Animal Manslaughter?

[Maharg67]

My question is this…

 

Some people acknowledge that humans are animals. We are in fact, mammals. So let's assume we’re the smarted mammal…does that negate the intelligence of other animals? What I mean is this…does another mammal, which is less intelligent; get a murder pass because it’s not as smart as a human? Is that fair?

 

Example: One of my dogs stole a brownie off the kitchen counter yesterday. The last one too! So I scolded him, and when I tried brining Smokey back to the scene of the crime, he held his head low, pouted, and acted genuinely remorseful. He didn’t even want to enter the kitchen. Any other time, he’d come running. This is just one instance of Smokey displaying emotion, and behavior. (Had to be deceitful to steal the brownie, and was intelligent to know that it was wrong)

 

So it seems that some people think we should respect animals as intelligent beings, but they don’t want to punish them for acts of cruelty. Isn’t that like having your cake, and eating it too? Can’t a dog, pig, whale, horse, monkey, etc…just be bad? And can’t they commit “crimes”, like any of us? Understanding of human law withstanding; some animals know when they’re doing wrong. Isn’t that enough to justify punishment?

 

Let’s just say for the sake of argument…that the smartest kinds of sub-mammals, like dolphins or dogs, match the intelligence of a mentally handicapped person. If a mentally handicapped person purposely murdered another person, they’d probably go to prison. So shouldn’t one these animals be scrutinized in a similar fashion?

 

 

You have some excellent points, Species5478, and it might interest people to know that back in European medieval history (something I studied at uni) that animals were indeed tried in human courts, sentenced and punished. For example, a pig could be hung for killing a farmer and the execution would be formal in that it would go through the very same formalities as any human hanging would do. Strange but true, at least by our perspective.

 

Some animals do become murderous but often because they are living in unnatural conditions for them when they dwell with humans. A toy dog might kill a baby out of jealousy. A larger dog may attack an innocent who accidentally intrudes on property.

 

When I was six years old a female dog with puppies attacked me and ripped part of my face, almost half blinding me; I never forgave it while she was alive but now wish I had done so; the pressure on her was that too many strangers were too close to her puppies and then I, easier to reach, bent over the barrier she was behind. If a sister had not grabbed me backwards I may have even been permanently disfigured, if not worse. It took two major operations and tons of micro-stiches to put my face back together. I can still see those teeth coming at me, if I stop to think about it, which I try not to do. Yet she was only guarding her puppies.

 

Most of the time animals are fine to live with but we need to try to consider what sort of pressures they are under and try to accomodate that they are different from us in various ways.

 

:thanks:

[Trandoshan]

My question is this…

 

Some people acknowledge that humans are animals. We are in fact, mammals. So let's assume we’re the smarted mammal…does that negate the intelligence of other animals? What I mean is this…does another mammal, which is less intelligent; get a murder pass because it’s not as smart as a human? Is that fair?

 

Example: One of my dogs stole a brownie off the kitchen counter yesterday. The last one too! So I scolded him, and when I tried brining Smokey back to the scene of the crime, he held his head low, pouted, and acted genuinely remorseful. He didn’t even want to enter the kitchen. Any other time, he’d come running. This is just one instance of Smokey displaying emotion, and behavior. (Had to be deceitful to steal the brownie, and was intelligent to know that it was wrong)

 

So it seems that some people think we should respect animals as intelligent beings, but they don’t want to punish them for acts of cruelty. Isn’t that like having your cake, and eating it too? Can’t a dog, pig, whale, horse, monkey, etc…just be bad? And can’t they commit “crimes”, like any of us? Understanding of human law withstanding; some animals know when they’re doing wrong. Isn’t that enough to justify punishment?

 

Let’s just say for the sake of argument…that the smartest kinds of sub-mammals, like dolphins or dogs, match the intelligence of a mentally handicapped person. If a mentally handicapped person purposely murdered another person, they’d probably go to prison. So shouldn’t one these animals be scrutinized in a similar fashion?

 

 

You have some excellent points, Species5478, and it might interest people to know that back in European medieval history (something I studied at uni) that animals were indeed tried in human courts, sentenced and punished. For example, a pig could be hung for killing a farmer and the execution would be formal in that it would go through the very same formalities as any human hanging would do. Strange but true, at least by our perspective.

 

Some animals do become murderous but often because they are living in unnatural conditions for them when they dwell with humans. A toy dog might kill a baby out of jealousy. A larger dog may attack an innocent who accidentally intrudes on property.

 

When I was six years old a female dog with puppies attacked me and ripped part of my face, almost half blinding me; I never forgave it while she was alive but now wish I had done so; the pressure on her was that too many strangers were too close to her puppies and then I, easier to reach, bent over the barrier she was behind. If a sister had not grabbed me backwards I may have even been permanently disfigured, if not worse. It took two major operations and tons of micro-stiches to put my face back together. I can still see those teeth coming at me, if I stop to think about it, which I try not to do. Yet she was only guarding her puppies.

 

Most of the time animals are fine to live with but we need to try to consider what sort of pressures they are under and try to accomodate that they are different from us in various ways.

 

:thanks:

 

The New Nexus 'look' is pretty snappy. Going to take some time to get used to it.

 

On topic...

 

Nero (Roman Emporer) had a horse that nearly became a consul.

 

"One of the horses, which he named Incitatus, he used to invite to dinner, where he would offer him golden barley and drink his health in wine from golden goblets; he swore by the animal’s life and fortune and even promised to appoint him consul, a promise that he would certainly have carried out if he had lived longer… He also consecrated himself to his own service and appointed his horse a fellow-priest; and dainty and expensive birds were sacrificed to him daily."

 

Just a fun little tidbit of information.

[WaLkAwaY]

I have been around animals all my life. Because of my love for animals I have been a Veterinary Technician for 9 years. In that time I have worked with many different types of Doctors, worked at wild animal rescue hospitals and zoos as well as emergency hospitals and mom and pop animal clinics. I have seen unspeakable cruelty and amazing acts of kindness. I have personally euthanized well over 1000 animals and brought just as many if not more animal babies into the world. I am very kind to animals and cherish them even to the point of being too caring and I have also had my battles with animals, latest being with an Emu that ended up with me punching it in the face and chest yesterday.

 

I am telling this stuff to you not to blow my own skirt up but to maybe bring some consideration to relativity. When dealing with animals everything is relative and as many considerations have to be taken when dealing with every different situation as you can handle. That includes the human aspect of any relationship between species.

 

The answer to the original question if it was aimed at the owner being held accountable is yes. If it was meant as should the animal be held accountable then I don't know. Maybe it is situational for me. If a dog has been trained to protect a certain item, person or property and it gets loose and goes rogue hurting or killing someone then it will probably be euthanized or killed and maybe that is best as more often than not it will never be the same and will likely do it again and cannot be rehabilitated. If it is a personality thing and only a personality thing then the possibility it can be retrained is good. If it is an environmental cause there also is some merit to trying rehabilitation. However if there is a physiological cause to its aggression barring something acute then there is no merit in rehabilitation. I am of the mind however that if that dog does get out and even with its high level of professional training un-provokingly attacks someone then there is probably some physiological reason behind it. If someone threatens what that highly trained dog is supposed to be protecting and it is inside that dogs AO then even if the person dies as a result of the attack I see no reason to condemn the dog. I used the dog example as it was easiest to explain.

 

 

EDIT: and dogs breeds with aggressive personalities need to be trained by people who know what they are doing.

 

This is true and although there are certain breeds of dogs specific to the line of protection it is not a breed issue as all dogs should be trained by people that know what they are doing. The breed of dog should not even be a question. I have only ever been cornered by one pit-bull the entire time I have been doing this. But I have had to muzzle and take extra care for most small dogs of the terrier breed, Dachshunds and spaniels. I have a Doberman Pinscher, have always had them and know they are a sweet and loyal loving breed and mine is a big goof ball of kisses. I would and have trusted her around infants elderly people and child cancer patients in human hospital cancer wards. On the same token I would not place my face near a Dobermans face or any dog for that matter that I did not raise myself. In all reality cats are by far worse and more damage causing then any dog I have had chance to encounter. Dogs will go for anything they can get a hold of. Cats will go straight to your face, they watch your eyes and not that they are any smarter than dogs I think they attack this way because of evolution and survival instinct their small size dictates they must strike crucial areas if they are to survive.

 

 

And rabies? 100% fatal in animals (usually) and it will damn-near smoke-test a person too, even with the series of injections to stall it's progress.

 

I'm also shocked that anyone agrees with ANYTHING I have to say about this subject. And I'll lay three-to-one odds with the vig and a push I'll never see one stinking Kudos for using facts and not misguided or dubious information when I post.

 

You are almost 100% correct about the rabies thing. After you have contracted it, it is 100% fatal to both animals and humans. The shots are for the period before you show signs and as a precautionary treatment. I have received the vaccinations once as all doctors and most technicians are supposed to do. Though now because their is a shortage of the vaccinations they are saving it for people that could have been bitten by a possibly infected animal.

 

Also I would give you kudos as I agree with a lot of things that you say in several different threads.:D

[Maxwell the Fool]

I believe in punishing both the owner (in the form of fines) and the pets (putting them down) for any crimes committed by the animal; they're likely to do it again.

[Balagor]

I believe in punishing both the owner (in the form of fines) and the pets (putting them down) for any crimes committed by the animal; they're likely to do it again.

 

How about the other way ´round. Putting down the "owner" (you don´t own an animal, you live with it),

and fine the animal, and have thw animal rehab. !! :thumbsup:

[Aurielius]

It seems that everyone in this debate is an animal lover of one sort or another but there seems to be a dividing line between urban and rural members. Urban dwellers seem to have a more prosaic view of animals and rural a more pragmatic one. Since we live in a theoretically civil society that has the right to incarcerate and in some countries execute malefactors why is it a surprise that this logic is applied to other species?

During the 90's I used to fly replacement crews of Hydro Quebec up to Hudson's Bay and back and there was an influx of polar bears due to the availability of food. The point being that I never met an Inuit who thought a Polar Bear was cute or cuddly or anything but potentially lethal, but more southernly citiy dwellers seem to think that saving them is an ethical mandate. It is a matter of perspective whether you see the necessity for lethal sanctions for a dangerous animal.

In instances such as Michael Vicks who bred and fought dogs I have nothing but contempt for and am only regretful that his punishment wasn't more severe. For the record I am a dog lover (two Irish Setters) and a hunter. Nothing more poetic than watching two bird dogs in the field during autumn.

Never met a vicious dog who wasn't trained that way by some insecure nimrod who thought that having a dangerous animal was 'cool', generally making up for their own lack of self esteem or courage. Stupidity unfortunately is not a crime but negligence is, so prosecution of negligent animal owners is appropriate.

[Maxwell the Fool]

Just thought of an interesting counterpoint:

 

What if it was the victim's fault? When I was about seven one of my older cousins was viciously attacked by a dog (sketchie on the details), the dog had been chained to a pole by it's owner while they were on the beach. The dog was big and cuddly and nice, and everyone loved it. It was only chained up to keep it from swimming out into the sea farther than it could manage.

 

Oh, on a side note, this was in San Onofre California, my family is part of what started the surfing club. My grandfather was president for years, and everyone there is like extended family.

 

So, my cousin new the dog. He went up to it and through rocks and taunted and was generally nasty. The dog leaped at him and broke the chain, he ended up getting all kinds of stitches. The dog was kept alive, the owner, not disciplined. My cousin was at fault.

 

I think that everything there went down the way it was supposed to, my cousin learned a valuable lesson.

 

Is there any disagreement to this example?

[WaLkAwaY]

Just thought of an interesting counterpoint: Is there any disagreement to this example?

 

Read my post above you for my answer.:thumbsup:

[myrmaad]

None from me, and in fact that's exactly the type of scenario I meant when I said each case should be handled on its own merit and justice should not be blind. Of course that was days ago, and I doubt anyone remembers anything about that now, in March of 2010 when the soundbyte rules and no one cares about history.

[Balagor]

It seems that everyone in this debate is an animal lover of one sort or another but there seems to be a dividing line between urban and rural members. Urban dwellers seem to have a more prosaic view of animals and rural a more pragmatic one. Since we live in a theoretically civil society that has the right to incarcerate and in some countries execute malefactors why is it a surprise that this logic is applied to other species?

During the 90's I used to fly replacement crews of Hydro Quebec up to Hudson's Bay and back and there was an influx of polar bears due to the availability of food. The point being that I never met an Inuit who thought a Polar Bear was cute or cuddly or anything but potentially lethal, but more southernly citiy dwellers seem to think that saving them is an ethical mandate. It is a matter of perspective whether you see the necessity for lethal sanctions for a dangerous animal.

In instances such as Michael Vicks who bred and fought dogs I have nothing but contempt for and am only regretful that his punishment wasn't more severe. For the record I am a dog lover (two Irish Setters) and a hunter. Nothing more poetic than watching two bird dogs in the field during autumn.

Never met a vicious dog who wasn't trained that way by some insecure nimrod who thought that having a dangerous animal was 'cool', generally making up for their own lack of self esteem or courage. Stupidity unfortunately is not a crime but negligence is, so prosecution of negligent animal owners is appropriate.

 

What you state here is the exact truth. This coin has two side. I remember when the campaign against this cruel slaughter of seals, alsmost spoiled the natural living for Greenland, and other inuits, who had hunted seals for 1000 of years. The industial slaughter was only for monye interests (use of pelts), while inuits uses everything from the animal, to survive.

A difference between them and us, however is that they would kill a polar bear when threadened, or when needed.They are no pets. History has prove that we would probably hunt them all down, when threadened.

I can agree that the two sides of the coin are called urban and rural, but what do we call the edge?