There are certain factors, known as “aggravating factors”, that distinguish the severity of violent crimes. Some of these factors include the helplessness of the victim, the amount of pain and suffering inflicted upon them, and the necessity of the means used to commit the crime against the victim (for example, the use of a knife to cause death by repeated stabbing when a gun was readily available.) These factors are what cause certain crimes to be deemed “heinous” and “depraved”, and thus prosecuted more aggressively than others. Violence against animals should be no exception to these considerations, and should be just as aggressively prosecuted as violence against another human.
Very often, animals kept for commercial purposes are housed in unsanitary conditions that are imposed on them out of the interest of maximizing profit, with no effort spared to minimize suffering and discomfort and fear. These kinds of conditions can be seen in slaughterhouses and similar facilities. This kind of neglect is disgusting enough, and that's not to mention the utter depravity inherent in the character of one who deliberately harms, tortures, and/or murders animals just for personal enjoyment or thrill. Individuals who are guilty of animal cruelty deserve to pay a cost as dear as if it were a human they were victimizing, and when they aren't made to, it only worsens and perpetuates the issue.
Traditionally in the United States judicial system, to determine that a crime has been committed, there are two elements that must be present. They are known by their latin expressions as “actus reus” and “mens rea,” or the “guilty act” and the “guilty intent,” respectively. Considering intent, the greater the intent held by the perpetrator to cause harm and suffering to the victim, the more heinous the act is, and thus the more deserving of a harsher punishment. By this logic, the most depraved and heinous acts of criminal violence occur when perpetrators intentionally target the weak, put them in a state of increased vulnerability/defensiveness, and deliberately expose them to conditions which cause pain, fear, and suffering, for the sole purpose of profit or for simple enjoyment. These individuals are deemed the greatest threat to society, and are the most likely to receive the highest punishment under the law in order to protect society from future acts of depravity. The threat they pose is not so much in their ability to commit murder or to harm another; any human could potentially do either one of these things. The threat lies in their careless attitude towards the suffering of another living thing, as this denotes a seriously maladapted and malicious character, prone to act on selfish impulse with disregard to the law and to the lives of others. Most often, the types of individuals who commit these crimes are what are known as “sociopaths”, “psychopaths” or, diagnostically, as having “antisocial personality disorder”.
Sociopaths are pathologically, incorrigibly selfish. They do not feel guilt or remorse, they do not love, are incapable of empathy and compassion, and they do not fear the consequences of their actions. The serial killer Ted Bundy, who brutally murdered more than 30 young women throughout the 1970’s, is a prime example of a sociopath. Is it any surprise that animal cruelty and torture is listed as one of the number one behavioral indicators that predict sociopathy in adults?
In considering the state of the victim during the commission of a crime, aggravating factors include the degree of harm and suffering inflicted, the helplessness and defenselessness of the victim, and also (to an extent) the provocation of the perpetrator by the victim. The victims ability to comprehend exactly what is happening to them is not one such factor; baby killers and killers of the mentally challenged are often sentenced more harshly than violent crimes against an average adult. If the mentally underdeveloped (as infants or those with mental disorders) receive equal representation and consideration in the pursuit of justice under the law, then why should animals not receive such consideration as well? The issue then becomes one of an arbitrary “I’m better than you” attitude, which between humans, is known as discrimination, and is illegal. Discrimination against a member of another species, especially when that member is of a higher degree of emotional and/or intellectual capacity, is thus on par with racial discrimination or discrimination against the mentally challenged. Though it may not be considered legally unconstitutional, it is certainly morally unconstitutional, when seen in the context of an unprovoked act of violence or harmful negligence against another sentient being.
There are those who would argue with me on this, claiming that animal intelligence is overestimated, or even non-existant, denying that there are any other sentient beings besides man. Any emotions said to be exhibited by animals are, according to these disbelievers, the result of humans projecting our own image onto animals and falsely ascribing human characteristics to them. This blog is intended to provide evidence to the contrary, and thus reinforce my position on the necessity of more aggressive investigation and prosecution of animal abusers.
No comments:
Post a Comment