Dog in Mayfield stabbed to death.

gimmick

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

i think too often there's an assumption that the people who do evil stuff like this have either suffered abuse; are mentally defective; or are for some reason temporarily not responsible.

People love to assume. if anyone dies suddenly these days, you will almsot immediate hear someone say "ya, he suffered from depression" when in fact they are pulling that out of their holes.

Similar here, some little pricks, who I have no doubt were doiung this for bantz and lolz, the assumption is they have a tough background and were all sexually abused and didn't know better.

Perhaps, maybe, if the person was all alone, some of the above excuses might might apply, but if it is a gang of them, I think it is hard to think that all of them can rely on those excuses.

hufpc8w3adnk65

leave moderation too mods. If you see something you are not sure about or think is wrong click report and we can deal with it. Please do not de-rail threads. These two seperate threads are in different parts of the board. I find nothing wrong with it being here in the cork section

the beer revolu

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

When a convicted rapist is chased out of Cork, it must send the message to other rapists, that rapists are not causally tolerated here.

Hypothetically speaking, if an animal murderer lost a hand, I'd imagine it would send the same message.

And what happens if said empowered vigilante mob decides that they don't want Africans in their neighbourhood, or Muslims?
Anyone remember the paediatrician's house in Wales that was attacked because the mob thought she was a paedophile?

Mob rule is not a pretty thing and gets out of control very quickly and does not tolerate minorities. They also get the wrong perpetrators pretty often.

Flawed as our judicial system is, I trust it a lot more then an angry, emotional, ill informed mob to dole out "justice".

Dannyboy83

the beer revolu wrote: »

And what happens if said empowered vigilante mob decides that they don't want Africans in their neighbourhood, or Muslims?
Anyone remember the paediatrician's house in Wales that was attacked because the mob thought she was a paedophile?

Mob rule is not a pretty thing and gets out of control very quickly and does not tolerate minorities. They also get the wrong perpetrators pretty often.

Fully agree.
This is why laws should be enforced, to prevent mob rule. It's most certainly not a desirable situation, it's a reactionary one.

I realise some people will find it hard to grasp vigilante reaction against animal torturers, but that is because it is a less emotive issue to them.

I abhor animal abuse in general, but in my personal opinion, due to:
A) the special relationship between humans and dogs (unlike any other species - dog social-cognitive skills parallel some of the social-cognitive skills of human children),
the unique way in way which dogs evolved alongside humans and
C) the emotional trauma caused to family members

- a case such as this should be treated similarly to that of James Bulger.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I'm aware there are others who feel as strongly about animal torture, so I would not be at all surprised at a vigilante reaction if the courts remain indifferent to animal torture.

Flawed as our judicial system is, I trust it a lot more then an angry, emotional, ill informed mob to dole out "justice".

This is where we differ; my faith in the judicial system has been shattered, where animal murder is concerned.
This is corroborated by the fact that animal abuse and murder is actually increasing in Ireland, despite much more comprehensive legislation and ethically/morally unambiguous social norms.

I don't dispute that the judicial system can be effective as a means of deterrence, I am simply stating that presently it is not.

Hypothetically speaking, if an animal murderer lost a hand, I'd imagine it would force the courts to re-evaluate their implementation of the legislation.

pwurple

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Sure we should determine if there is an underlying reason, but some people are just that, evil. Not sick, evil. Nasty pieces of work.

I genuinely don't think that's the case. People do ferociously violent things, for very flakey reasons, and either firmly believe they are somehow 'justified', or are mentally ill.

Chopping children's hands off, shooting them, hanging them, castrating them and all the various actions suggested in multiple threads about this topic are horrendously evil things to even contemplate doing.

Are all those people "evil, nasty pieces of work", or is the context at all relevant?

Roger Hassenforder

pwurple wrote: »

I genuinely don't think that's the case. People do ferociously violent things, for very flakey reasons, and either firmly believe they are somehow 'justified', or are mentally ill.

Chopping children's hands off, shooting them, hanging them, castrating them and all the various actions suggested in multiple threads about this topic are horrendously evil things to even contemplate doing.

Are all those people "evil, nasty pieces of work", or is the context at all relevant?

I'm not suggesting any hand chopping...

We differ in our view of the perpetrators:
You think there must be something seriously wrong with them to do this? They either think they were justified or mentally ill. Assuming no rational justification for this, ergo they must be mentally ill.


I think there probably isn't an underlying mental illness , rather they are just a bunch of absolute scrotes with no regard for others (inc. animals particularly), and the justice system seems to be failing those that find this abhorrent, which is why vigilantism is manifesting itself.

Dannyboy83

pwurple wrote: »

I genuinely don't think that's the case.

Are all those people "evil, nasty pieces of work", or is the context at all relevant?

Context is certainly relevant; There is an assumption that the case in Cork involves children (There is also an assumption that these children are mentally ill)...The particular example I outlined in my previous post did not involve a child or a mentally ill person however: It was a fully sane, 44 year old adult male. (I highlighted the 'pleaded guilty' term to display this)
The majority of the cases of animal abuse and murder in Ireland are committed by sane, adult males.

Evil is a subjective term, and does not have a legal definition (open to correction here).
As far as I understand, the legal definition is malice.

Morally and ethically, these actions are subjectively evil & in direct violation of social norms.
Legally, these actions are objectively malicious.

pwurple wrote: »

...all the various actions suggested in multiple threads about this topic are horrendously evil things to even contemplate doing.

I fully understand the uneasiness and concern you are emoting concerning this topic, so do not think I am dismissing you points, but I think you are displaying cognitive dissonance.

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html
Paedophiles chemically castrated in British jail
Around one hundred child sex offenders have undergone chemical castration under a government programme to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8362605.stm
This week, the French National Assembly is debating a bill on the treatment of re-offenders.
One of the issues likely to be discussed is chemical castration. This is currently voluntary in France, but some are calling for it to become obligatory after a convicted sex offender attacked and killed a jogger.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/death-penalty-should-be-revisited-says-ex-judge-1.772376
Death penalty should be revisited, says ex-judge

THE QUESTION of the death penalty for certain kinds of murder, for example those committed during armed robberies, should be revisited, according to the former president of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson.
Speaking to The Irish Times, the judge said: “The Government should look at it. Then if the people want it they should have it.”
A constitutional ban on the death penalty was introduced as the 21st amendment to the Constitution in 2001. Another referendum would be necessary if the death penalty were to be legislated for.
“I am not totally in favour of it. But it should be revisited,” the former judge said. “It would have to be for specific offences. If people arm up and go out to rob and decide to take out anyone who gets in their way, they should pay the price. It should be a matter for each individual case.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/councillors-call-for-debate-on-death-penalty-1.1265990
CALLS WERE made yesterday for a national debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain offences.
Speaking at the January meeting of the Mid-West Regional Authority in Ennis, Co Clare, Cllr PJ Kelly (FF) said that the fear of punishment for crimes among criminals no longer existed.
Mr Kelly said: “I believe that there will be a demand before long for the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain offences. I would support a public debate on the issue.”
Supporting Mr Kelly’s call for a debate on the matter, Cllr Brian Meaney (Green) said: “A debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty is something that would put the focus on the issue of crime and punishment.”

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/limerick-mayor-wants-death-penalty-for-ireland-95719909-237698951.html
The Mayor of Limerick, Kevin Kiely, has asked the government to look in to holding a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty in Ireland.

Last year murders in Ireland increased by six percent to 53 murders and two manslaughters. He feels that the reinstatement of capital punishment might help to curb the increasing numbers of murders in the State.

pwurple

Dannyboy, are you a qualified pschychiatrist in your spare time? How can you possibly state that anyone is sane or not?

The only assumptions being made by me, is that we don't know enough details to make ANY assumptions.

Where is my cognitive dissonance? I have no desire to see the death penalty introduced. It's completely barbaric.

whisky_galore

I would love to know why it is a 'teen gang' that the media latched onto, is it just an assumption that 'those no good teens who hang around street corners did this'?

Surely if someone noticed a 'teen gang' carrying out this, they would be able to give a more detailed description? Acts of animal cruelty are carried out by all ages, school kids to pensioners.

Dannyboy83

pwurple wrote: »

Dannyboy, are you a qualified pschychiatrist in your spare time?

“Insanity” itself is not recognised in psychiatry, psychiatrists have to rely on the legal definition of insanity.

pwurple wrote: »

How can you possibly state that anyone is sane or not?

The judiciary evaluate 'Competency' and 'Sanity'.

In Ireland, there are currently three forms of insanity: the insanity defence under Section 5, the defence of diminished responsibility under Section 6 and, finally, the unfit to be tried plea under Section 4.

The father-of-one pleaded guilty to killing a protected animal at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court

Regardless, in any of the 3 defences, if the man was evaluated to be insane, it's highly improbable he would be allowed to care for a child, particularly having already murdered an animal.

pwurple wrote: »

The only assumptions being made by me, is that we don't know enough details to make ANY assumptions.

In the Cork case, I agree, that is why I haven't speculated on it and have continually distinguished and used qualifying statements such as

dannyboy83
The particular example I outlined in my previous post did not involve a child or a mentally ill person however

And

dannyboy83
It may very well be that this bloodcurdling act in Cork this week was committed by some deeply disturbed children, but we know there are plenty of examples where this is not the case...

This was just over 2 weeks ago...(Dowling Murder story)

In fact, I haven't actually expressed an opinion on the Cork case so far...

pwurple wrote: »

Where is my cognitive dissonance? I have no desire to see the death penalty introduced. It's completely barbaric.

I will quote you for clarity:

pwurple
all the various actions suggested in multiple threads about this topic are horrendously evil things to even contemplate doing.

I demonstrated to you several examples where legal, state sanctioned 'deterrence methods' are both implemented (chemical castration) and contemplated (death penalty).

You also argue that a person who would commit such an atrocity must be mentally ill, (again I will quote you for clarity)

pwurple
Do you think there are people who beats small dogs to death and are normal and well? Because I think there must be something fairly seriously wrong with them to be able to do this.

but this argument invalidates the concept of 'mens rea'.

Unfortunately, sane people do willingly commit malice. And in greater numbers than the mentally ill.



Anyway, everyone here is on the same side I am sure.

I believe the following points are clear:
i) the judiciary are failing to implement the legislation
ii) let us not pretend people will not respond to judicial failure by some other means
iii) sane people unfortunately do commit malice, and the law should as a deterrent, both to criminals and to vigilantism.

the beer revolu

I firmly believe that anyone even contemplating reintroduction of the death penalty is morally retarded. No argument or extreme examples will ever convince me otherwise.
It's a red line for me.

Dannyboy83

the beer revolu wrote: »

I firmly believe that anyone even contemplating reintroduction of the death penalty is morally retarded. No argument or extreme examples will ever convince me otherwise.
It's a red line for me.

I am inclined to agree with you, tho probably for different reasons in the main; I am unsure the state should have the right to kill. Then add wrongful conviction etc.

Where do you stand on Chemical Castration of paedophiles?

maggiepip

Its not insanity that leads thugs to commit such an act its sadism. Sadism which is a trait thats rampant in many humans. Just take bullfighting for example, a torturous sadistic "sport" that many a "normal family" consider a fun day out. All over the world there are sporting activities which involve the torture of animals, where does this all come from? Theres a sickness in humans .

the beer revolu

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Where do you stand on Chemical Castration of paedophiles?

On a voluntary basis, I've no problem with it.
On a non voluntary basis, I'm uncomfortable but not necessarily against it.

leahyl

Ok, we are drifting a bit from the topic of the thread, can we keep on topic please.

Dannyboy83

leahyl wrote: »

Ok, we are drifting a bit from the topic of the thread, can we keep on topic please.

Apologies, back on topic.

What can we do about the lack of enforcement of the legislation?
The DSPCA appealed to the courts - to no avail I believe.

I'm not sure if the Judiciary necessarily take notice of a social media campaign, in the way that a politician would, since they are appointed not elected and largely immune to public opinion.

Only for Neil Prendeville highlighting this case, I'm fairly sure it would have been just another animal murder, so Kudos to him for that.

the beer revolu

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Only for Neil Prendeville highlighting this case, I'm fairly sure it would have been just another animal murder, so Kudos to him for that.

I realise that you feel very strongly about animal abuse, as I'm sure everyone here does but the term murder, both linguistically and legally, refers the the killing of a human.
You can no more murder an animal than you can marry one.

Dannyboy83

the beer revolu wrote: »

I realise that you feel very strongly about animal abuse, as I'm sure everyone here does but the term murder, both linguistically and legally, refers the the killing of a human.
You can no more murder an animal than you can marry one.

Incorrect;this is actually current open to debate:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-judge-grants-human-rights-to-a-pair-of-laboratory-chimpanzees-being-held-at-biomedical-research-facility-in-landmark-case-10193558.html

US judge grants 'human rights' to a pair of laboratory chimpanzees being held at biomedical research facility in landmark case

I believe dogs deserve special legal status, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

pwurple

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I believe dogs deserve special legal status, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

Maybe when everyone is vegan.