and set alight at Mount Druitt, in Sydney's west, in January.

He was found cowering under a house with second degree burns and later died after an operation to reconstruct his skin.

Staines was sentenced last month in Penrith Local Court to a minimum eight months behind bars.

He immediately appealed against the decision to the District Court, which last week overturned the maximum 16-month jail term and ordered him to perform 100 hours' community service.

The decision outraged the RSPCA and NSW Opposition, which said Staines should have gone to jail.

Staff were shocked and frustrated by the "heartbreaking" appeal decision, RSPCA NSW Chief Inspector Don Robinson said today.

"For the safety of other animals, this individual should be behind bars," he said.

"This outcome makes the RSPCA wonder at the community's perception of our ability to safeguard animals and to alleviate their pain and suffering.

"Perhaps a stronger penalty may have acted as a deterrent to others considering torturing animals for a bit of 'fun'."

William was burned less than two weeks after closed circuit television footage captured an attack on an eight-week-old kitten at Seven Hills railway station, also in Sydney's west.

The kitten, named Shelley, was allegedly stoned, stomped on and run over with a bicycle.

Christopher Leigh Herreros, 18, and a 15-year-old youth were charged with aggravated animal cruelty over the incident and are due to reappear in court this month.

NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden also criticised the appeal decision, saying Staines had committed an evil act and should have been sent to jail.

"One hundred hours of community service is a slap on the wrist for what is a very cruel, and in fact evil form of behaviour, which should be punished as it was intended to, by a jail sentence," Mr Brogden said.

I'm more outraged by the legal atttempt to kill Terri Shiavo.

Hey Rip, go thread crap somewhere else. We're burning little kitties here, not killing someone that is already braindead.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

Well, I will say it doesn't matter that he was given 100 hrs, 1 hr, a thousand hours, it will not matter if the motivation for the activity was watching something suffer, causing something to suffer. That's not going to go away with community service, if it can go away at all.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

Well, I will say it doesn't matter that he was given 100 hrs, 1 hr, a thousand hours, it will not matter if the motivation for the activity was watching something suffer, causing something to suffer. That's not going to go away with community service, if it can go away at all.

Ok go ahead and say that.

That doesn't make it true. Especially when you have zero evidence.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm more outraged by the legal atttempt to kill Terri Shiavo.

What's with you, Rip? Weren't your other trollish posts deleted from the murdered child thread? Why delete your posts in that thread, but let you continue your trollish posts in other threads? Why are you being such a dick tonight?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

Are you serious?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You're largely correct here, and what's in evidence is that the baby is not considered to have a full measure of rights, either. Instead he is essentially the PROPERTY of his parents, held in trust for HIMSELF until he reaches a stage of (supposed) maturity of REASON.

This isn't true - a baby, child, teenager are NOT the parents' property. They do not have the legal power to enter into contracts and their parents bear some responsibility for their actions, but the parents do not have absolute rights over their children. In fact, these rights are severely limited. The balance is how much right do parents have to control these children, since they may be held liable for the child's actions?

 

[Slickone]

I've read about so many similar cases like this in the last year, it's sickening. A few were dogs/puppies, but mainly cats/kittens.

I never understood why some people feel they must hate, or even torture cats to feel cool and manly, when they've probably never even been around one. I went to high school with red necks like this.

 

[KarenMarie]

I joined this thread late. I almost didnt cause I knew it would upset me... but stupid me... i read it and got upset and I can only state that if I EVER came across that kid, he would never ever eat with his own fvcking teeth again.

:|

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

Are you serious?

Yes. If the kitten doesn't belong to anyone, he is not causing anyone any harm.

 

[Gaard]

I'm not sure I understand. It should be legal, in your eyes, to douse stray cats with gasoline and lite them on fire?

Stray dogs?
Wild animals?

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

Are you serious?

Yes. If the kitten doesn't belong to anyone, he is not causing anyone any harm.

What if you didn't belong to anyone?