Coexistence is a violent misfortune, at least for those animals in urban areas today. Labeled as what we call pets, many animals are cuddled, fed and loved. However, many of these urban animals are hidden, and subjected to the cruelness of human domination as displayed Castro's - a man who kicked a puppy to death simply because he could not stand its yelping. Many of these crimes inflict so much suffering to the animal that they are often too gruesome to fathom, producing crime scenes comparable to that of a homicide. Yet, it is interesting to note how America's justice system treats cases of animal torture and death differently from the murdering of human beings.
From a simply research, I have looked at numerous sentences of violence and have noticed that abusive killings of animals always tend to 'deserve' a lighter punishment then manslaughter. For example, Jessie O'Neal and Rashawn Gill both received a 5 year probation and $2, 500 fine for involvement in dog fighting entertainment. An extremely lenient punishment when compared to Faisal Razzaq and his brother Hassan Razzaq who were charged for 11 years and 20 years respectively for manslaughter. Again, three boys who stole their neighbors dog, repeatedly flung it out of a second story window, broke its legs, hung, beat it like a pinata, decapitated it and finally showing no sign of remorse, could face a charge of only 3 years imprisonment. While a man with a "psychopathic personality disorder" was jailed for life after killing a stranger by stabbing her in the neck with a broken bottle. Comparing these examples, it seems disturbing to notice how the punishments for similarly violent acts, depend so greatly on who is the victim!
As mentioned in my earlier postings, such widely accepted discrepancy in punishments is most likely due to historical and social developments in moral reasoning. Historical and social factors have normalized the view that violence inflicted upon animals is not comparable to the violence inflicted upon another human. For instance, the understanding that human civilization originated from tribes of hunters and gatherers attempt to justify hunting for sport as an important component of culture, arguing that the killing of animals for fun is not a crime because that was how we survived in the past. Biblical writings and Christian writers have all endorsed the idea that man is made superior to other planetary creatures, unintentionally justifying the abuse of animals for entertainment and sport. In the past, Romans had long grown accustomed to regarding creatures of lowly status... without reason or rights, as legitimate objects of violence. In recent history, the Nazi army justified the massacre of 5, 933, 900 Jews because they classified them as not fully human. At this point, I would like to argue that no matter how normal the view - that we are different from nature - is, and how ingrained it is in American society and her judicial law, they should not at all be immune to change. By looking at history, we will see that they are founded upon ever changing moral reasonings. Our past moral philosophies have led to the normalization of anthropocentric views today, ultimately making us believe that there should be relatively lighter punishment for the crime of animal abuse as compared to manslaughter.
Another reason why I think punishments differ depending on whether the victim is an animal or a human, is likely due to the different level of deterrence desired by the courts. Maintaining the socially constructed divide between animal and human species is a natural way of preserving one's species from self-destruction. In other words, providing a heavier punishment for killing a human is a means of deterring the killing of one's own species, thus preserving human society.
Yet, no matter how one argues for such a variation in the two mentioned crimes, one cannot deny that both crimes share very similar levels of violence and motives - such as the desire to attain pleasure from domination of weaker subjects. A blogger writes about Michael Vic's crime: “The methods of killing these poor dogs seem to have been selected to inflict the most pain and distress possible.” As explained in my implications post, Dale Bartlett mentioned that, “[a]nimal cruelty rarely occurs in a vacuum”, and hence should not be looked upon lightly. If such mentality is not clammed down in animal abuse crimes, the violence graduate hypothesis predicts that animal abusers are expected to work their way up from harming animals to harming people.
I strongly believe that one should be judged on the nature of his crime (the means) and not by the outcome or to whom (the ends) he/she harms. The human brain is a complex and ever-learning entity, and if it's harmful appetites are not guided using significant punishments, it will continue searching for more intense acts to satisfy its growing urge. Furthermore, if our punishments reflect what our society values, then aren't we sending out the ambiguous signals? Because by observing trends found in the punishments given, while one can easily deduce that humans are valued more then animals, one can also make the twisted assumption that violence is more acceptable when inflicted upon animals then when inflicted upon humans. Similar to the issue of abortion, if we do not pin down and enforce a clear definition to violence, we will never be able to rid it from society.
Just like how our moral judgments have changed in the past, our decisions on the severity of punishments sentenced on animal abusers today can change too. And they should, if we want to be the noble stewards of animals we envision ourselves to be, as well as to ensure safer human societies for our children to grow up in! Let us first begin with criticizing our judicial laws, that possess the potential to be so effective, but today sadly fail to be so due to fundamental contradictions and leniency.
No comments:
Post a Comment