Man Gets 18 Months For Beating Puppy To Death

MaineToday.com ^ | 12/08/04 | Alan Crowell

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

SKOWHEGAN -- A 26-year-old Fairfield man was sentenced to 18 months behind bars Tuesday for beating a 4-month-old wolf-hybrid puppy to death with his fists.

James Mayhew pleaded guilty to aggravated animal cruelty in Somerset County Superior Court. Superior Court Chief Justice Nancy Mills sentenced Mayhew to five years in prison with all but 18 months suspended. Mayhew will be on probation for four years after he is released.

Kennebec and Somerset County District Attorney Evert N. Fowle said Tuesday afternoon that his office treats animal cruelty cases seriously because studies show a link between abuse of animals and violence against humans.

"People who would abuse or torture innocent animals are people who would do the same (to humans) under the right circumstances," Fowle said.

It was the second time in less than a week that a prison sentence was handed down for the relatively rare felony charge of aggravated animal cruelty in Fowle's jurisdiction.

In Augusta last week, Superior Court Justice Joseph Jabar sentenced a Randolph man to four years behind bars for running over and killing his girlfriend's pregnant cat.

Jabar said the act amounted to domestic abuse because it was an attempt to control his girlfriend. One witness described the man "howling and laughing," before killing the cat.

In the Mayhew case, Fowle said there was no link to domestic violence. The Fairfield man was apparently upset because the puppy urinated in his apartment.

"He beat the dog to death because it urinated inside his residence, but the dog urinated because it was scared to death of him because of past abusive treatment," Fowle said.

Police said the puppy was beaten over a period of two months and died on July 31.

An autopsy concluded the puppy had a broken rib, a severely bruised lung and bruised muscles around the head and ears.

Police said at the time of Mayhew's arrest, a veterinarian who performed the autopsy concluded the puppy either bled to death or suffocated on its own blood.

Mayhew had no other pets or animals at his Mountain Avenue home. He apparently had seen the dog advertised for sale and bought it at eight or six weeks old.

[ScottM1968]

I never commented on your positing. I only said what I have stated.

You put words into my mouth by saying I thought such things.

[MEGoody]

"Not nice, but we better start rounding those people up if the majority on this thread have their way."

A drowning death for a newborn pup is a lot more merciful than beating a 4 month old puppy to death with your fists.

[GovernmentShrinker]

We even have to put down animals. This criminalizes that behavior, too.

This sicko didn't euthanize an animal; he tortured it for 2 months until it finally died. Big difference.

[blinachka]

Er, I don't think that's quite the correct verb....

Well, that too...but first they get a good beatdown...and then they become Bubba's personal shower-toy...(oh yuck!)

[steve-b]

Nope. Shooting an obviously out-of-control thug on a rampage in your own home (which is presumably where one's pets are to be found) is clearcut self-defense. Any DA who would bring charges needs to be removed from office.

[GovernmentShrinker]

At the very least, he should be sterilized. Just imagine how he'll deal with a baby or toddler that doesn't potty train fast enough for him.

[steve-b]

You put words into my mouth by saying I thought such things.

You said that it was unjust to consider likelihood of future crime when handing down punishment for past crime. That statement inexorably leads to the conclusion that the two cases described in Msg#77 are to be punished identically.

You staked out your position; you're stuck with its logical implications.

[MEGoody]

"Anyone who would torture a domestic animal death would probably do the same to a human."

Statistically speaking, those who have become serial murderers started out torturing and killing animals.

[ScottM1968]

These people on here are scary.

You are right. They obviously can't handle the real world.

Pets are people to them and a crime done to an animal equates to the same to a person.

This is truly sick to see among so-called "conservatives".

You'd all better not buy farm property or live in range country.

You couldn't have your senseless convictions there for long.

Animals are animals. People are people. Animals are only property by law.

We can shun people who do gross things to animals, but what more should be really do, when we gleefully look forward to a nice fillet mignon for our personal pleasure?

[Americanwolfsbrother]

Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst. Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property. My argument is the only rational answer.

Your post confirms who's a DUmmy and who is not. Lord help anyone who deals with you on a daily basis.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

My argument is the ONLY rational answer.

[Americanwolf]

Give it up... you know there is a difference between now and then. Was it wrong then to do that sure.. it was pretty damn cruel to kill an animal that way, but there were not laws on the books then that they could be charges with. there are now, and we know much more now about how to determine whether the psychology involved is a socio-path or a farmer that need to control population.

[paul51]

I've adjusted my thinking. I'm with post #92. The odds are great that in 10 or 15 years we will read about a kids body found in a field and see this sickos pic on a mug shot. I have no tolerance for cruel and violent people. I say, give em a double dose of their own. If that makes me sick, so be it.

[ScottM1968]

Animals can only be considered property. That is the only valid thought to have.

You may not recall the big animal rights protests of the late 80's and early 90's, but they logically made the same argument all of you are making. But they rightfully made it against any killing of animals.

You see, their perspective is perfectly consistent. When you buy it in part, you buy it in whole because our juries can see the logical progression.

The "animals have rights" line of thought will force vegetarianism upon us all.

Which is precisely what PETA wants.

[ScottM1968]

Animal rights activists take your argument and extrapolate it to its logical conclusion--that any animal cruelty is wrong.

This means all slaughter of animals is inherently wrong, regardless of intent.

We must retain an "animals are property" stance or we are all screwed if we eat meat.

[exnavychick]

And that kind of logic is how people like James Mayhew slide in under the radar, until they start killing off fellow humans. If his crime is prosecuted for being the henious act that it is, all to the good. He should also be psychologically evaluated while in prison, to determine the extent of his likely pathologies, and therefore his risk to society in general. After he serves his time, he ought to be followed up with by a shrink if he has a serious mental problem, as a condition of his four-year parole. As a previous poster stated, the fear of punishment is usually the only thing that keeps people like that under control. Sadly, even that doesn't always work.


Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.
___________________________________________________________

This gives me a glimmer of why you take the position you do.

[tiamat]

areafiftyone wrote:


OMG that is sooo sick. He deserves to be beat up himself!

---

He probably will be.

Inmates often have hatred of people who are cruel to smaller weaker things like children or animals.

[ScottM1968]

You are sounding very nutty.

Neither punishment is handed down in your situation for what may happen in the future, but for how the current situation came to be (premeditation).

[Americanwolf]

You line that you argument is the only rational answer indicates that you do not play well with others... What gives your rational trump over everyone else's.

You make the comment that the people here cannot deal with reality. That is pretty arrogant also. What gives you the corner on knowing everything and being right all the time.

Ok how about this. I come to your house. I see you dog in the yard. I feel that it is going to attack me just laying there sleeping. I beat it. Now you come out and start yelling at me for attacking you property.. I am now in fear for my life from a human and I beat you to death.... i am going to be charge for both crimes... That is reality!

Why because the court can see a pattern there. This is no different that what our friend did expect that he was mad at the dog for peeing on his floor. What happens if he had a Kid and it did the same thing... Myself and the rest of society are not willing to take that chance.

If you want a reality where unchecked violence is accept as a norm and is not challenged by everyday citizens..Try Russia they let you beat your dogs and family over there...

That is reality too...... Just because you have your view of what you think reality does not mean yours is rational.

[Melas]

Disagree. 5 years hard labor would have been much more fitting.