Replies

Okay, so now I see where you are coming from. I still don't agree with you, because I don't believe that researchers needed to jerry-rig their results as far as animal cruelty translating to violent crime goes. There isn't an agenda there (at least, not a leftist one). Most people aren't too keen about protecting the rights of serial killers, after all. Some whack jobs, certainly, but the tin-foil hat crowd always needs a hero. And there are always lonely, unbalanced women who like to write them love letters. Does that mean they are any less violent, etc.?

With statistics like 1-3% of a population committing 30% of the crimes, that is certainly alarming. That being said, you said..."some studies". To the best of my knowledge, all studies on violent behavior have animal cruelty as a sign of future violent behavior. This, of course, leaves out people with organic brain diseases and people killing in self defense, etc. And with the homosexual thing...it's a chicken and egg scenario. Are they homosexuals because they are molested, or do they molest because they are homosexuals? I don't believe anyone has proved that homosexuals are pedophiles because they ARE homosexual. I would think that would have to do more with their personal history of being sexually abused. Many pedophiles who were molested are not choosing same sex victims.

I would imagine that the correlation of animal abuse to future homicides is much higher than the correlation of homosexuality to pedophilia. Besides, with pedophilia, you are dealing with human victims, not animals, so it's kind of an apples and oranges argument.

No there's a big difference. Your serial killer isn't a serial killer by virtue of killing one person! They are sentenced not for murders they may commit, but for murders they have committed. And the sentence for a serial killer is harsher (less chance for parole) than for a single murderer because they've committed multiple crimes. Here you got a guy being sentenced for some unspecified crime against humans he may or may not commit in the future.

And furthermore what's even more ridiculous is the guy is 26 years old!!! Those studies the psychobabbling prosecutor were quoting were on children! If a 26 year old animal abuser hasn't committed violent crimes against humans before, so how is the application of theoretical pop psychology on the development of children even relevant to an adult? Surely you don't believe a 26 year old is a developing child do ya? If he hasn't abused humans by 26 years of age, he ain't going to start now. See how misapplied this pop psychology bullcrap is?

Besides, with pedophilia, you are dealing with human victims, not animals, so it's kind of an apples and oranges argument.

Well yeah it is apples and oranges because dogs are property, nothing more. It's like getting a year and half of hard time for getting angry and breaking a window in my own house.