Animal Cruelty - punishments?

[Bardane]

I'm a lover of animals, so when you hurt them I'm not well. I think those who harm animals should be in jail. God created us all equal, the earth is great, we all have room to live. So why hurt them?

[ZloyBitcoin]

In the world there are so many terrible people who offend animals
Especially the hatred of those who throw them outside

[yoseph]

In recent years, there has been a growing trend in states to change the laws of cruelty to animals, with the support of numerous animal rights groups and widespread public support.

To protect animals in North Dakota proposal in early August this year, demand increase penalty of cruelty to animals, will seriously abuse animals such as cats and dogs or horses, are classified as a felony, will be fined five years in prison, and a $5000 fine.

In most of the Western Countries cruelty to animals carries a very strict punishment and most are sent to Prisons for causing bodily harm and killing animals.

[shiki3226]

For people who abuses animals, I think it would be a good punishment if they would be put inside a cage, be put in a leash and let them experience how hard it is to be an animal. They should also be ordered to work in a zoo so they would know jow to take care of animals.

[BADecker]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

[robbietobby]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Thanks for the sharing but I’m so sullen that there were no animal cruelty regulations that has been implemented here in the Philippines, although protection of the animals are implemented. Or there were just some law but it is not commended or followed by the civilians.

[mrcash02]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Animal isn't an inanimate object or an piece of land to be considered a property... It's an unarmed creature, also like some humans can be in the same unarmed animal's condition (like old people, children, mental deficients). And if you beat these people there will be consequences, and doesn't matter if it's inside your house or in any other private place, the same goes for animals.

Lives aren't property of anyone. In the case of animals the owner accepts the role of protector, defender and loyal friend of the animal. If this role isn't being followed correctly, the animal must be gotten from this owner's hands, like children are gotten from the parents hands when they suffer abuse.

[AyaYotoko]

Animal cruelty is most commonly charged as a misdemeanor offense. It doesn't cost a lot a lot to culprit. According to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in India, you can get away with being cruel to most animals by paying a fine of anything between Rs 10 and Rs 50. That won't even buy you a decent cup of coffee in most cities in this country. If you repeat the offence within three years, the penalty may go up to anything between Rs 25 and Rs 100. You could also be thrown in jail for three months. That's it.........

[Strongball]

Animal Cruelty is taken seriously in my country, with the growing awareness and coverage from the tv stations
and social media, people are actively on the look out and sympathetic to it. I think there are different penalties
with countries when it comes to animal cruelty, depends on the magnitude of the felony committed. It takes
in several forms; the intentional acts of violence and abuse, neglect of animals leading to poor unhealthy well
being and care, the killing and slaughter of pets and law protected animals. I myself am very fond of dogs and
cats, I have them as pets, for me they have feelings and personalities. They deserve love, care and protection.
Penalties should range from being fined to considerable amount and perhaps imprisonment, depending on the
severity and magnitude of the crime.

[orarider]

Animal protection is everyone's duty. Animal killers will be arrested, punished severely. At present there are many animal care organizations especially the United Nations. I love animals so much.

[zwiggel]

killing animals is a crime. Animal killers will be arrested. There are now many animal welfare organizations, especially the United Nations and the United States. I hope everyone protect the animals.

[BADecker]

Animal protection is everyone's duty. Animal killers will be arrested, punished severely. At present there are many animal care organizations especially the United Nations. I love animals so much.

Perhaps you should go out in the wilderness - perhaps into a ravine or ditch where someone will not find you - and commit suicide. Why? Because your immune system is killing off all kinds of little bacteria animals. If you did the suicide thing, your body would become food for many little animals as they decomposed you.

At least become a vegetarian if you are not one already. Or is eating meat what you meant when you said that you "love animals so much?"

[BADecker]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Animal isn't an inanimate object or an piece of land to be considered a property... It's an unarmed creature, also like some humans can be in the same unarmed animal's condition (like old people, children, mental deficients). And if you beat these people there will be consequences, and doesn't matter if it's inside your house or in any other private place, the same goes for animals.

Lives aren't property of anyone. In the case of animals the owner accepts the role of protector, defender and loyal friend of the animal. If this role isn't being followed correctly, the animal must be gotten from this owner's hands, like children are gotten from the parents hands when they suffer abuse.

Notice that I said "USA."

If you are in the USA, just go out and steal an animal from a person who treats it poorly, just so you can treat it better, and find out that it is property, the hard way.

[mrcash02]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Animal isn't an inanimate object or an piece of land to be considered a property... It's an unarmed creature, also like some humans can be in the same unarmed animal's condition (like old people, children, mental deficients). And if you beat these people there will be consequences, and doesn't matter if it's inside your house or in any other private place, the same goes for animals.

Lives aren't property of anyone. In the case of animals the owner accepts the role of protector, defender and loyal friend of the animal. If this role isn't being followed correctly, the animal must be gotten from this owner's hands, like children are gotten from the parents hands when they suffer abuse.

Notice that I said "USA."

If you are in the USA, just go out and steal an animal from a person who treats it poorly, just so you can treat it better, and find out that it is property, the hard way.

Ah, well, I didn't know things work this way in the USA. It's a pitty though.

In my country it's 3-12 months in the jail or a fine for who harms animals or abandon them.
The problem is that knowing these laws, the abuser usually takes the car and the animal, goes far away from his home and left the animal on the road, near other's houses. Then accelerate the car and go away faster as possible...

The animal starts starving abandoned on the road, being rejected by the near houses as people have already animals.
And it's hard to track who abandoned the animal on the road, as it happens fast and usually in desolate areas, without witnesses.

[BADecker]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Animal isn't an inanimate object or an piece of land to be considered a property... It's an unarmed creature, also like some humans can be in the same unarmed animal's condition (like old people, children, mental deficients). And if you beat these people there will be consequences, and doesn't matter if it's inside your house or in any other private place, the same goes for animals.

Lives aren't property of anyone. In the case of animals the owner accepts the role of protector, defender and loyal friend of the animal. If this role isn't being followed correctly, the animal must be gotten from this owner's hands, like children are gotten from the parents hands when they suffer abuse.

Notice that I said "USA."

If you are in the USA, just go out and steal an animal from a person who treats it poorly, just so you can treat it better, and find out that it is property, the hard way.

Ah, well, I didn't know things work this way in the USA. It's a pitty though.

In my country it's 3-12 months in the jail or a fine for who harms animals or abandon them.
The problem is that knowing these laws, the abuser usually takes the car and the animal, goes far away from his home and left the animal on the road, near other's houses. Then accelerate the car and go away faster as possible...

The animal starts starving abandoned on the road, being rejected by the near houses as people have already animals.
And it's hard to track who abandoned the animal on the road, as it happens fast and usually in desolate areas, without witnesses.

No it isn't a pity. It's called freedom.

The point is entirely this. If somebody can control your freedom, they can control you. Why stop at animals? Become a Communistic Dictatorship, where they control what color socks you wear, and how many breaths of air you take.

Your choice. Be free, or be a slave.


If the animal isn't yours, then don't treat it good or bad, until you get permission from the owner.

[mrcash02]

Animal cruelty may seem to be the issue in the USA, but there are two points to the issue.

The first point is the property question. If the animal is your property, you have the right to do with your property as you wish. Property rights are the foundation of all USA law. People don't:
A. Consider property rights in many court cases;
B. Realize that animal rights are not to be considered outside of property rights of the owner;
C. Think about what is happening when property rights are taken away from anyone.

If Government can take away property rights from owners under some particular circumstance, where will they stop? If you become property of Government because property rights of self are taken away, then Government has become a dictatorial Communism.

The second point is, if a person has a problem with someone else harming his own animal in what might be considered a bad, painful, hurtful, inhumane way, the problem shouldn't be the person and his property (animal). The question should revolve around that he did it in public, and it harmed the emotions of a bystander.

The owner has the right to do with his property as he wishes. But he doesn't have the right to harm the emotions of another person by making that person watch how shamefully he treats his property.

The issue is property. It is a person damaging the emotional property of a bystander. It is NOT a property owner damaging his own property, the animal.

In other words, if you need to beat your property, do it in private, so you don't hurt the feelings of other people.

Animal isn't an inanimate object or an piece of land to be considered a property... It's an unarmed creature, also like some humans can be in the same unarmed animal's condition (like old people, children, mental deficients). And if you beat these people there will be consequences, and doesn't matter if it's inside your house or in any other private place, the same goes for animals.

Lives aren't property of anyone. In the case of animals the owner accepts the role of protector, defender and loyal friend of the animal. If this role isn't being followed correctly, the animal must be gotten from this owner's hands, like children are gotten from the parents hands when they suffer abuse.

Notice that I said "USA."

If you are in the USA, just go out and steal an animal from a person who treats it poorly, just so you can treat it better, and find out that it is property, the hard way.

Ah, well, I didn't know things work this way in the USA. It's a pitty though.

In my country it's 3-12 months in the jail or a fine for who harms animals or abandon them.
The problem is that knowing these laws, the abuser usually takes the car and the animal, goes far away from his home and left the animal on the road, near other's houses. Then accelerate the car and go away faster as possible...

The animal starts starving abandoned on the road, being rejected by the near houses as people have already animals.
And it's hard to track who abandoned the animal on the road, as it happens fast and usually in desolate areas, without witnesses.

No it isn't a pity. It's called freedom.

The point is entirely this. If somebody can control your freedom, they can control you. Why stop at animals? Become a Communistic Dictatorship, where they control what color socks you wear, and how many breaths of air you take.

Your choice. Be free, or be a slave.


If the animal isn't yours, then don't treat it good or bad, until you get permission from the owner.

And about the animal's freedom? No one wants to be injured (including the animals). Those who are injured and can't scape from this reality don't have freedom!

You are showing a communist behavior with the animals! You control animal's freedom, so you control them! For these injured animals it's like to live in a junk communist/socialist house, where they aren't respected and treated as they should be.

The real choice humans can take here are: to be a communist enslaver or to be a decent person.

We are talking about lives, and lives don't belong to any man in this world.

[k00d8]

100% - it should be a criminal offence to harm animals. Although many forms of harm towards animals are tolerated by society (meat and dairy industry, cosmetics, etc.). I'm against all of that as well but I wish we as a society would realise that we are engaging in cruel and harmful practices.

[0k0l0g]

Oh gosh, it makes me so sad! We need to punish it, definitely. But punishing individuals is not enough. We must address it at a structural, institutional, governmental level.

[BADecker]

No it isn't a pity. It's called freedom.

The point is entirely this. If somebody can control your freedom, they can control you. Why stop at animals? Become a Communistic Dictatorship, where they control what color socks you wear, and how many breaths of air you take.

Your choice. Be free, or be a slave.


If the animal isn't yours, then don't treat it good or bad, until you get permission from the owner.

And about the animal's freedom? No one wants to be injured (including the animals). Those who are injured and can't scape from this reality don't have freedom!

You are showing a communist behavior with the animals! You control animal's freedom, so you control them! For these injured animals it's like to live in a junk communist/socialist house, where they aren't respected and treated as they should be.

The real choice humans can take here are: to be a communist enslaver or to be a decent person.

We are talking about lives, and lives don't belong to any man in this world.

An animal's freedom is up to its owner. Freeing an animal that was brought up in captivity, is just as dangerous to it as harming it while in captivity. But, it is up to its owner.

[ApocalypseNow]

If people want to see animal cruelty then the government should transfer all the animals on the safehaven like a far island because if you are not aware, those animals that are in the zoo is already an act of cruelty because the people imprisoned them as an attraction and also for them to get paid.