is there a sense of proportion in the legal system?

silverharp

stuggling to label the thread, but I heard the case mentioned in terms of the cat bin lady, but there was no questioning that it might be a sentence to far. While the piece doesnt go into the background of the kid involved, I'm not convinced this should have gone down the legal route, I'm not even convinced that this should involve any state agenicies , however could a less fromal route not have been found? I'd assume such a case would be a red flag for social services (valid or not) and the issue could have been resolved via counselling assuming the child was not acting out due to some deeper family issue.

what he did was by no means funny but the self appointed talking head on the show I was watching took the line that it was justified becasue the act was a precurser to more psychopathic behaviour (evidence?)

As for proportion, a kid can go though secondary school and systematically bully other kids and might never get more then a couple of hours detention. Said individual if they didnt cop on could continue the behaviour in the work place. On the scale of "negative" behaviour do bullies not rate higher on the deviant scale then a single act of abusing a dumb animal.?


btw, if you read some of the daily mail comments, the sentence wasnt long enough. lol

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285922/Teenager-microwaved-brothers-hamster-given-months-youth-custody.html

A cruel teenager who cooked his little brother's pet hamster in a microwave was handed a four-month custodial sentence today.
The 16-year-old boy left the defenceless animal with scorched internal organs and its hind leg burnt down to the bone.
It originally survived the incident but was put down the following day when its hind leg swelled into a blister before it burst, shrivelling into a blackened crisp.
He was sentenced at Kettering Magistrates' Court to four months in youth custody and was disqualified from keeping animals for a minimum of four years.
The court heard how the youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons, initially denied any involvement and blamed his brother for the torture.
But in a previous court hearing he pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a hamster, namely by microwaving it, under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Kevin McCole, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, revealed the teenager, from Corby, Northamptonshire, had threatened to microwave the hamster on three previous occasions.
He said: 'On March 23 the mother was sitting at home with her husband when she heard a commotion in the living room.
'Two of her three sons came running in shouting the eldest had put the hamster in the microwave and cooked it.
'They put the hamster back in the cage but her son was laughing and not at all sorry.'
The crime only came to light when his mother's friend phoned to tell a vet about the suffering creature the next day.
The one-year-old white female Golden hamster was still able to move by the time it got to the vet but its condition was rapidly deteriorating and it was immediately put down.
Mr McCole added: 'The right hind leg had been completely burnt away leaving just the skeleton and the charred remains of flesh.
'The vet concluded the hamster had been caused a great deal of pain and would have been made to suffer unnecessarily for an extended period of time.' He added that the vet could not say how long the animal had been left to suffer but that it could have been hours or several days.
Inspectors do not know for how long the unnamed animal was left to cook in the microwave.
In mitigation, John Whiston said his client had admitted responsibility for the offence and his circumstances and behaviour had improved since the act took place.
He said: 'He now, because of his change is circumstances, presents at a low risk of reoffending and causing harm.
'The report suggests that he is a young man who has not had an ideal upbringing. The substantial change in circumstances suggests he is a young man who could benefit from guidance.'

Chair of the bench, Magistrate Joan Gibson, said only a custodial sentence was appropriate for such a cruel act.
She said: 'This is a serious offence which warrants custody. It was a deliberate act to injure an animal which resulted in its death.
'I sentence you to a four-month detention and training order for animal cruelty. You will get some help and support when you come out to stop you offending again.'

She added that he would be disqualified from keeping an animal for a minimum term of four years.
Speaking outside court, RSPCA Inspector Clint Davies said he was pleased magistrates had taken a hard line on the case.
He said: 'We would have liked to see a lot more of a disqualification on keeping an animal than the four years.
'If he is capable of putting a hamster in a microwave then four years' disqualification is not appropriate.
'This is a particularly cruel case. It's hard to comprehend how much pain an animal goes through when it's put into a microwave and cooked.
'I think it's a good result to get a conviction for the person responsible for this terrible act and it is good that the case has finally been concluded.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285922/Teenager-microwaved-brothers-hamster-given-months-youth-custody.html#ixzz0yeCriGyp

Greyfox

silverharp wrote: »

stuggling to label the thread, but I heard the case mentioned in terms of the cat bin lady, but there was no questioning that it might be a sentence to far. While the piece doesnt go into the background of the kid involved, I'm not convinced this should have gone down the legal route, I'm not even convinced that this should involve any state agenicies , however could a less fromal route not have been found?...

I think your post is utter nonsense. Your talking here about torturing and killing a defenceless animal and you make it sould like he should be just sent to bed without his supper!

Of course it should go down the legal route, theirs no way his sentence was too harsh, he's just unlucky that he actually got a fair punishment in a country which has a justice system that's far too lenient.

looksee

There is something sick in someone who can treat a living creature like that. Ideally it should be possible to work out what the problem is, and deal with it. However things are not ideal and the alternative is to give a punishment which will make him realise that actions have consequenses.

Either way it needed a strong response; a hamster, a dog, a child - if he thinks he can get away with cruelty who knows where it will escalate to. It sounds as though the act might have been more directed at the brother than the animal, but that is no excuse, it was a vicious thing to do and it cannot be allowed to happen without response from society.

Personally, I think we, as a society, have already become too accommodating to those who knowingly break the law. I'd agree with the sentencing and if anything, increase the punishment, and make the punishment well publicized. Let potential offenders know that we will not tolerate such behavior. God knows, its a decent step towards bringing some order back into our society where children and teens are concerned.