Just saw in the news an American woman was convicted to spend a full night on a snowy forest - -7degrees - on the basis that she "abandoned" cats on the street! How far will these activist twits go? I wonder how long till people be convicted because they refuse to shelter poor and homeless animals.
Bye bye individual freedom.
Don't take me wrong, I love cats, and actually own two of them, but that is just insane. The end of the world.
I was asked before if ambientalism is a lefty idea, which I said not necessarily, although 99% of these activist are leftists. The resemblance is crystal clear: the same total disregard of people's individuality and personal freedom, on the basis of "protecting the weak and helpless". Control and more control...Big Brother is watching you.

[ December 04, 2005, 17:30: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

While I support animal rights to an extent, the punishment in this case qualifies as "cruel and unusual", which goes against US laws. A fine would have been suitable, if they were her cats and she seriously neglected them. Not knowing the case details I can't say much.

However, I wouldn't call the judge (it is, after all, the judges who ultimately decide the nature of the punishment) an activist twit. Just a twit.

I wonder how long till people be convicted because they refuse to shelter poor and homeless animals.Well, to pass a law like that would require the majority of lawmakers to be animal rights extremists of the most unreasonable kind - the kind I haven't so far witnessed anywhere. Of course one should shelter their *own* animals, though.

Funny how folks on the right will see anything they don't like as lefty, and vice versa.

I mean, you could see such severe punishment as rather conservative and traditional, an eye for an eye and all that. I think that was the judge's point: she left animals out in the cold where they froze to death, so he forced her to spend a night out in the cold (not so awful, by the way, eskimos do it every night).

Calling such punishment "the end of the world" seems a tad over-the-top. The sky is not falling... just a judge obeying the Old Testament. How's that "leftist" ?

While I support animal rights to an extent, the punishment in this case qualifies as "cruel and unusual", which goes against US laws. A fine would have been suitable, if they were her cats and she seriously neglected them. I pretty much agree and there's also a more serious problem than simply neglecting the animals. Abandoned unsterilized cats on the streets can potentially become and reproduce feral cats and feral cats are bad for the nature in every way, not to mention that I'd say most humans don't like them too much either. So abandoning cats on the street is just plain irresponsible and should be criminal. However she could have allways killed the cat and as long as the death was quick and relatively painless she'd have my full blessing.

In general I am of the opinion though that once you get pets you should be ready to take care of them but sometimes life can throw unexpected twists and the only solution would be to get rid of them. Preferrably taking them to some sort of home for abandoned animals, but if that's not possible then it might be required to have the animal killed.

Link please. This sounds like "cruel and unusual punishment" and I would like to verify its truth before I weigh in on how stupid it is. Generally, I find stories and emails concerning legal matters to be 75% hoaxes.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051118-115848-2452r

Ah, she had the choice (so there goes the cruel and unusual punishment angle) and doing this reduces her sentence by a factor of six. Still pretty stupid, I'd have to say. I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson from this?

I don't know if the judge is an activist - I heard this is not the first time he gives such an unusual punishment, so my guess he is just an oportunist show off. However, these kind of things happen because of the pressure from the animal right activists.

Funny how folks on the right will see anything they don't like as lefty, and vice versa.

I mean, you could see such severe punishment as rather conservative and traditional, an eye for an eye and all that. I think that was the judge's point: she left animals out in the cold where they froze to death, so he forced her to spend a night out in the cold (not so awful, by the way, eskimos do it every night).

Calling such punishment "the end of the world" seems a tad over-the-top. The sky is not falling... just a judge obeying the Old Testament. How's that "leftist" ? Except that the right have concerns other than animal rights. It is a known fact these activists are leftists. Do you think they are conservative people? :rolleyes:
I even mentioned something they share deeply in common, and I quote: "the same total disregard of people's individuality and personal freedom, on the basis of "protecting the weak and helpless". Control and more control."
But I guess the skimos do it so every night, so it must be right. :rolleyes:
By the way, the Old Testament was not meant to "protect animals", in case you did not know.

Except that the right have concerns other than animal rights. It is a known fact these activists are leftists. Do you think they are conservative people?It's not at all unheard of that a conservative person has a deep love of animals. Maybe the judge had just that, combined with an eye for an eye -mentality. He doesn't have to be an activist or leftist for that, nor does he have to have been influenced by them. Neither does he need to be a leftist to be an opportunist show-off.

It's not at all unheard of that a conservative person has a deep love of animals. Maybe the judge had just that, combined with an eye for an eye -mentality. He doesn't have to be an activist or leftist for that, nor does he have to have been influenced by them. Neither does he need to be a leftist to be an opportunist show-off. I said he was an opportunist show-off. I did not relate this fact to the condition of being a leftist or not.
Having a deep love for animals does not make one an activist - as I said, I like animals myself.
I have never heard of an animal rights activist or ambientalist who is a conservative rightist. I do know nazi heathens who are all very much pro- nature, but those account to that 1% I have mentioned before.

I'm fine with it. As far as I'm concerned abandoning an animal on the street to freeze to death, is no less worse than doing it to a human child.

She got what she deserved. (though if it was up to me, she would have been stuck there for a week :p )

The night out wouldn't kill the woman. Sounds to me like letting the punishment fit the crime. These sorts of "alternative consequences" are becoming more and more common (or maybe I'm just hearing more about them) partly because of the high cost of incarceration.

Personally, I hate cats with a passion, but that doesn't mean I think they should be tormented. It's been my experience that cat lovers tend to be a weird lot anyhow ;)

It is a known fact these activists are leftists. Do you think they are conservative people? However, these kind of things happen because of the pressure from the animal right activists.
Correlation does not equal causation, first of all. Second, a judge doesn't have to be an "activist" to hand down a sentence like that - just eccentric. I personally think punishments should fit crimes more often. How is a fine going to show someone the error of their ways? But I digress...

This thread seems like an excuse to lefty bash. You aren't attacking the judge here, but rather "lefty activists." There's no evidence to suggest this sentence had anything to do with outside pressure from animal rights activists, or that the judge was one himself. Yet you choose shout "Oh my god the lefties are destroying the world!"

The fanaticism that is dangerous may very well be your own. Which applies to everyone, of course.

Death Rabbit,

In all my posts - within this thread - I have made clear what I think this judge is. If you could not grasp so far, you won't do it now, so that is all I have to say.

LKD,

I am a "cat-lover". :D but then I might be weird indeed. ;)

If you could not grasp so far, you won't do it now, so that is all I have to say.
Wow, what a mature response!

Considering how you set the tone of this thread with "How far will these activists twits go?" - opining the "fact" that animal-rights activists are all lefties, then rail on the judge for bending to pressure from these animal rights "twits," and despite calling him an opportunist show-off, it isn't too much of a stretch to read lefty-bashing into your post. So while you aren't calling him an lefty activist per se, you do contest that he's bowing to pressure from them by doing their will, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. I called it like I saw it. You don't like it, fine. But don't tell me I'm the one who has trouble grasping.

Still pretty stupid, I'd have to say. I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson from this? I agree. The judge let her off way too easy, IMO. I would have given her the 3 months in jail. This judge, it seems to me, is taking the idea of choice too far...this woman did the crime, so she should do the time.

Any stats to show how fitting punishment affects reoffending in the US, compared to standard prison or fine? Could be interesting. I suppose it can also have the additional value of allowing the offender more fully to understand why he is being punished and why his deed was wrong.

This judge, it seems to me, is taking the idea of choice too far... Chandos! It warms my heart to see you finally speak out against "pro-choice" judges! ;)

Here's the problem with rulings like this. Although it might seem like a good idea to let the punishment fit the crime, all it does is get the criminal a degree of celebrity. She gets her picture in the paper, appears on the evening news, gets talked about on internet bulletin boards...next week she'll be on Jerry Springer. In the fall she gets a quarter million for the screenplay of the CBS miniseries "Cold and Hungry".

The woman just needs to be tossed into the county jail to serve her time and eat green bologna, be released to house arrest just in time to avoid losing her job, work 6 months of community service at an animal rescue shelter...and...oh yeah, be fitted with a pink, belled collar that says "fluffy".

I also want to sound off on the side that opposes "activism" and "leftism" being considered one in the same.

Any stats to show how fitting punishment affects reoffending in the US, compared to standard prison or fine? Could be interesting.Not likely, chev. It's so rare here that I don't think anyone could make a quantatative study on it. Judges typically pass down the sentence on the books (fines, community service, jail time, etc.) and move along to the next case. Most aren't as creative as this guy.

A judge in Painesville, Ohio, has ordered a woman to spend a winter night in the woods for abandoning 40 kittens in two parks. This puzzles me; why did she leave them in TWO parks? Repeat behaviour might indicate malicious intent.

Also, I think she got off pretty easily for it, especially considering the reduced sentence. I have no doubt that if those 40 babies had been human, she'd be dead before she made it to sentencing.

Murray told the newspaper a stranger left the kittens on her doorstep and the local animal shelter refused to help her. The humane society denied it had refused help. Here's an idea: find someone else's doorstep to leave them on; maybe someone who gave half a damn. You don't see CSI scrambling to find the person who left them on her doorstep, so if you're really that apathetic (no offense to AE, of course), you can just pawn them off on some other stranger. She's getting two weeks for the high crime of Stupid. :rolleyes:

Hmmm... Hacken Slash's points are valid ones. We don't want offenders to gain celebrity and/or profit from the crime (interviews, meetings, etc) and community service at an animal shelter could be a good enough fitting punishment, anyway.

Murray told the newspaper a stranger left the kittens on her doorstep and the local animal shelter refused to help her. The humane society denied it had refused help.Hmmm... do we believe her? But the humane society's workers should get a big big fine, should that ever prove true.

What if sentencing like this was common? Then there wouldn't be the celebrity factor to deal with, would you support it then?

Anyway - I have no idea whether this is a good thing or not :)

Any celebrity factor a criminal like this would gain would be due to viewers actually giving a crap.

I've always been opposed to these nonsense laws that attempt to prevent a criminal from writing a book about his crimes in order to profit from them. Here's an idea: don't buy the book. Don't watch her on TV. Wow, what a concept. Oh wait, I forgot that most people are weaklings who simply can't resist the urge to buy books written by criminals. Thank God we've got the government to prevent us from doing such things.

Has anyone else noticed that "abandoning" cats on the street, provided they are not de-clawed, is not n the least bit cruel? Cats thrive like this. Just look at Rhode Island. Cats are the only pets people commonly have that are still wild animals. They have never been domesticated, probably never will be, and can take care of themselves just fine in the wild. And before anyone says I just hate cats or something, I love them, have 3 of them, and have spent all but 2 years of my life with cats. Cats are incredible creatures that live with humans for convenience, not necesity.

Cats, yes - they can survive on their own. But she dumped kittens. 40 of them. Most would have froze to death the first night, and the rest would've been picked off by coyotes or whatnot soon after. They wouldn't stand a chance, which is where the line of animal cruelty is crossed.

NOG,

I make your words my own.

The resemblance is crystal clear: the same total disregard of people's individuality and personal freedomShe was given a CHOISE of staying out in the woods for the night, or to stay in jail for a month. How is that in total disregard of people's inviduality or personal freedom?

I agree with Death Rabbit. This entire thread is an excuse to leftish bashing, and I don't expect anything else from Svy.

Sorry, I hadn't seen the link. Now that I've read it, I think the sentence was fair and just. I would like to know what actually happened with the humane society, but I wouldn't be surprised if she had lied.
On the surface this seems like a huge leftist 'animal rights' thing that so many of us are sick and tired of, the kind of thing PETA would try and pull, but the details show this was just an inventive sentence.

Sorry, I hadn't seen the link. Now that I've read it, I think the sentence was fair and just. I would like to know what actually happened with the humane society, but I wouldn't be surprised if she had lied.
On the surface this seems like a huge leftist 'animal rights' thing that so many of us are sick and tired of, the kind of thing PETA would try and pull, but the details show this was just an inventive sentence. Maybe you are right. I did not dig the details, but on the surface this kind of thing is typical leftist crap.
However, there are people who think "animal rights" and "ambientalism" are not leftist agendas. :rolleyes:

Maybe you are right. I did not dig the details, but on the surface this kind of thing is typical leftist crap.
However, there are people who think "animal rights" and "ambientalism" are not leftist agendas. [Roll Eyes]Hey, now that you say it, why don't we allow torture of animals? After all, giving them rights is just leftist agendas and should be dismissed without further information.

:rolleyes: indeed.

We do allow torture of animals, its called animal testing, and if it saves human lives, or even makes human lives significantly easier, I say go for it. The problem I have is when cosmetics companies test their products on parts of animals the product was never meant to contact (mascara in the eye and blood) with products that (mostly) will only be used by people with so little sense of self that they should be used for animal testing themselves.

@NOG:
Oh, hi Jonaleth. :wave: ;)

I can see the rationale for the eye (proof for "WARNING: do not get in eye"), but the blood thing threw me a little bit; why would they do that?

@Fel: people get spots, grazes, and cuts in their hands and face from time to time. If you use make-up over a healing wound or a spot, there is a chance of the product seeping into your blood.


but on the surface this kind of thing is typical leftist crapSo, in your opinion, "the surface" is the only thing that matters to label a group of people, a behaviour, a law, or a way of doing things. The way in which the information is delivered, or the amount of information delivered is not important at all, or is it?. I'd like you to compare these two articles:

The first, from Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176303,00.html

The second, from the Aussie Daily Telegraph:
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17307085-5001027,00.html


Isn't it curious how Fox does not consider important to mention that the woman will be monitored to make sure she's safe, and doesn't freeze? Or that she had the choice between going to the woods and then to jail, or going to jail for a longer time, and she chose the woods? To me, that makes an important difference to the sentence.

Then again, that sort of information would destroy the potential of this article for cheap, gratuitous propaganda...

Isn't it curious how Fox does not consider important to mention that the woman will be monitored to make sure she's safe, and doesn't freeze? Or that she had the choice between going to the woods and then to jail, or going to jail for a longer time, and she chose the woods? To me, that makes an important difference to the sentence. Fox alo go out of their way to show that the Judge hands out unusual sentences, implying that the judge is therfore unreliable, instable or anything else you wish to infer from that.

Curious things about this case to me are
1. As Fel pointed out the 2 parks is strange and does suggest pre-meditated and thereby more criminal behaviour.
2. She's an 'Animal Rescuer' and therefore one of the lefty activists that Svy was bashing. Irony anyone.

One tbing worth mentioning is that it is a common belief (justified by data, I'm not sure) that people who abuse animal soften end up abusing humans -- in other words, that animal abuse is a stepping stone to violent behaviour toward humans

Animal abuse is part of the triangle of early psychopathic behaviour in developing teenagers, the other parts of the triangle are Arson and bedwetting.

Those who have these tendencies as a child can end up becoming full-blown psychopaths and or sociopaths and go on to become serial rapists/killers or serial killers, usually after some trigger event.

Animal abuse per se is not necessarily a stepping-stone towards violent behaviour of any other kind, but is an almost certain indication that the abuser was an abusee in the past.

So, in your opinion, "the surface" is the only thing that matters to label a group of people, a behaviour, a law, or a way of doing things. The way in which the information is delivered, or the amount of information delivered is not important at all, or is it?. I'd like you to compare these two articles: No. I meant when I hear this animal rights stuff it screams "leftism" within my head. Of course the surface is not what matters...

2. She's an 'Animal Rescuer' and therefore one of the lefty activists that Svy was bashing. Irony anyone. :jawdrop: You're kidding me...she should be shot! (With one of those belly cannons so she can't eat for a week; I'm not advocating murder.)

In terms of medical research, I agree that "Animal Rights" is a load of crap. However, if a human has possession of an animal, I think that both left and right, Liberal and Conservative, Gay or straight, Male or female -- pretty well everyone with a soul would agree that causing that animal physical pain is wrong.

Fel:
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. She needs to be beaten over the head many times by thousands of unsharpened pencils. That will teach her!
Interesting fact that (periferally) relates. Did you know that ~90% of the animals 'rescued' by PETA, often from good homes, zoos, and the like, are euthanized. Aparently Peta thinks its better for them to be dead than to live under proper human supervision.

Did you know that ~90% of the animals 'rescued' by PETA, often from good homes, zoos, and the like, are euthanized. Aparently Peta thinks its better for them to be dead than to live under proper human supervision.I'm a bit confused about that part of 'rescuing' animals 'from good homes, zoos etc.' You make it sound like PETA just storms in and takes animals from people who could very well provide for them. I've been under the impression that they take animals that are either given to them by the owners who feel they can't/don't want to keep them, or from people who treat their animals poorly. If they can't find any takers for the rescued animals, nobody can be *forced* to take them in. And since there aren't enough people willing to take in the animals, the real reason for the euthanizing is the lack of facilities. There's not enough room to keep all the animals in indefinetely.

No, that's the SPCA, which is a great group. PETA is only a little above urban terrorism. They will raid anywhere that has concentrations of animals, just as long as they think they can get away with it. They pay little attention to the conditions the animals are already in, frequently get caught, and are usually let off on a warning because 'they're just protecting the animals'. On a few occasions, they have even injured and killed people in order to get the animals out. Almost all of them are either let loose on the spot, killing most of them and causing massive damage to the area, or taken to local PETA headquarters. If the animals get there, the PETA members decide which they are willing to/capable of taking care of, and euthanize the rest.

Aparently Peta thinks its better for them to be dead than to live under proper human supervision. Fixed: Aparently Peta thinks its better for them to be dead than to live under improper human supervision.

Of course, what they consider "improper" can sometimes be pretty :nuts: . Also, why do you assume that she's a part of PETA rather than the SPCA? :hmm:

I would love to see these twits storming my house... Pity them, I would splatter their brain and give it to my cats.

You're well 'ard :lol:

SPCA, PETA...I must confess I don't really know the names. From what I've seen, yes, there are some pretty kooky groups out there; where I'm from some group went and set some minks loose in the wild, and the critters adjusted a bit too well to the ecosystem they didn't originally belong in. They did some serious damage. I didn't know PETA was one of those.

However the wacky groups seem to be a vocal minority. Sensible animal rights groups get a bad name because of what the extremists do.

At least around here, the SPCA advocates proper care and treatment of animals. When I got married and the house we were about to move into did not allow pets, I took my wife's 3 cats to the SPCA. They did what they could to find homes for the beasts, and I'm sure that at least 2 of them did find homes. Nothing wrong with that. The SPCA cooperates with law enforcement and health authorities in dealing with people who have 500 cats in a one bedroom house or people who go around putting elastic bands around other people's pet's necks to slowly kill the beast. Nothing wrong with that either.

PETA, on the other hand, are nothing more than terrorists. They do not work with law enforcement agencies or health authorities. The destroy the legal property of other people (throwing blood on fur coats), break and enter scientific institutions carrying out legal activities, and hinder people legally engaged in hunting or fishing. They are nothing more than criminals who believe that they are above the law, and I am not exaggerating when I say they all should be locked away for life -- holding deep convictions does not exonerate criminal behaviour or provide a license to disregard the law.

The only good thing I can say about PETA is that they have never used suicide bombings (to my knowledge).
Felinoid:
Why did we assume who was PETA? The woman in the article? I don't know if she was or not, the PETA issue was just a related side-topic. Was it off-topic?

Felinoid:
Why did we assume who was PETA? The woman in the article? I don't know if she was or not, the PETA issue was just a related side-topic. Was it off-topic? Oh. With the abrupt right turn the topic took, I guess I just assumed. :o And with the topic being animal rights "insanity" (right?), I think it's on topic enough. :heh: