One Difference: Perhaps The Cat Deserved It?

[goofyfish]

I refrained from postng last month about the obscenely light sentence Rep. Bill Janklow (R-S.D.) got last for killing an innocent motorcyclist -- 100 days in jail and fines totaling $11,400. I even resisted when it came to light that most South Dakotans who have done the same thing as Janklow got much steeper sentences. But now in the news, a Connecticut woman is going to jail for four months -- substantially longer than Janklow -- for killing a cat.

:m: Peace.

 

[Nasor]

The difference, of course, is that Janklow didn't deliberately kill the guy on the motorcycle, while this woman apparently killed the cat intentionally. In the US the courts take intent into consideration when determining sentencing. If I accidentally run over a pedestrian with my car, I would be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If I intentionally ran over someone, I would be charged with murder. The two crimes carry very different sentences, simply because of the issue of intent.

Edit: it's also worth noting that these two incidents took place in different states. South Dakota and Connecticut have very different laws with respect to animal cruelty. In Connecticut animal cruelty is punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a $5000 fine, while in South Dakota it's punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a $1000 fine. It's to be expected that different states will have different guidelines for punishing crimes.

 

[goofyfish]

How about in-state comparisons? And, personally, I don’t see any comparison between a cat’s life and a human life, regardless of intent.

A car can be a deadly weapon. This is another example of how people are not held accountable for using them recklessly. I am sick of hearing of this kind of case referred to as an "accident". He knew what he was doing, and of the possible consequences. An "accident" is when something happens that couldn't be reasonably be foreseen. "Criminal negligence" is when you don't intend for bad stuff to happen, but behave like such a flaming moron that bad stuff (someone getting killed, for example) becomes a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

According to a CNN report on the incident, Janklow knew the neighborhood quite well, knew there was a stop sign there, was apparently lucid up to the very second of the accident, and had been pulled over for running that stop sign previously. Janklow was a notorious speeder, having received 12 speeding tickets from 1990 to 1994, the years in which he was out of office as governor. Curiously enough, he was not ticketed again once he resumed office.

So, here’s a guy who habitually endangers the public. Now he's managed to kill someone with his disregard and carelessness, and he gets what amounts to a slap on the wrist. One hundred days in the slammer, only it's not really because he is out doing "community service" for ten hours a day, six days a week. So he actually only spends 14 days in the can and 100 nights. And if he completes his sentence without incident, his record is expunged.

Perhaps my agitation is partly in response to an out-of-whack justice system, where driving offences - especially when they kill someone - are still not being taken seriously enough. We seem to be happy enough to put people away for non-violent marijuana offences, but not for killing another human being through a persistent pattern of dangerous behavior. Ruling like this one also shred the concept of equal justice under the law. It damages respect for the law by establishing one set of consequences for the politically connected, and another for the rest of us.

The message here is "congressmen are better than the rest of you and don't have to suffer the same consequences for their actions as you do".

:m: Peace.

 

[Nasor]

I'm not saying that Janklow didn't get off easy; I agree that his punishment probably wasn't fair. I'm just saying that it's meaningless to draw comparisons between different crimes that were committed in different states.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Well so what if you can't see the comparison of a cats life and a humans life? What is that worth? You get more upset when a human dies then when a cat dies? Well big frigging deal.
They are both organisms living on the planet earth, that can suffer and would prefer to live than be killed, any difference from there is superficial.
I'm pissed off that people usually "get fines" for brutally murdering animals that were just going about there business, its disgusting and the future will undoubtedly look back on it as disgusting.
I predict cases involving crimes against animals will only become more serious as time goes by and we come to our senses.
There is no reason to take the murder of completely innocent animals so lightly. Why should they die? The title of this thread brings up a point to be considered, with humans at least it is possible that they deserved it, there is no instance in which an animal can be guilty or held accountable in anyway. Its just petty and pathetic to think otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned killing/hurting an animal is worse than killing the average person, its more akin to killing/hurting a young child, and I think the law should treat it as such.

 

[Nasor]

So long as people eat meat, killing animals will probably always be a petty crime. It's difficult to argue that it's okay to kill animals, but only if it's done in a 'humane' way. A creature either has a right to life or it doesn't. At the moment, animals don't.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Hmm confusing...
So I guess the fact leopards are eating people in india means people have no right to life at the moment either?
I don't see the connection, but sounds good to me *wanders off with homocidal look in eyes*

 

[Xev]

There are six billion humans on this planet.
Most of them are complete fucking assholes.
Granted there are a lot of cats.
Cats are assholes, but they're pretty.
I'd say a cat's life is more valuable.

 

[BigBlueHead]

The main reason why a cat doesn't kill you is that it's not big enough.
A big enough cat would kill you without a second though.

It's not because it hates you...
It's just because it wants to hear the sound your neck makes when it bites you.
It wants to feel your desperate, dwindling struggles.
It wants to fill its belly with your tender organs.

You might even say that it loves you...

But it's not big enough, so it just sits around and looks sour.
The fact that you don't kill and eat your cat when it pisses you off indicates an inequality in your relationship. You may not know this, but the cat does.

 

[wesmorris]

Most of them (people) are complete fucking assholes.

I'd say a cat's life is more valuable.

Value is arbitrary I suppose, but certain basic value assertions lead to inevitable consequences.

I'd say if you're serious, you're a traitor to your species and you suffer for it. Everywhere you look, shit is what you'll see if people are there.

Do you twist the asthetic to provide the pain you've grown to adore? Well, as long as you see it that way.. that's the way it will be.

Of course by twisting it in such a manner, you might be able to see something differently than those who do not. I suppose the question "is it real?" is pertinent given that it could be that the percieved clarity of your vision is really just a result of the contortion. You've squinted your mind just right, now total shit is crystal clear. Do you think that shit is all there is? (all this is supposed to be in the context of "other people" if I failed to properly establish that)

I don't think that most people are complete assholes. I'd say most everyone is a partial asshole, it's called being human. Circumstance differentiates knight from knave.