|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten
POSTED: 5:42 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2006
EDWARDSVILLE, Illinois (AP) -- A man who admitted in court to tearing off the head of a kitten after a fight with his girlfriend has been sentenced to two years in prison.
When it comes to animal abuse cases, "we don't get prison sentences all the time, so it's always good when we do," Stephanee Smith, a spokeswoman for the Madison County state's attorney's office, said Tuesday of the case against Jacob Thornton.
Thornton, 21, was to have had a preliminary hearing last Thursday on the felony animal torture charge but instead pleaded guilty, Smith said.
A judge ordered Thornton's sentence to run concurrently to a prison term related to a parole violation on a 2005 aggravated battery conviction.
Authorities say that after a July 28 dispute between Thornton and his live-in girlfriend, the 30-year-old woman left the home before returning to find her kitten's head and detached body in the front yard.
Four days after he was charged with animal torture, Thornton was also charged with burglarizing a motor vehicle. That case is pending.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten
I think it's good to see they are starting to get a little tougher with these laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: Re: Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Quote: |
Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten
POSTED: 5:42 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2006
EDWARDSVILLE, Illinois (AP) -- A man who admitted in court to tearing off the head of a kitten after a fight with his girlfriend has been sentenced to two years in prison.
When it comes to animal abuse cases, "we don't get prison sentences all the time, so it's always good when we do," Stephanee Smith, a spokeswoman for the Madison County state's attorney's office, said Tuesday of the case against Jacob Thornton.
Thornton, 21, was to have had a preliminary hearing last Thursday on the felony animal torture charge but instead pleaded guilty, Smith said.
A judge ordered Thornton's sentence to run concurrently to a prison term related to a parole violation on a 2005 aggravated battery conviction.
Authorities say that after a July 28 dispute between Thornton and his live-in girlfriend, the 30-year-old woman left the home before returning to find her kitten's head and detached body in the front yard.
Four days after he was charged with animal torture, Thornton was also charged with burglarizing a motor vehicle. That case is pending.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten
I think it's good to see they are starting to get a little tougher with these laws. |
Sounds like the sentence was due more to an accumalation of charges. I'd be willing to bet somone who portrayed himself as "a momentarily angry boyfriend", who wasn't on parole, and didn't have a string of criminal offences would be getting a non-custodial sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:52 am Post subject: Re: Man jailed for beheading girlfriend's kitten |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Sounds like the sentence was due more to an accumalation of charges. I'd be willing to bet somone who portrayed himself as "a momentarily angry boyfriend", who wasn't on parole, and didn't have a string of criminal offences would be getting a non-custodial sentence. |
I was thinking the same thing, but I still think it is good to see  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can actually DO that? Wow! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow! I've heard worse though....
When the microwave oven was first introduced, some used cat to do some experiment to see what would happen to a live cat if they microwaved it. I'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight. Some claimed that it exploded and some claimed that it........ and so on. I guess the result all depended upon the brand and strength of the microwave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think it's good to see they are starting to get a little tougher with these laws. |
Some U.S. states are getting tougher, but Canadian politicians are absolutely useless.
http://cfhs.ca/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just playing devil's advocate here...How is beheading a cat different from chopping the head off a chicken? Sure, a chicken is food and the guy did that in anger...but is a farmer cruel if he cut the chicken's head off because it kept getting in his garden? What if he shoots at rabbits that keep eating his carrots? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Just playing devil's advocate here...How is beheading a cat different from chopping the head off a chicken? Sure, a chicken is food and the guy did that in anger...but is a farmer cruel if he cut the chicken's head off because it kept getting in his garden? What if he shoots at rabbits that keep eating his carrots? |
Exactly. Also, was the guy impaired at the time? The problem with a sentence like that is that it sticks out like a sore thumb, because it is so draconian. The average judge would give the guy a suspended sentence and a fine, maybe community service. Just look at what you have to do to get 2 years in jail. I love animals, but come on. This is beyond nutty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Just playing devil's advocate here...How is beheading a cat different from chopping the head off a chicken? Sure, a chicken is food and the guy did that in anger...but is a farmer cruel if he cut the chicken's head off because it kept getting in his garden? What if he shoots at rabbits that keep eating his carrots? |
YOu already answered your question. Intent. Think about the difference between manslaughter and murder.
For the rest, it isn't cruel, it's survival, and perfectly normal. How many animals are killed each year with the encroachment of our civilization? How many entire ant colonies are destroyed each year when found in people's houses? How many intruders are shot on sight when robbing a place? Anyways, the point is moot due to the factor of intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Just playing devil's advocate here...How is beheading a cat different from chopping the head off a chicken? Sure, a chicken is food and the guy did that in anger...but is a farmer cruel if he cut the chicken's head off because it kept getting in his garden? What if he shoots at rabbits that keep eating his carrots? |
YOu already answered your question. Intent. Think about the difference between manslaughter and murder.
For the rest, it isn't cruel, it's survival, and perfectly normal. How many animals are killed each year with the encroachment of our civilization? How many entire ant colonies are destroyed each year when found in people's houses? How many intruders are shot on sight when robbing a place? Anyways, the point is moot due to the factor of intent. |
If intent is the reason, then he should be charged with making threats, too, but apparently he wasn't. Maybe he wasn't charged with making threats because without him leaving a note with the carcass, there's really no way of knowing that was his intent (it's not as if he threw a horses' head in her bed, or boiled her pet rabbit, both of which are recognized as threats in American culture). So, instead, he was given a rather harsh for what he was clearly guilty off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Just playing devil's advocate here...How is beheading a cat different from chopping the head off a chicken? Sure, a chicken is food and the guy did that in anger...but is a farmer cruel if he cut the chicken's head off because it kept getting in his garden? What if he shoots at rabbits that keep eating his carrots? |
YOu already answered your question. Intent. Think about the difference between manslaughter and murder.
For the rest, it isn't cruel, it's survival, and perfectly normal. How many animals are killed each year with the encroachment of our civilization? How many entire ant colonies are destroyed each year when found in people's houses? How many intruders are shot on sight when robbing a place? Anyways, the point is moot due to the factor of intent. |
If intent is the reason, then he should be charged with making threats, too, but apparently he wasn't. Maybe he wasn't charged with making threats because without him leaving a note with the carcass, there's really no way of knowing that was his intent (it's not as if he threw a horses' head in her bed, or boiled her pet rabbit, both of which are recognized as threats in American culture). So, instead, he was given a rather harsh for what he was clearly guilty off. |
One, like you said, you don't know. Two, maybe he was and it was dropped with the guilty plea. Three, maybe they decided it wouldn't stick as there was not enough proof. etc... Not that that isn't a valid thought, but there is not enough information for you to be discussing it from my article only.
Don't forget, the judge gave this sentence to be served concurrently with his other parole violation. The guy pleaded guilty, so there is also a chance that he knew he would get this, and it would be concurrent with the other violation. THe article doesn't say anything about appealing it or that they were surprised, so it's a theory. But like your theory, there is not enough information for mine to be shown true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I really shouldn't bother with this discussion, but those of you who are minimizing the seriousness of this guy's actions have me a bit worried. Institutionalized cruelty is wrong and unacceptable, but it's rarely a crime ... this guy, OTOH, committed a violent act for no other reason than to punish his girlfriend for some perceived wrong. Most societies recognize that it's in their best interests to discourage this type of behaviour. The next time the kitten killer gets into a fight with a girlfriend or spouse or family member, it's very possible that the authorities may be charging him with murder. At least with a felony animal torture conviction on his record, future potential girlfriends can steer clear of him and (hopefully) he'll have fewer opportunities to harm other people and animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Location: japan is better than korea.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://shac7.com/
"Conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I really shouldn't bother with this discussion, but those of you who are minimizing the seriousness of this guy's actions have me a bit worried. Institutionalized cruelty is wrong and unacceptable, but it's rarely a crime ... this guy, OTOH, committed a violent act for no other reason than to punish his girlfriend for some perceived wrong. Most societies recognize that it's in their best interests to discourage this type of behaviour. The next time the kitten killer gets into a fight with a girlfriend or spouse or family member, it's very possible that the authorities may be charging him with murder. At least with a felony animal torture conviction on his record, future potential girlfriends can steer clear of him and (hopefully) he'll have fewer opportunities to harm other people and animals. |
As a society, do we really want to be locking up people for long periods of time just to make a point? Is that really why we have a penal system? Or, do we want the jail time to be comiserate with the crime. If he gets 2 years for killing a kitten, then what do we give someone who stabs another person, without premeditation, by who could have walked away? 5 years? What about someone who steals from someone else, and ruins them financially? 10 years? Our system of justice is based on precedent. Now, there may not have been a precedent for someone decapitating a kitten, but animal cruelty cases rarely illicite any jail time, or a minimal amount. Meanwhile, a woman in Canada was recently given house arrest for having sex with her son on the Internet. So, punishments should rely on precedent too, and not just in same-crimes. Most people would say that sexual abuse of a child should be treated more harshly than abuse of an animal. Sorry, but no one is going to put a kitten above a child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| I really shouldn't bother with this discussion, but those of you who are minimizing the seriousness of this guy's actions have me a bit worried. Institutionalized cruelty is wrong and unacceptable, but it's rarely a crime ... this guy, OTOH, committed a violent act for no other reason than to punish his girlfriend for some perceived wrong. Most societies recognize that it's in their best interests to discourage this type of behaviour. The next time the kitten killer gets into a fight with a girlfriend or spouse or family member, it's very possible that the authorities may be charging him with murder. At least with a felony animal torture conviction on his record, future potential girlfriends can steer clear of him and (hopefully) he'll have fewer opportunities to harm other people and animals. |
As a society, do we really want to be locking up people for long periods of time just to make a point? Is that really why we have a penal system? Or, do we want the jail time to be comiserate with the crime. If he gets 2 years for killing a kitten, then what do we give someone who stabs another person, without premeditation, by who could have walked away? 5 years? What about someone who steals from someone else, and ruins them financially? 10 years? Our system of justice is based on precedent. Now, there may not have been a precedent for someone decapitating a kitten, but animal cruelty cases rarely illicite any jail time, or a minimal amount. Meanwhile, a woman in Canada was recently given house arrest for having sex with her son on the Internet. So, punishments should rely on precedent too, and not just in same-crimes. Most people would say that sexual abuse of a child should be treated more harshly than abuse of an animal. Sorry, but no one is going to put a kitten above a child. |
I think the judge took the malicious nature of the crime into account, and I think it's a positive step towards a society that takes these incidents more seriously than it did in the past ... although I still have to question how meaningful a "concurrent" sentence really is.
Obviously I can't comment on the other case, but I remember people saying the woman may not have been right in the head. Maybe that's the reason for the light sentence, rather than lack of concern for the child (who was taken away, as I recall). Anyway, there's no way to prevent people from having more children, but an animal abuse conviction can (sometimes) prevent people from being allowed to live with or "own" animals.
Sorry, but if anyone deserves to be locked up, the type of sick bastard who would rip off an animal's head just for kicks would seem to fit the bill.
Last edited by red dog on Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
