Appropriate punishment for animal cruelty

Originally Posted by skippy3481

...Your willing to codemn them for one act of complete stupidity to a life of eternal damnation....

This is the thing that stood out to me the most. Why is it that people are so unwilling to see malice for what it is? I don't understand the phenomenon of wanting to put euphemisms on the cruel things humans do. "Stupidity" means that something was done accidentally or without understanding that the action would produce pain within another living being. But here you have several horses being shot dozens of times, which certainly indicates intent instead of an accident, and you also have one of the boys saying that he had been injured by a horse in the past and wanted to shoot the horses, which certainly indicates that he KNEW full well his actions would cause harm and pain to the horses.

On top of that, I think the movement towards infantilizing anyone under the age of 18 is foolish. Yes, someone who's 16 may not have the same mind of a 25 year old, but they're not going to automatically learn to behave when they celebrate their 18th birthday if society continually sends the message that "oh you're just a kid, so obviously you didn't mean to do anything wrong." You have to teach and enforce the right behavior as early as possible. You can tell a kid about the difference between right and wrong, but unless you punish the bad behavior and reward the good behavior, they'll never have any incentive to actually practice the desired behavior. It seems to me our society is making it harder and harder for kids to become mature, functional adults by saying nothing's ever their fault and allowing them to get away with irresponsible, cruel actions.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Gemtwyst

This is the thing that stood out to me the most. Why is it that people are so unwilling to see malice for what it is? I don't understand the phenomenon of wanting to put euphemisms on the cruel things humans do. "Stupidity" means that something was done accidentally or without understanding that the action would produce pain within another living being. But here you have several horses being shot dozens of times, which certainly indicates intent instead of an accident, and you also have one of the boys saying that he had been injured by a horse in the past and wanted to shoot the horses, which certainly indicates that he KNEW full well his actions would cause harm and pain to the horses.

On top of that, I think the movement towards infantilizing anyone under the age of 18 is foolish. Yes, someone who's 16 may not have the same mind of a 25 year old, but they're not going to automatically learn to behave when they celebrate their 18th birthday if society continually sends the message that "oh you're just a kid, so obviously you didn't mean to do anything wrong." You have to teach and enforce the right behavior as early as possible. You can tell a kid about the difference between right and wrong, but unless you punish the bad behavior and reward the good behavior, they'll never have any incentive to actually practice the desired behavior. It seems to me our society is making it harder and harder for kids to become mature, functional adults by saying nothing's ever their fault and allowing them to get away with irresponsible, cruel actions.

Wow...you took a huge leap there! I'm not saying that a person isn't responsible for his/her behavior...we all are regardless of circumstances! It's called free will, we all have it and that means we are each responsible for everything we do. Nobody condones cruel behavior such as this, the difference lies in how best to deal with same. Lets be honest..."spare the rod and spoil the child" has been society's answer forever...and it hasn't worked. People change only when they want to change and find the inner strength to do so...no amount of punishment by society can change a person's soul...you can restrict, even eliminate overt actions but until people learn to respect life and the rights of others, you are only covering up the cancer not curing it. It isn't government's role to punish or kill people, rather it must protect and help! We lock folks up in massive prisons and they come out worse than they went in...that's a cold hard fact! And we are supposedly a civilized society yet we often sanction murdering children...ok, we call it capital punishment. When someone says that a child should be treated as an adult, that goes against the basic fact that a child is NOT an adult. There is evil in the world and it must be fought...there are evil people and those that may not be evil but succumb to evil's call that must be defeated, but that's not the same as saying that we have some right to our pound of flesh just cause someone's actions offend us. It's way past time that we stop focusing on punishing behavior and start working on eliminating the causes...yes, these kids committed heinous acts of cruelty and there must be consequences...but nobody benefits from bloodlust!

[randallscott35]

17 is an adult to me.

[The Bid]

Would you sleep with a 17 year old girl randall?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Would you sleep with a 17 year old girl randall?

What kind of question is that?

First, the age of consent in most states is 16, but since I'm a teacher, its 18 for me---as it is for a religious leader, police officer, etc....(So essentially the state is saying that 16 is as adult as needs be when it comes to sex)

But just b/c I wouldn't sleep with a 17 year old, doesn't mean they aren't an adult.

[The Bid]

A loaded one

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Bid

A loaded one

Haha. I guess so.

[The Bid]

I didnt mean anything by it, just kidding around with you.

I still dont believe anyone under 18 should be able to be prosecuted as an adult. Not in any case.

For the record I also think Scott Peterson should be out playing golf. Not that I dont think he killed his wife, I dont think they proved he killed his wife. If I were on the jury I hang it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I didnt mean anything by it, just kidding around with you.

I still dont believe anyone under 18 should be able to be prosecuted as an adult. Not in any case.

For the record I also think Scott Peterson should be out playing golf. Not that I dont think he killed his wife, I dont think they proved he killed his wife. If I were on the jury I hang it.

hard to say unless you were there to hear it all.

that whole beyond a REASONABLE doubt thing too.

i think society is conflicted about the 18 and adult thing. kid can get an abortion and be considered an adult. but the same people who argue for that would say no way you consider them an adult for trial...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I didnt mean anything by it, just kidding around with you.

I still dont believe anyone under 18 should be able to be prosecuted as an adult. Not in any case.

For the record I also think Scott Peterson should be out playing golf. Not that I dont think he killed his wife, I dont think they proved he killed his wife. If I were on the jury I hang it.

That is So not funny! That's like saying O.J. is innocent. They're both psychos....and there are young men 16-18 that have psychotic tendencies too. As citizen of this country we have a right to expect to live in relative peace, not to be subjected to societys' violent miscreants. The Welfare of THIS society is what should be protected, not the people who act out violently or irresponsibly.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

We teach kids at an early age to shoot guns and to hunt...part of the macho bonding experience (and yes, even girls play today), it isn't surprising that once a young person loses respect for life that he/she is then able to rationalize such behavior!

We? Who's we? The morons and simps of our country?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Bid

For the record I also think Scott Peterson should be out playing golf. Not that I dont think he killed his wife, I dont think they proved he killed his wife. If I were on the jury I hang it.

Based upon what? CNN?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

We? Who's we? The morons and simps of our country?

We=society.....don't start taking this personally, hunting is a huge part of Americana. And one more time, a generalization should never be construed to mean "all" or "everyone".

[The Bid]

No physical evidence. With the forensics we have there should have been some sort of DNA linking him. I dont think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think he killed her, everyone thinks he killed her...however, if the glove dont fit you must aquit

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Bid

No physical evidence. With the forensics we have there should have been some sort of DNA linking him. I dont think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think he killed her, everyone thinks he killed her...however, if the glove dont fit you must aquit

However you were not in the courtroom subject to the full case provided to the jury by the DA. Nor were you personally able to hear the defenses case. You only know what was told to us by the media which in many cases is far from credible.

[The Bid]

I have court TV cannon.

I wasnt in the court room, however, I watched that entire trial and I just dont see how you convict the guy of murder. They just didnt prove the case IMO.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I have court TV cannon.

I wasnt in the court room, however, I watched that entire trial and I just dont see how you convict the guy of murder. They just didnt prove the case IMO.

Dont forget the case was held in the Peoples Republic of California so different laws may apply

[Danzig]

well, having just served time on a jury not long ago.....they told us to talk over everything-after the case is handed over of course...like they said, we each might miss something, or hear something others didn't. then you have your own knowledge to go on as well. etc etc.
if the guy is guilty as hell, and i believe he is 100%, then they did the right thing by finding him guilty.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

We=society.....don't start taking this personally, hunting is a huge part of Americana. And one more time, a generalization should never be construed to mean "all" or "everyone".

I don't want part in any society that teaches kids to shoot guns and hunt. That's my qualm with using "we."

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

well, having just served time on a jury not long ago.....they told us to talk over everything-after the case is handed over of course...like they said, we each might miss something, or hear something others didn't. then you have your own knowledge to go on as well. etc etc.
if the guy is guilty as hell, and i believe he is 100%, then they did the right thing by finding him guilty.

Well, lets see if I can get in trouble here....I have never publically stated whether I believe OJ to be guilty, I have said I think Peterson did kill his wife and baby. I won't give a personal opinion on OJ because he was found "not guilty" by the jury therefore my opinion is worthless and meaningless. Peterson having been convicted I believe frees me to say I question the verdict. It would have been difficult for me to vote "guilty" had I been on the Peterson jury cause I agree that the evidence was convincing but short of conclusive...so I am not comfortable that the jury reached the correct verdict. In the OJ case, my problem is Furman...a racist cop who admitted he'd gladly falsify evidence against a black man handling key evidence in the case...in all honesty, I don't think I would have voted differently from the jury. I think for our system of justice to work...for a jury to "do the right thing", they have to vote based solely on the evidence presented, so...in my opinion..the right thing for the jury is determined by the evidence presented, not the actual guilt or innocense of the accused. When a person's fate is to be determined, what someone "knows" or assumes doesn't matter...