25 to life for killing a dog

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_1342 ... ck_check=1

A man (with a history of violent crime) in the USA has been sent to jail for 25 years to life for killing his ex-partner's pet dog. Do you think it is fair and reasonable treatment for this man ?

He's a violent offender, so sure I think 25 to life isn't long enough

Do you believe everything you read?

ruveyn

Assuming it's true, and he did kill the dog, I'm not complaining.

I think the OP is comparing this to the time he would be sent for killing a human which I am sure will be lower.(on average).

The violent act of killing the dog was just a deciding factor to lock this person away from society. California has a 3-strikes law so that repeat offenders are put behind bars for a longer time. If this was his 1st act of violence he was convicted for, he would have received a milder penalty.

I am a dog lover but I hold the view that for a first time crime that to kill a dog should earn a person a shorter stay in prison than 25 years. If I was the judge and I had a case of a man who killed a dog in a painful way out of spite, I would start off by thinking of 5 years. But for a person with a long record of violence then I would view it as reasonable to use the three strikes and you are out law which some of the states have. I would not care if he had hit a dog, cat, child, woman or man I would go for the same 25 to life.

Eh, I don't really believe in three strike laws. He definitely should serve some jail time but 25 to life? No way. His "history of violence" were two incidents 15 and 27 years ago. Prisons are too crowded as it is. I'd feel more comfortable with this guy out on the street than I would with psycho rapists that California inexplicably releases.

Okay, as an animal lover I might be slightly biased on this one... but I think it is a good sentence. Heck, dogs get put to sleep after biting ONE person, yet this man has been violent three times. Who's to say that his next victim wouldn't be a human (regardless of the dog now) because he's obviously a very sick twisted individual. If you ask me though, its a shame that people who murder other people don't get longer sentences. (some get less than 4-6 years in UK. Makes me sick).

Come to think of it, it may be Cali's three strike law that is leading to the overpopulation of their prison system. Recently I was watching the news, a panel of federal judges ordered Gov. Schwartznegger to reduce the states population by 40,000 inmates. If the deadline was not met, the Govinator may have been charged with contempt and sent to prison himself. Oh the irony...

The drawback to the three strikes law is that you end up getting much higher prison populations then a state that doesnt have it. Think about it logically, in states with the three strikes law you have criminals who are locked up indefinitely for offenses that would have gotten a much lower sentence in other states, all because it was their 3rd felony offense. Eventually the number of inmates is going to be too much for the prison system to handle, and you end up releasing them anyways to help cut down on population issues.

The three strikes law is a good idea theoretically, but logistically it's impossible to maintain for any indefinite interval of time. Even prisoners need the basic necessities of life (food, water, living space, etc), so the more prisoners you have, the more of a strain it puts on the government's budget.

I think 25 years is way too much. I think that beating a dog with a hammer is a very serious crime but I always feel bad reading about people getting put away in jail for life. I know sometimes there's no other option but still...

But like the article said ...

But then again I guess this could apply to a lot of criminals who would never kill a child.

I don't really care if this is his first or third offense. Beating a dog with a hammer is just f****d up. He deserves 25 to life.

On a somewhat unrelated note, dog owners who unleash their dogs and get people attacked by em should be charged with attempted murder. Yes I said attempted murder, a kid could easily get killed or torn up. A man could get his dick bitten off too. It's straight up irresponsible to both raise a dog to be aggressive and not putting a leash on it.

Many of you are missing something here. the courts are setting new precedences enabling them to convict harsher sentience over lighter crimes. I am not saying what he done was light or even remotely acceptable, but the new precedence is not acceptable in my opinion.

The bottom line here is: the man was sentenced to life imprisonment because he was convicted of a felony for the third time. Any felony would have gotten him put away and it was specifically because he abused a dog.

ruveyn

Well, Micheal Vick only served like 30 months for killing dogs. Then when he got out the NFL said what he did was ok by letting him play again and then being rewarded with a million dollar contract.

Then this guy gets 25 to life for the same thing? They should have put vick in there as his cell mate and thrown away the key.

Apparently you don't get it. He was put away for life because he was found guilty on a third felony charge. Any felony would have put him away for life. Say robbing a store.

ruveyn