In most cases, I don’t believe that it is a good idea for a judge to order convicted animal abusers to work 200 hours in an animal shelter as part of their punishment. The idea is to rehabilitate these criminals, to make them respect animals so that they won’t reoffend.
I am afraid I have a much more cynical approach to life than some judges. A forty-year-old animal abuser is pretty much beyond rehabilitation in matters concerning animal welfare and respect. Working 200 hours in animal shelters is not going to eradicate a lifetime’s worth of learning on how to disrespect animals while harbouring thoughts of how to harm them. The sort of abuse these criminals mete out to animals indicates a deeply disturbed attitude towards not only animals but life in general.
Also the animal shelter would have to have someone watching them at all times. You simply could not trust them. The sentence that fits the crime of animal abuse is severe punishment as per the law. Sadly the law does not allow judges to pass sentences which are sufficiently severe.
A judge in Mississippi sentenced one of two men who scalded a cat to death with boiling water to a six month prison sentence and a $2,500 fine. The other man received a 30 day prison sentence and a $1,000 fine. Both were ordered to work for 200 hours at the Jackson Animal Shelter. The younger man (24) got the heavier sentence (he probably threw the water).
Do you think that working at the animal shelter will do any good?
In some cases working in an animal shelter might be appropriate. I am thinking of younger offenders, perhaps teenagers, committing lesser acts of animal abuse in a careless and/or reckless way. There may be some prospect of these people learning about the error of their ways.
P.S. the cat they killed was in a cage and their act was videoed. Damn it. Throw the book at them.
NO!
Emphatically, NO!
But, I wouldn’t be opposed to having them simulate a four-legged entity for a lengthy period of time in order to learn how vulnerable they are, such as: mobilizing on all fours, eating/drinking on the floor without benefit of their hands, only having access to food when someone gives it to them, suffering with fleas and mites, etc.
OMC,I would say NO! I would not trust an animal abuser around any animal, shelter or otherwise. Would a judge order a child abuser to work in an environment with children? This sound redundant and very risky to me, and scary for every poor animal they come into contact with. I have no idea what a proper rehabilitation would entail, but the change has to occur within that person’s heart and soul first. The capacity for empathy and compassion has to be there first, not the other way around. Not sure how many animal abusers do actually change.
I agree that it’s too risky. Theoretically rehabilitation is (almost) always possible — HSUS deemed convicted dogfighter Michael Vick suitable to own dogs again. But intensive therapy would be needed, as well as close supervision — not feasible. Ironically, what offenders would see in some shelters might harden their hearts further.
Thanks RM.
OMG NO !!!