• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Should the death penalty ban include animals?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:We've banned the death penalty in the United Kingdom, but what about the animal kingdom?



I think that it is totally unfair that a dog has to be put to sleep if it has bitten a person. Obviously it depends on the situation, but legally - no matter what the situation, the dog will still be put down.



I was bit by a dog when i was two, the dog got put down, but had already bitten before. Since then i've somehow become to love dogs and want to work with them in the future. They are amazing creatures - friendly, domesticated, sweet and six-sensing companions.



Today, outside greggs, a dog was left outside the shop, when all of a sudden there was a cry and i heared a lady who'd come in asking for a bowl of water. Yes utter shock and the whole of everyones attention would turn to the crying child who is going through terrible pain of course, and i wouldnt wish it on anyone...but she's not going to die from it. Me, i got a paper stitch and was fine, just left a scar - if hers was deeper then it would just be stitched and obviously also leave a scar. Whereas the dog, reunited with its owner who would have to be questioned by the police, would now be facing a dealth penalty. How about looking it at the dogs point of view:



Owner leaves dog on lead outside greggs to get a bit of food, and joins the queue. Whilst outside, the dog, feeling lonely (i've seen dogs wimper and cry out for their owners when left alone) will also be feeling defenceless and more alert and anxious than usual. A happy little girl sitting on her buggy is pushed towards the queue of greggs (which is now outside the shop) near the dog. Obviously the childs instinct would be 'aww cute dog, i want to stroke him' so she would, this may be too much for the dog as its feeling escapeless and children arent that good at patting animals softly, so that dog, out of the only defence it has left, gives the child a little nip to warn her off, except the little nip intended from the frightened dog hurt her and she had to be taken by ambulance to the hopsital to be sorted out.



Surely, from self defence if the dog is a friendly and caring dog, it should not be put down. At most, the owner could be sued, have to take the dog to behavioural classes and wear a muzzle. The bite isnt going the kill the child, so the dog should NOT be put down.



Also, on this subject - what about the parent or guardian that was pushing the buggy? If i had a child, i wouldnt push them near to a strange dog, so the child should have been no where near it in the first place.



I'd like to know your views on this as i'm feeling very strongly about it today.



I would also like to propose the idea that instead of it just being law that the dog has to be put down, the concequence should depend on the situation and seriousness of the injury, as well as the views of the people involved - just like when an unconscious woman had her face bitten by her dog in order for her to be awakened - she didnt want her dog to be put to sleep - he had saved her life and had to pay for it with his - how is that justice?

EDITED_BY: buggleberry_fairy (1154720331)


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete Topic

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: buggleberry_fairy



I think that it is totally unfair that a dog has to be put to sleep if it has bitten a person. Obviously it depends on the situation, but legally - no matter what the situation, the dog will still be put down.




It's an interesting question. Are dogs sentient? Intelligent? Self-aware?

Not sure. And not sure what, exactly, qualifies one for "human" rights.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:they must be intelligent - otherwise why would we use them in the police force, why would they make such perfect companions and why would they howl if left alone...there must be feeling in there somewhere.

i know everyone's saying not to think or classify animals as humans, so animal rights need to be established for their version of the law, as this law only seems to worry about the human side. - and im sure, if the dog was aware of the law...it wouldnt have bit the child lol


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: buggleberry_fairy


they must be intelligent - otherwise why would we use them in the police force, why would they make such perfect companions and why would they howl if left alone...there must be feeling in there somewhere.




Self-aware?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:I think animals should have the same laws as people. I mean, why does everyone get all upset when I walk around naked and crap on sidewalk.

Equal Rights Now.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:The thing that makes me angries with dog attacks, is that half the time it's because the animal was being abused (tail pulled, teased, etcetera) when it turned around and bit the attacker. Therefore it was purely defending itself. Person gets bitten because dogs are unable to say "stop f*&^ing annoying me" so they bite.

Alternatively, it's because the dog has been raised to be violent because the owners were redneck bogans who feel the need to breed an attack dog in the suburbs.

I hate these people and would like to impose a death penalty on them. well, maybe not that severe, but i bloody hate them.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

roarfire
SILVER Member since Jul 2004

roarfire

comfortably numb
Location: The countryside, Australia

Total posts: 2676
Posted:I don't think it's fair that dogs are put down after they bite...Sometimes I think that they wouldn't even remember/realise what they did afterwards.

But then if we look at a more severe point of view:

What about if the attack was more severe, and the victim had been mauled to death? What do you suggest happens to the dog then?

shrug


.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I guess it's a master/ servant issue: if the servant rebels against his master, he has to go. Thing is that there are no animal jails, we still lack understanding for dogs and do not want to take responsibility. It's strange that dogs have been around mankind for so long and still the majority has no clue how to deal with them properly.

If you are interested, and I highly recommend it when you have children, go to a dog school, speak to the teacher and watch the training. It's not a big deal, but can even save lives/ the life of your child.

IMHO Dogs and animals in general can also suffer from mental deseases, be(come) paranoid or develop a psychosis. Sometimes this is in direct connection to it's owner. A possible solution would be to offer the alternative: put him to sleep or let him work with a "dog-psychiatrist" (on the owners expense) and see whether any behavioural disorder can be fixed... ?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

PyroWill
GOLD Member since Aug 2004

PyroWill

HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
Location: Staines, United Kingdom

Total posts: 4437
Posted:I totally agree with what your saying. Just because a dog has bitten someome doesnt mean tthat it will bite again. So why should they suffer the death penalty?

FOr humans one of the main reasons for the death penalty isnt because the person will reoffend and the safest way is to kill them (thats what life sentences are for). The death penalty is mainly around to be made examples of people and to try and stop people from offending in fear of the death penalty. But how can that work for dogs and other animals, a dog won't think oh hang on I best not bite this person because I could get the death penalty. An animal simply thinks 'this person/child is coming at me pulling my tail or touching me when I dont want to be, i'll growl, they still arent listening time to bite. An animal cant exactly say, 'excuse me censored off!'

Its reasons like these why i sometime reckon I should be an MP, i'd love to get laws like these passed


An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind

Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife

"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian

Delete

buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:I totally agree with rouge dragon

and doc lightning - yes dog's may be self aware, but of course theres the factor of there may be more intelligent creatures on earth above humans, but we're so stubborn that we don't let them...so how could we justify our reasoning of dogs aren't as intelligent/emotional as humans...we just don't know.

also...good luck pyrowill - when your an mp...keep us all posted lol


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted::roarfire: valid point... what if the victim was torn to pieces?

The dog may not straight remember what was going on and may never do it again, but the risk, that he will "cross the border" remains somehow, no?

If someone wants to house him and take the risk on his own expense, keeping it contained from there on, or with this "thingy" on his "mouth" (heyas, my vocabulary) I would have no objection that the dog lives on, but if this is not happening, I'd rather put him to sleep than risking another life on him... shrug

And what if he "just" kills another animal? A chicken, a cat, or sheep?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok well first off i think we should probably sidestep the whole "intelligence" issue as its a word that everyone knows the meaning to but no one can define. i think instead perhaps we should agree that dogs exhibit emotions, such as fear happyness etc and as such should be treated in a caring way.

i agree that its not a black and white issue, when i was younger i took my dog for a walk to pick up my brother from school while we where waiting a rather large woman stepped on my dogs tail to which she turned round and bit her on the ankle. as a result we got a fine for it all which i though was very unfair. when i was in london i got attached my two staffies in a hallway when the security door shut behind me for no reason other than they though i shouldnt have been there i ended up having to go to hospital for stiches in my hand, had the owner not come out as quickly as he did it would have been alot worse.

i think if you have a dog and your in a crowded public space/ your leaving your dog alone then it should be wearing a muzzle, i know my dogs used to hate wearing muzzles but we hated the idea of having to have them put down even more.


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete

Groovy_Dream
SILVER Member since May 2005

Groovy_Dream

addict
Location: , Australia

Total posts: 449
Posted:Three parties are at fault here:

1. The dog.
2. The owner, who shouldn't have left the dog alone.
3. The child's parents, who shouldn't have let the kid near the unknown dog.

It's not just the dog's fault. Teaching people not to be idiots seems like a better solution than just killing the animal.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Basically right, but the way accidents happen is that one or more people do something other than they should...

Now you can't blame the parents, nor the child, not the dog and apparantly hardly the owner.
IF the dog was peaceful and loving towards children and people ALL the time of his life... how could the owner be blamed?
IF the dog was in distress and the child on his tail... how can you blame the dog?
IF the parents were looking the other way just at the time, how could you blame them?

So as nobody really is to blame, how can you possibly punish the dog (and put him to sleep)?
It's somehow the stupid: damage has occurred and there must be retaliation...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:i totally agree with benjamen - if i had a dog i would definately prefer putting a muzzle on them than having to put them to sleep.



interestin point firetom...some things are just going to happen even if they are not done deliberately, so either all of the people should be blamed, or none of them. Also, biting someone or something after it has caused pain to a dog is a natural instinct...maybe even reflex, so it cannot be justified as a way to kill a dog, just because 'we wouldnt do it.'



i think that parents should have health and safety classes for how to keep their children safe, for even common sense can go unnoticed.



But yes, if the victim was torn to pieces and the animal was viscious - then i would consider putting the dog to sleep, but if there was any chance of changing its behaviour (and adding the muzzle) then i would definately opt for that.



i think its also interesting that no-one has commented saying 'its the dogs fault, and he should face the concequences' - its nice to know there are caring people out there smile

EDITED_BY: buggleberry_fairy (1154860570)


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:best point buggleberry:

these days you have to have a license for almost everything - except for giving birth or raising a child... shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: PsyRush


Three parties are at fault here:

3. The child's parents, who shouldn't have let the kid near the unknown dog.
Teaching people not to be idiots seems like a better solution than just killing the animal.



I'm usually the first to blame parents but I don't think parents can be at fault if it's a public street.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Igirisujin
SILVER Member since Jul 2005

Igirisujin

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Preston, United Kingdom

Total posts: 2666
Posted:It isnt just humans that this rule applies too. If a dog attacks an animal (a dog attacked one of our lambs last month) they have to be distroyed, because dogs will learn to attack the same type of animal (or human) because of its wolf ancestry, and the fact that animals and humans = food.



As much as we all think dogs are mans best friend, there not, they are domesticated wolves at heart and if you allow them to revert back to that then you will have a bigger problem on your hands with dogs regularly attacking humans or other animals. Its a habbit that has to be stopped immediately before it becomes a problem, and you just cannot teach a dog not to do it. The same way you cant teach cats who have a human home and are fully provided for not to hunt birds and mice.


Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat

'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?

Delete

Beth


Beth

Miss Whippy
Location: Cornwall & Oxford

Total posts: 1262
Posted:So you'll kill a dog for attacking a lamb but will you kill a cat for killing a bird?

We used to have dogs and they were shot by a farmer after they were seen in his field. We now have 8 cats and they bring in all kinds of animals, we don't shoot them for it. A neighbours dog killed one of my guinea pigs when i was little, i was sad but i didnt want the dog put down. I dont really like dogs but i do feel sorry for them, they have a rough time. They are following their natural instincts, why should they be punished so severely for that?


Aim high and you'll know your limits, aim low and you'll never know how high you could have climbed.

Delete

Gremlin_Lou


Gremlin_Lou

member
Location: Manchester

Total posts: 131
Posted:Its a matter of relativity really isn't it? If a 9 year old Chav was teasing a family pet and it turns round and gives them a nip, then of course the animal shouldn't be put down, and very often isn't these days as there are many appeal boards you can go through.

If its a Pitbull than mauled someone and left them needing more then 5 stitches cos it got off its lead, then yeh, the bitch can die!


'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)

Delete

buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:exactly beth - if the government is going to make a rule for dogs it needs to consider every other animal - and if dogs arent alowwed to eat animals...then are they going to be made vegetarian...and does that mean that all carnivores are going to become extinct?

but even if the animal has 'mauled' someone i still think if it can change its behaviour through therapy and always wear a muzzle then it should be given another chance - otherwise when we run over these poor likle dogs then we should be 'put down'...same idea.

going a bit off topic there but you get my drift...


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete

Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003

old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...

Total posts: 1107
Posted:My dog (whio was the soppiest thing out there) bit the vet while the guy was trying to push a thermometer up his backside. I say "fair enough".

There is a huge problem with unwanted dogs here, not helped by the cute puppies you can buy in pet shops. That's a practise I want to see banned; no animal should be destroyed because a person simply can't be arsed looking after it any more.

Incedentally, if anyone is consider getting a dog, please consider a rescued greyhound; they are the loveliest animal and massive amounts get killed through not being good enough for the racing industry.


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Of course, we're only talking about cute animals right? I mean, you can always kill a pig or a cow if you're hungry or need new sexy boots right?

wink


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:nice twist here smile

Cats rarely kill people and have a nice way in presenting their poor victims to their masters. But the main difference is: Cats don't bark... they purr... great advantage.... wink

Regrettably I now have to oppose the terms "destroy a dog" and "put him to sleep". This is a mindgame. Let's call it what it is: kill/ execute. Dogs are alive. They have individuality. The can neglect themselves, risk their own lives for humans. They are smart, far beyond any robots' capability. So please, show this respect to them.

Dogs are sometimes trained to attack and even kill people, without becoming vicious killing machines. Just look at guard-dogs. In my family, we had various kind of mid-sized, sheppard like dogs for 20 years - at the peak a pack of three (grandmother, mother, grandson). Sometimes they went hunting in the forest, chicken got killed , one bit a neighbours kid. Sh&T happens. But only one of all the 6 dogs we had, ever mauled a neighbours dog and we had to have him killed "on demand". We found him in the asylum and he's been attacking other dogs before - but he would never ever had attacked me, age 3-4, riding on his back, pulling his hairs, ears and tail, blowing air into his ears and nose... smile

Dogs and cats work under a (not so) complicate scheme, but each have their individual personality. Much depends on their owners and experiences, a lot of troubles can be treated and cured.

Question is who cares for a vicious dog, who would want to?

However IMHO if one has a dog, it should be mandatory to visit dog-school and prove that they know how to treat him... *shudders* just thinking of those poor pure-bread who have to wear pullovers and gloves... umm shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

sagetree
GOLD Member since May 2006

sagetree

organic creation
Location: earth, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 246
Posted:"Of course, we're only talking about cute animals right? I mean, you can always kill a pig or a cow if you're hungry or need new sexy boots right?"

my thoughts exactly

why is it worse to kill a dog or cat compared to other animals?

 Written by: http://www.mcspotlight.org/issues/intro.html
br>

As the world's largest user of beef they are responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cows per year. In Europe alone they use half a million chickens every week, all from windowless factory farms. All such animals suffer great cruelty during their unnatural, painful and short lives, many being kept inside with no access to fresh air and sunshine, and no freedom of movement



and those cows and chickens didn't even bite anyone


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Death penalty for good tasting animals!?

or

Why are only the cute and purry exempt from capital punishment?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

buggleberry_fairy
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

buggleberry_fairy

member
Location: Wales

Total posts: 172
Posted:hey im veggie so i can just fly past this without being told off as we head towards the cuteness.



dogs in china are a delicasy so i wouldnt say they're exempt, its just in this country people go 'ew who would kill such a thing'...so we dont. yet we're so used to killing pigs and cows that no-one thinks of it as a bad thing...except for us rebels the veggies and vegans - go us...



eventually the revolution will become, and our armies of cows, pigs, sheep and poultry will defeat you all muahahahahaha



anyways, back on topic. fire tom, id say that your dog didnt bite you as it was used to you and had respect for you even at the tiny age of 3-4, but a new strange person dogs would feel alert and in defence mode - so that would make sense. (see...dogs have feelings! :P)



in relation to the wolf ancestry - id say yes its a possibility, but it doesnt mean they ARE going to bite again. for example we have evolved...but we wouldnt go back to living in a cave and hunting wooly mammoths (if in existance) now would we? i agree we have to consider that it can happen, but we cannot use it as the excuse to immediately kill a dog after biting without any thought of the situation.



i suppose the dog and lamb, and cat and bird thing is due to lambs being valuable for their wool and meat, whereas a bird is just a bird and not used for human consumption (well except the obvious poultry), unless the cat miraculously managed to kill a bird of prey...although there are small ones around then i'd say that will never change.



I totally agree with unwanted dogs - so many people go for the cute puppies that they get left behind. Its a sad world with the wrong priorities.


"Be the change you want to see in the world"

Delete

Igirisujin
SILVER Member since Jul 2005

Igirisujin

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Preston, United Kingdom

Total posts: 2666
Posted:Cats arnt completly immune from the dangerouse animals act, at least im pretty sure that one or two cases of ferral cats have been looked into, but I might be wrong on that.



The main reason though that cats arent distroyed for hunting is because they usually attack very small birds (Sparrows, Jays, Blue Tits) and mice, while they egnore the larger animals like chickens, and crows (for the most part anyway). So they simply arnt a danger to people, they can give you a scratch but there not likely going to wipe a person out lol



We only distroy dogs because there attacking people (and much larger animals) is more of a danger than any cat could be. Its a matter of dogs and cats being different, dogs are mainly larger and are also more agressive than spiecies of cats because a cat isnt built for power and muscle, while dogs are. Cats just act differently than dogs and very rearly risk injury during an attack, while dogs will happily plow through just about anything they think they can handle.



There has to be differnt rules for different animals, to think otherwise is ludicrouse


Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat

'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:yes, I have to say that you are right Joe, but then it's only about: "as long as it can't hurt US it can do whatever..." IF a dog kills a sheep, or poultry, it has to get killed because is may be a potential threat to man.

This simply is not right, either it's: "You shalt not kill", or it's "you shalt not be a threat to mankind".

These days we even get new evidence about sharks and their behaviour, wich is much less the "killing machine" image painted by Hollywoods nightmare factory...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: nyc

"Of course, we're only talking about cute animals right?




lets jump on the deep ecology bandwagon and promote a biocentric view of life where all life is seen as having an equal right to exist. No more speciesism...

so next time you get sick remember kids... those bacteria have as much right to exist as you do. taking medicene to kill them and restore your health is murder.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Not taking medicine and letting your immune system kill them is murder as well. Actually, more so, since to my understanding, antibiotics just sterilize the bacteria right? Interfering with cell wall production or something...

I'm not sure how one could justify letting any ecosystem thrive since killing animals is fundamental to them.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Page: 12