Reader comments
Legislators deadlock on animal-cruelty bill

Bubba | 7:52 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

It Is So Sad That People Turn A Blind Eye To Animal Cruelty, Personly Id Like To See The People Who Do These Crimes Punished The Same Way As They Treat The Animal They Abuse. And As for The Capitol And There Stupid Berocracy They All Need To See First Hand A Abused Animal ,Maybe That Mite Shake Them Up Alittle .We Pay Taxes Which Winds Up To There Wages , And They Still Cant Think ?.

ex_lib_loon | 8:39 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

With all the pressing issues such as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GLUTTING THE COUNTRY, welfare fraud, drug dealing, child molesting, rape, and murder, we have our elected offivcails doing a feel good drill wasting time and money so they can look good. Absolutely disgusting. Yes, cruelty to pets is deplorable and a crime already.

ChetBarrett | 9:12 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

Make animal abuse a felony on the FIRST offense!!! What is the matter with these lawmakers!? Have you NO common sense?

Comments continue below

Carolyn Carpenter | 9:16 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

Committing a "One time stupid thing" should let someone off the hook? Same logic that is applied to so many things in our society - a slap on the wrist -which does nothing but encourage more bad behavior. I have witnessed first-hand how animal abuse simply escalates, usually into people abuse, if not stopped. All that aside, ANY living creature that can feel pain should be treated with care. It is not a question of whether the creature is human or not. This is a no-brainer.

Frank | 9:56 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

I agree there should be a punishment for such behavior, but are we thinking about the consequences of putting a law this quick and severe out. It does need retooling. As it is, it would just add fuel to the fire of our sue happy nation. If people have to fear that their neighbor might call the feds on them for swatting their dog to housebreak him, or that there will be an investigation when he gets out and into a dog fight, then we need to be ready for a big increase in homeless pets.

Morty | 10:19 a.m. Aug. 23, 2007

People really need to consider unintended consequences of bills that are proposed. But nobody does. Torture of animals is wrong, but so is assaulting a pregnant woman or a police officer, who's punishment would be less than for assaulting a pet. Hardly equal I think.

Floyd | 1:21 p.m. Aug. 23, 2007

I like what Morty said about unintened consequnces. The lawmakers pass bills, but then does not fund the expanision budget of Corrections to house these felons.

I do find it interesting is that you get more automatic time in prison for killing an animal than a human being?

Seeker B | 1:32 p.m. Aug. 23, 2007

This is a bad bill and should not be passed. Being convicted of a felony offense for putting your dog down is absurd. The mindset of people who want this bill passed is lacking in IQ and common sense.

Guaglione | 1:59 p.m. Aug. 23, 2007

People who are for the bill couldn't possibly have read the bill. It's a terrible piece of legislation with dire unintended consequences. It's an attempt by a vocal minority to elevate animal rights above human rights. It's interesting that "animal rights" groups try to appeal to pet owners and use pets in their propaganda, and yet they state clearly that they oppose pet ownership by anyone.

mom | 2:31 p.m. Aug. 23, 2007

I don't think the penalty for assaulting an animal should be equal or harsher than crimes against humans.
this is a bad idea.

heidi | 10:24 a.m. Aug. 25, 2007

Guidelines for the levels of cruelty committed in each case should be taken in to concern. Aggravated, neglect or accidental, they all should be judged case by case. Someone who takes the time to preheat a oven, COME ON, if that isn't a sign this guy needs more time locked up away from society what is.

tclay | 3:50 p.m. Aug. 29, 2007

I have no problems with people being charged with a felony on the first offense. After all, in the vast majority of the cases, the "first" offense was only the first time they got caught.
I want "torture" to be defined, though. Without a proper definition (i.e. leaving it up to the courts and juries) the first court to garner a conviction will set the bar for all future convitions in other jurisdictions. What if the first case is in an area that is overpopulated with people who believe animals have the same rights as people? Or even that animals are nothing more that property?

Unintended consequences indeed.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Jennifer Ackerman, Deseret Morning News

Supporters of Henry's Law including Anne Davis holding Henry rally at Capitol Hill before the special session on the the anti-animal cruelty bill on Aug. 22, 2007.

Top 10 Utah stories of 2009

Follow us on Twitter

Reader comments
Legislators deadlock on animal-cruelty bill

Add your comment

BYU grad goes nomad

Before His Manger, Ch. 52

Uranium to come; burial delayed

Accord reached in Copenhagen

Susan Powell's family saddened

GOP to stage health care read-a-thon

Editorial: White House double-talk

Executions, death rows declining

License requirements change Jan. 1

GOP to stage health care read-a-thon

Reader comments Legislators deadlock on animal-cruelty bill

Add your comment

Reader comments
Legislators deadlock on animal-cruelty bill