12 months !

Re: 12 months !

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:44:30 GMT

PS to above I've done a lot of prosecution work for the RSPCA I've only once known the magistrates imprison-and the owner was also a notorious drug dealer The RSPCA Inspectors slightly sarcastic comment was they would have jailed that one for dropping a crisp packet-in other words-the magistrates weren't really jailing him for cruelty to animals-they were just glad of any excuse to lock him up

Neither the law nor the way it's administered takes animalsuffering seriously enough

Wynne

Re: 12 months !

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:39:46 GMT

£20K fine and a maximum of 51 weeks imprisonment The criminal can also be banned from having charge of animals, but not from co-habiting or recieving gifts from animal owners, so often the business is just transfered to the wife's name The magistrates never impose the maximum even when the illtreatment is extreme and continued for a long time-so often it's cheaper to just pay the fine One case I can remember concerned a farmer who owned 2 farms A flock of sheep were lambing at the farm they weren't living at, and 1 ewe had dystocia for over 24 hours The farmer was only fined £1,500, which was much less than the cost of providing proper supervision throughout the lambing season-so it was cheaper to pay the fine

As I see it animal cruelty falls into 3 categories

Firstly there is cruelty through ignorance The law isn't really the way to deal with this-the owners just need educating

Secondly there is cruelty for financial gainThe answer is to increase finesto a level where no-one will risk it-I would start with a minimum of £100,000k and no upper limit

Thirdly Psychiatric cruelty-lock the door and throw the key away

Wynne

Re: 12 months !

Rajat — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:10:30 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] The maximum penalty for even the most extreme ill-treatment of animals is nowhere near severe enough to act as a deterrant-and I've never known magistrates impose the maximum[/quote]

That's a shame- so what is the maximum penalty then, do you know?

Re: 12 months !

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:23:03 GMT

Rajat The maximum penalty for even the most extreme ill-treatment of animals is nowhere near severe enough to act as a deterrant-and I've never known magistrates impose the maximum

Wynne

Re: 12 months !

Clive Ansell — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 08:53:31 GMT

Nowhere near long enough. As Evelyn has said he will likely serve around 4 months, and the regime is unlikely to be to arduous. I think it is generally acknowledged that short prison sentences don't work, and re-offending rates are high. A family friend prison officer feels that a minimum of 18 months (actual in prison, not sentence) is needed.

At the grand old age of 22 he already has eight previous convictions for offences including theft and shoplifting, and possession of cannabis. He clearly has complete disregard for and contributes nothing to society, other people and the law, and society will be a better and safer place with him in jail. Time to throw away the key with this one!

Re: 12 months !

Rajat — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:08:36 GMT

I think the cases of animal cruelty quoted in the Vet times we got this week were horrific and deserved more jail time than they got - animal/s died and suffered greatly. This seems like an excessive jail term to me but I agree the bloke's irresponsible behaviour should be punished.

Re: 12 months !

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:31:25 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]Assuming the report is factually correct (always a big assumption regarding the press, but assuming anyway)[/quote]

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]the report uses emotive phrases like "horrific attack",[/quote]

Rules of Journalism, no. 157: any dog bite is a "horrific attack"

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]So I don't actually think 12 months is unreasonable.[/quote]

His jail may well be more comfortable than his present life. And he won't actually be there for 12 months. Four months tops. While he's there of course he will have plenty of opportunities: to take drugs, to learn how to be a criminal, and so on.

Re: 12 months !

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:06:39 GMT

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate.

Assuming the report is factually correct (always a big assumption regarding the press, but assuming anyway):

He did not deliberately let the dogs out, they escaped. Therefore negligence/ inadequate control, not premeditation. Also, it doesn't say how the dogs escaped... it's just possible somebody else was negligent. Had he deliberately let them out and set them on passersby, I'd be agreeing with you.

The dogs bit people, but it doesn't say what kind of injuries they actually caused... the report uses emotive phrases like "horrific attack", which is just hyperbole. I think the seriousness of injuries caused would be quite important.

So I don't actually think 12 months is unreasonable. I do think the dogs need putting down, and above all, I think he needs preventing from ever owning dogs again, having proved himself beyond reasonable doubt to be incapable of looking after them responsibly.

Re: 12 months !

Mark Holmes — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:37:16 GMT

Well it would be about right if he was buried into his neck so the whole town could piss on his head, but as it stands no its not long enough!

Re: 12 months !

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:01:44 GMT

You think that's too long, or not long enough?