I came back to my desk last week after a court hearing for a young man sentenced in a vehicular homicide case that claimed the life of a young, promising life.
A co-worker instinctively asked, “Well, what’d he get?”
“Seven years,” I replied. “That’s the going rate for a human life this week.”
The comment was flippant at best and my apologies to anyone who takes offense.
Meanwhile, a man in eastern Colorado was sitting in jail, awaiting charges on animal cruelty after more than 40 dogs were allegedly found starved to death inside a kennel he owned.
Animal abuse sickens me. I don’t know how anyone can mistreat, torture or starve a poor, defenseless creature.
But when the presumptive range of time this man could possibly face if convicted was announced, I had to scratch my head. One to two years on each of the 46 counts of animal cruelty, four years on each count if aggravating factors are found.
So, absent a plea deal, this man could spend anywhere from 46 to 184 years in prison.
We throw the book at animal offenders these days. I’m guessing the name Michael Vick might ring a bell. Heck, animal rights groups were even ready to string up a jockey last week after his horse broke down and was later euthanized at the Kentucky Derby.
It all leaves me confused. It’s not just animal abusers either. I heard some 72-year-old man got 300 years in prison last month for fraud. That’ll show him. Let’s tack on 500 years of parole, just in case somebody gets any funny ideas about being immortal.
Bottom line, get drunk, kill someone and we can only put you away for so long. Bite a dog or gyp some old people and we’re throwing away the key?
What am I missing?
While I can’t vouch for the reasoning behind severe punishment for thieves – other than we really don’t like people taking our money – I get the animal cruelty idea. Ostensibly, if someone can hurt an animal, they can hurt anybody.
I sort of buy that.
Think of it as a gateway crime. Man kicks cat, next time man kicks me.
This isn’t an attempt to condone animal cruelty. Instead, I’m looking for some congruity in our justice system.
Are we now saying the value of a dog’s life is equivalent, if not more than that of a human?
I have a hard time getting my mind around that.
I think it’s more likely our society’s need to provide a defense for the defenseless, a voice for the voiceless.
Good, that’s very admirable.
But if you believe a 10-year-old riding home in a SUV after skating isn’t defenseless, then we need to talk.
