Sure. How about the penalty form abusing a household pet be raised to the same as the penalty for child abuse?
Well, I suppose it depends on whether it was hunting season for that particular type of songbird.
This is entirely inappropriate. Why do you touchy-feely liberals feel so compelled to engage in the medicalization of evil?

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Who said I was a touchy-feely liberal?

Note that the posts with examples of animal cruelty usually involve minors. I think that if you direct help and punishment, rather than simply punishment, at these kids before they transfer their sadism from animals to humans, you'd be looking out for the common good and the minor himself.

Besides, you use the word "medicalization" as if I expressly stated I wished to bludgeon the offender with anti-depressants. In reality, the penal code and our various punishments--fines, imprisonment, etc--are meant to remedy, or "cure," said behavior from a convicted individual. Therapy and other such methodologies are aimed toward the same goal.

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. – H.L. Mencken

I refuse to trade humanity for patriotism.

Animal abusers need to be dealt with severely. Statistics have shown (I read about it long ago so I can't post it) that people who abuse animals, in many cases, move on to Humans to continue their abuse. I think Jeffrey Dahmer started out abusing animals.

When you recommend therapy for animal abusers, you make it sound as if you think that being an animal abuser is some kind of sickness (probably a form of mental illness). That explains my comment that you are engaging in the medicalization of evil. Usually, it is the liberals and not the conservatives who treat criminality and misbehavior as mental illness and not evil. Hence, my characterization of you as a "touchy feely liberal."

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

It's not always the right way to go about it, but it makes more sense than just assuming "evil" as though it is an actual force rather than a creation of social forces and screwed up minds.

I don't personally think therapy would be what works for some psycho that tortures animals... But what if it's a kid who might not yet be set in his ways?
Do you intervene and try to fix him before he grows into a psycho... or just harden him in prison and send him back out more twisted than before?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I guess I took off my "black-and-white" glasses a while ago. To me, there aren't two vast groups of people roaming the earth, one motivated by goodness and happiness for their fellow man and another desiring wholesale destruction. Yes, there are genuinely evil actions or events that occur and genuinely evil people that do them; but the barrier between "evil" and "good" is not only wholly permeable but also thin and constantly shifting and realigning itself. A good man can do evil things and an evil man can do good things; thus, it is more productive and relevant to simply refer to "men" and leave your adjectives at home.

Some people may have cruelty and sadism in their hearts and minds at a young age, but to simply toss them in jail and throw away the key without attempting to rectify the situation is a disservice to them and society.

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. – H.L. Mencken

I refuse to trade humanity for patriotism.

In other words, you live in a dream world where there are not good people and evil people. You have somehow managed to retain the concept that there are such things as good actions and evil actions. But performing evil actions does not make one an evil person. Because everything's relative. Therefore, persons who perform evil actions should just be sent to counselors for therapy, but we should never actually punish them.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

I don't think anyone is saying punishment shouldn't be part of it. I think the issue is that therapy should be part of it.
The purely punitive system just creates hardened criminals. If we actually want to rehabilitate people, we should take a look at why they do things and try to fix them... in addition to punitive measures.
And it takes more than isolated evil actions to make an evil person. Everyone does something that can be considered evil to some extent at some point. There's usually a reason behind it, not simply an "evil soul". Where does an "evil soul" come from?
The laws should be for protection of the population and rehabilitation. Punishment should only exist insofar as it helps those two goals. Sometimes one's freedom must be compromised or taken away completely to protect others. Sometimes a price must be paid to teach a lesson (most effective on minor crimes). But none of this means that we should not also include therapy, education, and other prescriptive methods for criminals who will be released at some point.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Again, at what point did I make the claim that we should not punish them? People should be held accountable for their actions. I believe, if you check the quotes above, you will find that I said that we should include both therapy and punishment for those individuals.

Since you insist on categorizing people into two large and wholly separate groups of good and evil, how do you account for the evil actions done by good people or good actions done by evil people? Is there an inherent "value scale" of good and evil that adjusts itself with each action? If so, at what point does someone become "evil"? After one evil action? After two? If there is some sort of cumulative evil point system, would it not be folly to label someone evil before they draw their last breath and their evil points are tallied?

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. – H.L. Mencken

I refuse to trade humanity for patriotism.

There's a large barrier to making animal cruelty penalties more severe, namely the meat industry. How can you not apply laws intended to protect pets, toward livestock as well? I could provide some links to horrific video of abuse at factory farms, everyone knows it's happening, but the industry keeps growing every year. What's the difference between beating a cat to death, and paying someone to beat a piglet to death? Where does the culpability end?
Just playing the devil's advocate here. Animal cruelty sickens me, but I still drink milk, and eat chicken and fish. I haven't had beef or pork in about 5 years, after doing some homework on factory farming it didn't taste the same anymore. At some point I'll probably go Vegan. The more years I meditate, the less willing I am to eat animals for nutrition.