Is a society failing when it gives less jail time for killing a person than for

1. 60

   Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

   Is a society failing when it gives less jail time for killing a person than for killing an animal?
   
   Throughout history societies have developed all sorts of warped and twisted moral and legal systems based on the ability of some to convince others. Killing an animal for a thrill or for the wrong reasons should be punishable by jail time, but animal rights activists have gone too far with a shrill, aggressive approach to favoring animals over people. Society went over the edge when disturbed people started calling their forcibly enslaved animals "people" and giving them more rights than humans.

   replyreport
2. 64

   Laurinzo Scottposted 12 years ago

   I agree with you that some people , although usually well meaning, can carry anything too far. Though it is nothing wrong with caring for animals. Many people will feed a dog before they feed a human in need. The problem is not with the people versus animal though... it is a justice system that needs revamping overall.       Consider for instance the purse snatcher who (rightfully) is imprisoned for some years, as opposed to the corporate head who snatches the financial rug out from under several thousand people and simply gets a fine , and a scolding.

   replyreport
3. 80

   Credence2posted 12 years ago

   While penalties for animal cruelty and abuse are appropriate they cannot and must not rise to level of that perpetrated among homo sapiens.
   
   The fact remains that two legs always trumps 4....

   replyreport
4. 0

   jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago

   Is it not a failure to see everything in our world as integrated?  Can't we get to understand how everything fits together and is dependent on everything else?  Must we regard humans as superior to other animals, or visa versa?  Humans are a species of animal.  We will survive or succumb according to our ability to adapt to changing circumstances.  No adaption, no survival.  Period.

   replyreport
5. 69

   Mazzy Boleroposted 12 years ago

   Some of the most corrupt people do great harm to others but don't get punished at all.  The law seems to go for easy targets.  It is financial expedience which drives the lawyers and judges, not justice; only the ones in TV dramas and movies care about justice.  Call me a cynic, but I've seen it first hand.  They act in their own interests, not in yours.
   
   I don't notice people getting long sentences for harming animals, actually - in fact they usually get away with it.  I don't see it as being about animal rights - it's about human responsibility.  Credence2 says "two legs always trumps four"  Well, all I can say is, you haven't met some of the people I've met! I'd take a dog or a horse over them any day! (and I'm not joking)
   
   A human has no excuse for behaving with sadistic cruelty towards a defenseless being - animal or human. If humans behave worse than any animal, what right do they have to consider themselves superior?

   replyreport
6. 59

   glmclendonposted 12 years ago

   I think when we put an animal on the same level or above a human something is wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      An AYMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What defines one life as being more valuable than another?  A lot of bad things in history have happened on that belief.

      replyreport
7. 78

   Catherine Kaneposted 12 years ago

   I haven't actually seen higher consequences for killing an animal than illing a human- quite the reverse, actually.
   
   I could see where it might happen though in a case of serious animal cruelty/abuse vs accidental death or diminished capacity for the human
   
   As to "two legs always trumps four", I do have a leaning towards my own species but I think that we have to keep in mind that the level of enlightenment of a society is measured at least in part by how it treats its more vulnerable members. That's children, elders, the handicapped and yes, animals
   
   Society's not screwed up if we treat the lives of animals with respect- but it is screwed up if we don't...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      All of your answers are fantastic! Thanks for taking time to give such thoughtful responses.

      replyreport
8. 61

   stockpicksposted 12 years ago

   Wow, this is a thought-provoking question...even the question denotes a reflection of our society...

   replyreport
9. 0

   An AYMposted 12 years ago

   Personally I believe - yes.  Society is a failure to me by not recognizing us on equal grounds with the other species we live with.
   The capacity to use tools does not make our lives somehow immediately more valuable.  Especially since every human life lived irresponsibly is a damaging force on the ecosystem while the lives of other creatures contribute to the rest of the environment and its smooth functioning.

   replyreport
10. 94

    Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years ago

    Although I am a passionate advocate of conservation and animal rights and believe that man is only an intellectually advanced species of animal, I certainly would not go anything like as far as to suggest that - all other things being equal - the killing of an animal is as serious as the killing of a person.
    However, consider a normally upright citizen who kills a mugger through the use of unnecessarily extreme force when in a state of abject fear, when a lesser use of force would have been sufficient to dissuade the attack.
    Now consider a habitual sadistic thug who intentionally gains pleasure out of sadistically torturing an animal to death.
    Which of these two has the more depraved outlook, and is ultimately the greater threat to society? Who deserves the longer prison term? Irrespective of the species involved, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the factual end result of the crime and not enough emphasis is placed on the intent and psychology behind the commiting of the crime.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       An AYMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Focus on the intent/psychology of crimes definitely sounds like it would be a much better approach to punishment, but unfortunately I don't think we can do that.  It's a lot harder to prove an intention than it is to prove a death.

       replyreport