A special place in hell is reserved for whoever is responsible for burning a 4-month old puppy.
MICHIGAN CITY, Ind. — The Humane Society is offering a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest of whoever set a 4-month-old puppy on fire, leaving it with fatal burns.
. . .
A Michigan City resident spotted the dog on fire early Wednesday called police, who found the smoldering pit bull near some bushes. Police said an accelerant was used.The dog’s owner, Andrea Davis, 22, said the puppy named Snoopy must have been taken off its leash in her fenced backyard.
Dogs have a special place in the world since they were domesticated to provide us with companionship and in some cases work for us. For most dogs, their biggest joy comes from getting approval or affection from their human. Most dogs will loyally stay with any abusive person as long as they get some interaction from that person. That’s what they were bred for, and they almost always uphold their end of the bargain. Humans who abuse dogs and violate that trust–especially in a case like this that is only meant to cause suffering to a creature that cannot defend itself or even understand why it is happening–should be locked away for a long time.
First, let me say that I agree that this person should be punished for what they did. However, what changed your mind, Doug?
I’m not trying to be argumentative; I know I’ve changed my views from time to time.
However, if you make rules for things like this (morals, taste), how do you decide what morals or taste to use?
I think dogfights and torching puppies is friggin SICK. However, some people think it is entertainment. Does the majority get to decide?
When we’re not talking about protecting constitutional ideals, how do we get to decide this?
This is a person who has caused extreme and gratuitous pain to a living creature that has a lot in common with a human — though dogs tend to do a better job of living up to those qualities we value in humans (as described by T above).
First of all, I wouldn’t be a stickler on the law in this case. I’d probably be willing to look the other way in the case of vigilante justice — I’m not saying that’s a good policy position, but I have a visceral, irrational side.
Second, from a legal policy standpoint, someone who could visit this sort of casual maliciousness on a dog isn’t likely to have a whole lot of problem doing the same to a fellow human. So, I’m not sure it’s “legislating morality” to punish this sort of behavior any more than it would be if you punished the same person for lighting his neighbor on fire.
Its the age-old intellectual debate about what is the nature of law.Is it moral ,inspired by abolute truths,given down by God , revealed to us in Scripture? Or is law making a deliberated, secular process based on Constitutional precedents debated by randomly elected guys and gals like oursleves who hash out and vote on legislation to protect society by giving us a venue and procedure for due process under our Constitution.I, also, would be on the side of being harsh against animal abusers because they would be a threat to me in my home and need to be dealt with for the protection of society at large. Gratutious cruelty is what it is.
Reminded me of a quote from Alan Moore’s “The Watchmen”:
nice point,and quote, Doug. Whether we claim divine guidance or blame divine providence before and after our actions or whether we say we are just being objective and scientific still we are responsible for our actions and there should be a coming of minds on this by religious and non-religious alike.We have the need to protect oursleves with law and our Constitution lays out a process of deliberation, compromise and voting.I stop at a stop sign and I expect you to also.If not,theres’ a law and enforcement and judgment….I just want to get where I’m going,and I hope you do to if I have good will.If I murder someone,then I want a process,not a Biblical quote,because there must be extenuating circumstances,and I have a right for them to be brought out by the process of justice. That’s the very snapshot of the secular nature of deliberated law .How moral we think we are when we deliberate is irrelevant to the process.
Excuse me for explaining law to the legal profession.I’m just an old, retired public school teacher.