02-17-2011, 07:43 AM
0
So what is the point you're trying to make? If people treat other people like shit and get away with it, it should be ok to do the same to animals?
We have the ability to think, speak and reason. If a person chooses, for whatever reason, not to excersise those abilities it's a choice they have made. If a woman stays with a man who beats her then she is as dumb as he is sick. I take your point regarding child abuse but I think you'll find that law and punishment regarding this issue is far more severe than it is towards animal abuse.
As regards "getting away with it", that is the cruncher that society has to face right across the board. From vandals scratching your car, thieves breaking into your home, morons kicking your dog, through to rape and murder - some people get away with it. Indeed, some may have gotten away with it for years but only get caught one time. That is the primary reason why many of us are reluctant to give that "opportunity to become a productive part of society again". Where a person is predisposed to violence, the chances of them re-offending in a similar way are greatly increased. There is an element of sticking it to the scapegoat I suppose, but as I implied earlier, the punishment should fit the crime... in fact it should not be simply a "punishment", it should be a deterrent. That is the problem with the justice system, there are only punishments, and in many cases they do not deter. If, for example, and I know this is taking things to the extreme, but IF people ran the risk of being shot for double parking, they wouldn't do it would they? Problem solved with a deterrent rather than than a "punishment" of a few dollars in fines. As I said, that is an extreme example just to illustrate my point. Punishments don't work, deterrents do.
Ergo, if others are deterred by societies unwillingness to accept Mike Vicks (or any other offenders) punishment as adequate, then that is a step in the right direction in my book.
We have the ability to think, speak and reason. If a person chooses, for whatever reason, not to excersise those abilities it's a choice they have made. If a woman stays with a man who beats her then she is as dumb as he is sick. I take your point regarding child abuse but I think you'll find that law and punishment regarding this issue is far more severe than it is towards animal abuse.
As regards "getting away with it", that is the cruncher that society has to face right across the board. From vandals scratching your car, thieves breaking into your home, morons kicking your dog, through to rape and murder - some people get away with it. Indeed, some may have gotten away with it for years but only get caught one time. That is the primary reason why many of us are reluctant to give that "opportunity to become a productive part of society again". Where a person is predisposed to violence, the chances of them re-offending in a similar way are greatly increased. There is an element of sticking it to the scapegoat I suppose, but as I implied earlier, the punishment should fit the crime... in fact it should not be simply a "punishment", it should be a deterrent. That is the problem with the justice system, there are only punishments, and in many cases they do not deter. If, for example, and I know this is taking things to the extreme, but IF people ran the risk of being shot for double parking, they wouldn't do it would they? Problem solved with a deterrent rather than than a "punishment" of a few dollars in fines. As I said, that is an extreme example just to illustrate my point. Punishments don't work, deterrents do.
Ergo, if others are deterred by societies unwillingness to accept Mike Vicks (or any other offenders) punishment as adequate, then that is a step in the right direction in my book.