Consequences for non-human animal abuse
I was reading a recent post over at Boing Boing which mentions an undercover video from a dairy farm that, once it went viral, led to the arrest of at least one person. (Link!) It's an incredibly interesting event (media raising awareness and leading to real-world justice), almost as depressing and shocking as the subject matter - seriously, do not click on any of the links at Boing Boing if you do not want to see disturbing and highly graphic footage and descriptions.
(Also: in the interest of sanity, it might be a good idea not to read the comments. Then again, such warnings go without saying when referring to a non-vegan site with discussion capabilities!)
Apart from bringing this event to everyone's attention, I wanted to start a conversation about punishment and reform and how best to deal with individuals who have played a part in non-human animal abuse.
Many of the comments at the link above say things such as: "I'd go eye for an eye on these sick bastards and do to them exactly what was done to the poor cows . . . and probably more because they're so sick and they deserve it. I hope they get gang raped in prison - and stabbed. If they make it out alive, I'll find them myself and make my own video." (Paraphrase - not an actual comment.)
In contrast, the real life consequences appear to be that one (out of at least four) abusers may face up to (probably less than) three years in prison.
Personally, I'm very much against capital punishment - unless I'm feeling particularly utilitarian that day - and believe physical punishment is in no way productive. Reform programs which focus on actually changing the individual are the only way the individual's future practices can be positively altered. It could be argued that the fear of punishment is what prevents much awfulness from occurring to begin with, but I believe this is negligible and is not sufficient to justify punishment.
However, my anti-punishment stance is complicated because, well, in real life, reform systems may not be very good.
An additional complication to reform is that people appear to be generally unforgiving about a person's past actions. I read a recent article about Peter Singer's response to Michael Vick (Link!) which covers just such a topic. It questions whether it is more compassionate to give those who have transgressed in the past the benefit of the doubt in such cases. Should we be wary of their changes or help them integrate back into society by giving them the opportunity to prove they have changed? Perhaps both - but if so, how long should our suspicions last? How long are suspicions reasonably justified?
I guess this post is just an attempt to get others' views on these topics, as I'm not entirely sure where I sit. One thing is for certain, though: I really dislike the typical knee-jerk reaction to abuse which is stemmed in the desire for revenge.
So: How do you feel a person who has been caught on tape abusing cows on a farm should be treated and why? Is a three year prison sentence appropriate?
Caution: Potentially controversial topic ahead!
Edit: Just so this post ends on a happy note, here's a link to a recent White Ninja comic: Puinea Gigs! (Replace the third word in the title with 'meets'.)
(Also: in the interest of sanity, it might be a good idea not to read the comments. Then again, such warnings go without saying when referring to a non-vegan site with discussion capabilities!)
Apart from bringing this event to everyone's attention, I wanted to start a conversation about punishment and reform and how best to deal with individuals who have played a part in non-human animal abuse.
Many of the comments at the link above say things such as: "I'd go eye for an eye on these sick bastards and do to them exactly what was done to the poor cows . . . and probably more because they're so sick and they deserve it. I hope they get gang raped in prison - and stabbed. If they make it out alive, I'll find them myself and make my own video." (Paraphrase - not an actual comment.)
In contrast, the real life consequences appear to be that one (out of at least four) abusers may face up to (probably less than) three years in prison.
Personally, I'm very much against capital punishment - unless I'm feeling particularly utilitarian that day - and believe physical punishment is in no way productive. Reform programs which focus on actually changing the individual are the only way the individual's future practices can be positively altered. It could be argued that the fear of punishment is what prevents much awfulness from occurring to begin with, but I believe this is negligible and is not sufficient to justify punishment.
However, my anti-punishment stance is complicated because, well, in real life, reform systems may not be very good.
An additional complication to reform is that people appear to be generally unforgiving about a person's past actions. I read a recent article about Peter Singer's response to Michael Vick (Link!) which covers just such a topic. It questions whether it is more compassionate to give those who have transgressed in the past the benefit of the doubt in such cases. Should we be wary of their changes or help them integrate back into society by giving them the opportunity to prove they have changed? Perhaps both - but if so, how long should our suspicions last? How long are suspicions reasonably justified?
I guess this post is just an attempt to get others' views on these topics, as I'm not entirely sure where I sit. One thing is for certain, though: I really dislike the typical knee-jerk reaction to abuse which is stemmed in the desire for revenge.
So: How do you feel a person who has been caught on tape abusing cows on a farm should be treated and why? Is a three year prison sentence appropriate?
Caution: Potentially controversial topic ahead!
Edit: Just so this post ends on a happy note, here's a link to a recent White Ninja comic: Puinea Gigs! (Replace the third word in the title with 'meets'.)