Posted on 12/08/2004 12:45:36 PM PST by 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.
Like the way we have been successful with tort reform, the anti-tobacco and now the anti-fat lobbies? Wish I had your optimism.
PETA are not stupid. I know many conservatives who think PETA are this wonderful organization who puts whackos like this dude in prison for beating puppies. They are patient, very good at PR and hiding their true agenda.
Here's hoping true conservatism wins.
Honestly, could you give me the Biblical reference to animals having souls? That is new to me. Thanks.
I know they can feel pain and I don't want them to suffer, either.
Our laws are continuing to creep more and more, I agree. This is my concern because everything can be made to seem reasonable.
Is there a difference between a dog and a human?
This does nothing to answer the earlier question asked, to which this was (evidently) addressed. I, therefore, repeat the query (and note that it has not yet, as of this writing, been adequately answered or gainsaid).
Sure but it was an egalitarian revolution. And the same thing is true about the DOI, regarding the "inalienable rights". The right to life is certainly Biblical. Ah but Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not, but more importantly neither are they contradictory. But as to your point as to whether The American Revolution was justified in light of Romans 12, no I think probably not. Is it ever? Maybe.
We're also overlooking another key point to all this. All we have is the article, which doesn't expound on the guy's history. This 5 year sentence suspended after 18 months could also be about a history of abusing animals and/or people. A first offense of this sort of thing typically brings less of a sentence, and no jail time at all.
I am a meat eater, but I cannot overlook abuse and torture of any form of life. Whether it's out of anger or pleasure, it's not cool. I am not going to abuse a deer for months before I kill it in a violent temper. I am going to kill it as quickly as possible so it doesn't have to suffer long or needlessly. I am not going to punch it in the head and break bones until it dies hours or days later.
That is not what being human is about. We, as stewards of the Earth, have a responsibility to it to take care of the gifts our Creator gave us. It's not about property vs rights, its about respect. This man has no respect for what he was given. I'm no treehugger, and I drive a gas guzzlin' SUV, but some things should just be held in a higher regard. I would break my own hands before I would beat my German Shepherd or my Dachshund for something as rediculous as piddling on the carpet. If one of them went after one of my kids unprovoked, they'd be on the next train to the vet's office to have the trusty "needle" in the arm.
This really needs some perspective on both sides. Freepers are better than this kind of bickering.
Excellent points. Seconded here. What then of all the frogs and other animals disected alive (or barely) by tens of millions of kids in high school biology classes, or the Boy Scouts cooking a fish over the fire while it's still squirming. Frogs and fish feel the pain, too. The guy's obviously a little off, but animals are property. He destroyed his own property so he goes to prison is tantamount to the destruction of property rights over any living thing (there are some nut-jobs on the Left Coast who think this line of legal development should even be extended to cover plants). The criminalization of such an act fails the test of REASON and "common sense."
The are also some bald-faced lies in the story about correlations. There is no statistically significant correlation between such behavior and cruelty towards humans. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find such a correlation, because so-called cruelty to animals (as defined in the prosecution) is so common. Bull-fighters, farmers who take down cattle, send dogs that get rough with sheep, and on and on. Heck, my local sea-food restaurant just rips apart that lobster with glee -- while it squirms and we all salivate at how it will taste after being boiled alive. Dogs themselves are even considered a staple meat for billions of people on this earth (in Asia).
One of the problems with this prosecution is that the law he was prosecuted under is too vague. If people want to explicitly have pets or dogs or tarantulas protected from such conduct from their property owners, then the law should have listed them precisely. Instead it came under vague laws related to "cruelty to animals." Where does the line start or end?
Footnote: It was once a widely-held view in the field of psychology that people who "personify" animals -- perceive them to have the same standing ("rights") and emotions as humans (or plants, etc.) -- are themselves completely NUTS.
Because 18 months in lockup for killing the beast may make them reevaluate their behavior.
It isn't remotely analogous.
A Google shows that in the last thirty years or so, such laws have been revised towards harsher penalties, as in felonies.
But animal cruelty laws, not so harsh, have been on the books for hundreds of years, for instance Ohio's of 1875.
I agree with most of your points.
Is there a difference between and apple and an orange?
As abhorrent as this guy's actions were, it's worth noting that had he killed a human 182 after conception, as he did this dog, his actions would be perfectly legal.
Well now that you have dropped most of you orginal arguments. You have now resorted to "more and more of our laws are creeping because they are made to see reasonable."
This is the third time that you have tried to move off the topic at hand, and frankly really smack of Paranoia. That is why there are checks and balances in the political and law making system and ultimatly the supreme court.
Romans 8:19 says that the lesser creatures await Christ's return to redeem the sons of God so they, too, will be released from physical death to eternal life.
to recieve eternal life your are required to have a soul... there are numorous other verse that will support that also.
Agreed. And, as has been asked (repeatedly), throughout this thread: "... one cannot find both morally abhorrent...?"
[::High fives Americanwolf::] :)
here... I have optimism in both the system and my fellow man. I Know not all PETA are left wing idealouge or out to do major harm overall, but like many other groups the radical ammong them make the biggest noise.
I belive that we as citizens have a responsibility to act if we feel that our government or representitives are not acting in accordance with the will of the majority.
are there problems with our system? sure our political system is corrupted by special intrests and lobbies. Those need to disappear and the government has to return to representing the people not the finacial intrests of wall street or hollywood. But it is also up to us as citizens of this country to push for that change.
ignore the here.. :)
To answer your question; yes rational,thoughtful people can find both morally abhorrent (and tell the difference between the two).
Thanks!
Sorry I was a product of a parocial school...it is ingrained...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.