I saw this story out of Grand Rapids, Michigan of a 15-year-old boy who was sentenced to 20 years for invading a home and killing a dog. Jonathan Castelan said that when he broke into the home, the family’s 8-pound dachhound bit him and he killed it with a hammer.
What is interesting about this case is two fold. First, this is part of a plea despite the huge sentence. Second, the killing of the pet seems to have driver the demands for the long sentence as much as the home invasion. The fact that this is a teen would often factor into a lower sentence but (given the sentence and the release of his name) he appears to have been treated as an adult.
Owners Abel and Denise Soto actually complained that the sentence was too light because of the dog’s death.
The sentence is in fact quite long for the killing of a pet and also long for a home invasion in many states. We have often complained on this blog about the light treatment given the killing of pets. The community was enraged by the dog’s death in this case and it seems to have translated into a longer sentence.
For their part, the Sotos were given a new dachshund puppy by an anonymous source.
Source: USA Today
force for force Culheath.
core question: What is your basis for assuming humans should be given a superior moral standing.
———————————————-
animals don’t have ‘morals’, they have instincts. Morals, implies a standard above instinct, it implies a measure of reason to be a true moral.
That said, a being without instinct would be close a robot and an animal with intact instinct will always be safer and saner than a human bean without either moral or reason….
See that wasn’t so hard was it. 🙂
Three things
1) Until that time I will enjoy pig, cow, chicken, goat, sheep and whatever other animals that are tasty.
All of those animals are someone’s “pet” somewhere. Of course you could just mean that they are fair game for eating as long as you haven’t deemed them a pet.
2) from my original comment: ….if a dog is biting me, I’m going to stop it. To be clear, I would say the same of a human, if it required lethality, so be it.
3) I don’t eat pets nor cetaceans. I like them, but if one bit me or hurt someone, put a bullet in it’s head.
How about a human? Or would you hesitate because of some special moral consideration?
culheath:
you are right, have a cigar. In fact you are damn right. When a dog or a dolphin for that matter send one of their own to the moon or write Les Miserable or Hamlet I will change my mind. Until that time I will enjoy pig, cow, chicken, goat, sheep and whatever other animals that are tasty. Preferably on a bed of hot coals.
I don’t eat pets nor cetaceans. I like them, but if one bit me or hurt someone, put a bullet in it’s head.
when you think a dog deserves the same moral standing as a human you have given up your moral standing as a human being.
That makes no more sense than claiming one has to give up playing saxophone if one wants to play piano.
Please answer my core question: What is your basis for assuming humans should be given a superior moral standing. To me it sounds like you are an adherent of human exceptionalism and speciesism.
culheath:
yep I did give you a short answer, when you think a dog deserves the same moral standing as a human you have given up your moral standing as a human being.
As Ingrid Nutkirk says “a rat is boy is a goat is a dog” or some such inane gibberish that psychotics use.
WSC:Dogs are sentient but not necessarily the same way as human beings…and they are dependant in our society so deserve our protection but not independant rights…innate reasoning and training are NOT the same thing. That said, deliberately harming animals and causing them cruelties is indeed a proven sign of anti-social tendencies…and also proven to lead to more destructive behaviour. But I read that the animal bit this kid…probably protecting it’s family, it may be that this kid was OD’d on testosterone and found himself over his head…that is not the same as deliberate cruelty. More info needed….
Well said. I disagree with the idea that dogs cannot innately reason, but I am in accord with the rest.
Oh, thanks for the clarification….my ‘not a lawyer’ stripes are showing….
Wootsy,
If this person was sentenced between the low end and the maxium possible sentence then what is the appealable issue? One thing in Michigan is if you plea even with bad advice, you do not have the right of an automatic appeal….Another GOP initiative…
that bit of jibberish isnt even worth responding to.
and yet you did…hmmm…and without actually answering a single point asked…hmmm
Anonymously Yours 1, September 19, 2010 at 10:39 am
… but Michigan has a Truth in Sentencing…the Judge has no discretion….there are sentencing guidelines…NO DEVIATIONS except for reasons stated on the record…..then both folks have the right to appeal, Prosecutor or Defense…..
———————————————————
so is this an outrageous sentence to force an appeal?
dangerous game of communication if it is…..
Dogs are sentient but not necessarily the same way as human beings…and they are dependant in our society so deserve our protection but not independant rights…innate reasoning and training are NOT the same thing. That said, deliberately harming animals and causing them cruelties is indeed a proven sign of anti-social tendencies…and also proven to lead to more destructive behaviour. But I read that the animal bit this kid…probably protecting it’s family, it may be that this kid was OD’d on testosterone and found himself over his head…that is not the same as deliberate cruelty. More info needed….
culheath:
that bit of jibberish isnt even worth responding to. You are a fool and worse.
If you cannot see that a dogs life is not the same as a human beings life I feel sorry for you, you are no more relevant nor wothy of life than a pig and by your own admission.
It really must be quite a frightful place inside your head.
Kill the guy.
‘A dog is an animal and it is folly to assign it the same moral position as a human being.’
Why? The dog is a sentient animal just as humans are sentient animals. A dog is not a mere mechanism. On what basis do you discriminate in order to apply morality or ethical considerations to one as opposed to the other? What exactly, aside from some assumed religious perspective, would have you claim a dog is less worthy of survival as an entity than a human?
Can you imagine, say a hundred years ago when Blacks were called Negroes and considered 3/5 human, someone rationalizing the murder of a slavewith: ‘A negro is an animal and it is folly to assign it the same moral position as a full fledged human being.’
Of course you can.
It is a dog, it is not a child. It has no rights and is property. While the killing of the animal is regrettable it does not merit a 20 term in prison. The lad should be punished for breaking into the house and should have a full psychiatric work-up to see if he has any latent behaviours that need to be identified, such as a future serial killer.
If he has a clean bill of health then he should serve time for breaking and entering and pay for a new dog and make restitution for all care costs leading up to the point of the original dogs death.
A dog is an animal and it is folly to assign it the same moral position as a human being.
Would that imply that when the pooch goes out for a poop, that it should be arrested for indecent exposure?
only if you say so, however I would happily concede the point to a person obviously more experienced in the examination of canine toiletry behaviour,
“Would that imply that when the pooch goes out for a poop, that it should be arrested for indecent exposure?”
in what way would the pooch be exposing anything that isn’t already exposed by nature? or do you have your dogs wear under garments to protect their modesty?
Blouise,
“Five years at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary would be a step in the right direction …”
I vote for sending them to a penal colony like Devil’s Island. Provide them with a box of matches, a knife, a spear, an ax, and a bag of seeds–and see how long they survive.
Five years at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary would be a step in the right direction …
AY,
Treason is treason. I think that’s one crime where the death penalty is absolutely appropriate regardless of cost. Too bad about Obama aiding and abetting after the fact though. He’s so spineless that even if he had done his duty to the Constitution and slapped those two in cuffs, they’d have likely gotten off with five years and a $10,000 fine instead of death.