Death Penalty for dangerous dog owners?

Firstly, I am a proponent of the death penalty. There are those who simply have no right to draw further breath amidst the decent folk of society. This is not the subject I wish to undertake here, however.

You have heard of the recent trial of the Rottweiler owners whose dogs killed a woman and of their sentences, one to 15 years one to a possible 4 years. Is this enough? The dogs in question attacked several people, should the owners have had the dogs destroyed previous to this most sad event? I think yes, they should have.

I am a strong proponent for taking responsibility for one's own actions. I feel these people, knowing the capability of the their animals, are fully responsible for the death of another. I would not be opposed to establishing a precedent of applying the death sentence to a case such as this. Dangerous dog attacks are happening far too often in my opinion and the owners need to assume ultimate responsibility

I support the death penalty, HOWEVER, I must take the Bill O'Reilly route by saying that I would not be opposed to taking most dangerous criminals, shoving them away to an isolated prison, and forcing them into HARD labor for the rest of their lives...at least then they can try to give back to the society they have violated. But yes, I think there are some who deserve death...but, I think, if something like DNA evidence is lacking, or something of the sort, send them away and make them work until they die. Sounds harsh, but that's what I believe.

Now, as for dog owners (wacky subject. ), I'm really not sure. Animals are hard to contain. It depends on the specifics, I think. I Can't say with confidence one way or another in any generic way.

It's horrible what those dogs have done. The sad thing is, Rottweilers don't have to be mean dogs, sure...it's in their blood, but under the right conditions and with careful training, they can be normal dogs.
The owners of those dogs should assume the ultimate responsibilty. Because of them, people are dead and so are those dogs; Why should the owners be able to sit in a jail cell, breathing, while their victims rot in the ground?

What really chaps my hide is that the dogs were known to attack people. It was no fluke. It was a tradgedy waiting to happen and the owners did nothing to prevent it.

dog owners are the responsible ones.........dog's that can't be contained and controlled should not be pets in the first place. the victim was their 33 year old neighbor......her throat was torn out for gods sake!! the dog owners were indifferent if not irritated that they were being held responsible!!!!!!!!
there's another news story wherein FIVE rotweillers attacked and killed a little eight(?) year old girl. the parents weren't home and the girl was visiting her friend. perhaps she "squealed" or screamed in play the way little kids do and the dogs thought they needed to protect the girl who lived there? ......the dogs tore this kid apart!!!!!!!! the mom returned home, covered what was left of the girl with a jacket and WALKED to the girl's parents to tell them to come see. she had no phone. she didn't hurry. she was also irritated that she was going to have to deal with what her dogs had done.

how dare these people use the title "human being".

i LOVE the idea of an isolated prison/island......and hard labor sentences. i think all prisoners should be laboring.

as to pet owners........they must be held responsible for their animals actions. the least these monsters could do, after the fact, is take responsibility and show remorse. they COULD have avoided it in the first place.

__________________
on dance seul, on dance seul.....

Wha!? If you have a role in your animals development and are strict with punishment (a smack on the nose will usually do it). They will know right from wrong.

If you're dog(s) have attacked people before, and you're not an idiot, however much you're attached to them you should destroy them. Because if you don't you're only saying that that type of behavior is alright.

Personally, you can't justify a life takin by taking another life. If it's serious enough, however, I believe that then the person who was responsible for the murder should die.

15 years and 4 years isn't enough. Personally, if you're a married couple, you both raise the dogs, the dogs attack and kill someone, you're both equally responsible.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

There are definitely cases, though, of dogs picked up from the pound that seem all well and good, and go nuts. I'm not saying this case is like that, but I can imagine my family going to get a dog, and it going nuts out of nowhere just ONCE. So, I think it's more of a case-by-case thing.

hon, no animal is going to display questionable behavior "just once." animals are KNOWN for being incapable of hiding their "feelings" unless trained otherwise. Therefore, if you pick up a dog from the pound that mewls like a kitten and then it "suddenly" tears the throat out of a passing child, you can't say, "but I saw no signs!" the signs are there. The pound will have kept the animal and should have done it's job by being sure of the mental state of the animal. If the animal appears homicidal - euthenasia. By the time that pet gets to your hands, it should be in "fine working order."

Even if a dog doesn't appear vicious, a dog who is 1) afraid, 2) angry, 3) twitchy - all such signs will demonstrate that a dog is not going to respond to humans in a healthy, normal way and therefore should not be around them unless trained in a situation specifically meant to keep dogs in, humans out, and both safe. Ie, training kennels, etc.

As for owners who accept no responsibility - you're d@mned straight they should take responsibility. The dog is like your child - if your kid goes out and shoots someone in a gang, it's your fault too because that's how you raised them. You didn't watch out for them, you didn't groom them to avoid gangs and violence. Of course, that kid should also pay their price, but you are also responsible. In the case of a pet - you are EVEN MORE responsible because you TRAINED the dogs and they DO NOT have their own "free will." Dogs will do what their masters encourage and train them to do.

As you said, they were known to attack people before. If that couple's tender loving care has raised dogs to viciously attack someone who did nothing to provoke it the dogs should have been put down THEN. I can understand a little reluctance, and a second chance with stricter training and higher fences and cattle prods. Unwise, but I can understand. But a 3rd, then a 4th ... those are all MULTIPLE chances to KILL somebody. To pretend, oh, that vicious set of jaws on TWO sets of dogs trained to be attack ISN'T going to harm anybody is foolish and blind. It's like these people owned a gun and said, aw shucks, I didn't MEAN to shoot her, I couldn't help it, it's not my fault ... They COULD have helped it, and it IS their fault.

Terms are iffy here tho. If the couple deliberately sicced the dogs on the woman saying, "kill kill" then yes, they should have the death penalty. I've seen the news clips since this is a local thing I think, but didn' t watch all the details. Then again, if they trained the dogs to kill anyone but them - it IS premeditated murder with an open target on anyone who upsets the dogs. In which case, yes, they should get the death penalty. If, however, the dogs were just badly trained and left to do as they pleased but still went this far- they should definitely have 30 years EACH.

I agree with the hard labor thing. Those who violate society have no right to return to it if the crime is big enough. That doesn't mean they can't at some point be forgiven ... it's just that returning is a PRIVILEGE ... not a right. Taking a human life technically should cost you yours. Eye for an eye and all that.

__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.

Let's kill them and then call it euthanasia; that's what we do with dogs. Actually, I'm not serious. I am against capital punishment, but even if I wasn't this would never be a case I would consider for the death penalty. I've only ever heard of the death penalty being used in first degree murder cases, so if someone is proven to have committed first degree murder by using a dog or dogs to kill someone in cold blood, then ok. Otherwise, it is negligent homicide, and I don't think that will ever be a capital crime in an industrialized country on this planet. If it is, then what is next? Cutting off the hands of thieves and cutting out the tongues of liers?

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

hm.... this is such a sticky issue. i do agree with the death penalty for a lot of heinous acts of crime. there is simply no way some people can be reformed, and i think you have to be a little cynical to say that (which i'm not really proud of). there are horrible, reprehensible freaks that will never become functional members of society. those people absolutely, without a doubt deserve the death penalty.

with animals, i may have to agree with TWTCommish. i don't think the guilty parties were encouraging their dogs to kill people. what's their true crime? neglegence? my heart goes out to the victims of pet attacks, but then my heart goes out to the victims of polar bear attacks, and that's just an act of god, right? you could say that they should keep their dogs on a leash or that they need to get help, but it's tough to guage when an animal may or may not "snap". there are often times when a perfectly normal animal will go nuts and it's not foreseeable.

however, you have the other end of the spectrum, where people are a$$holes and don't train their dogs, don't care for them and ignore repeat problems. those people make me sick. i'm thoroughly saddened for the fate of those dogs and much much more importantly, their victims. that's a tragic event and someone MUST be punished for the horrible thing they've done. i would say they need to be put in prison for life (and tried for murder).

but it's a case by case thing. it's too tough to make blanket statements and point fingers. you have to consider each aspect of the case.

__________________
Wit is educated insolence - Aristotle

It still would only be negligent homicide, and no one will get life for that; not in my country, anyway.

i would guess that the number of pet attacks that are "snaps" are a rarity. thmilin said it......they show signs long before someone gets mauled to death. i'm a dog owner.....and i'm almost always disappointed in how other dog owners fail to contain their dog....even if it's a happy jumping retriever........they shouldn't allow them to race up to other people and jump all over them. they should be on a leash, controlled, and trained. they can run free in their own yard, in a dog park, or anywhere where they aren't disturbing other people.

i SO appreciate pet owners that take responsibility for their pets, train them, control them, take care of them and show consideration for other people. my dog has been attacked about ten times. the owners have all said, "i don't know why he did that?! he's usually so nice" like all it warranted was an "oops". my dog is really passive and gives off a vibe that seems to make some dogs decide to show just how tough they are. i've kicked a few dogs in the ribs to get them off my dog.....they come away with a mouth full of white fur. and what blows my mind even further, is that the owners tend to be all pissy as if it's somehow my fault.

this is a bigtime bone of contention for me. aaarghhhhhhh!!!

how about this: what happens when circus animals go mad?

a few years ago, the circus was near my town and a tiger sort of lost it and killed his trainer mid-performance. of course you feel sorry..... it's shocking, sad, and disturbing.

but then again, they beat, abuse and starve those animals in order to ensure desired behavior during the show. what about when animals are absolutely at the end of their rope and they hurt audience members? should the trainers be held responsible?

i say yes, just in the same way pet owners who deprive their animals of food should be responsible. my heart bleeds for those beautiful animals that are taken from their habitats and forced to suffer for the rest of their lives. and my heart really really goes out to innocents and victims whose lives are changed or, god forbid, ended the day they go the circus with their families.

when i have kids, i swear i'm boycotting the circus on the ground of inhumane practices in animal training. there are studies to back that up, by the way.

Patti,

Absolutely. It amazes me how irresponsible so many people are with their pets. One thing that gets me is that a lot of people get cats, and when they get upset with them, they throw them out in the cold, never letting them back. Many of them freeze to death, and many starve or die of thirst. Makes me sick.

The crime comes in the choice of introducing a breed of dog that are known as vicious to an apartment complex. It is entirely foreseeable that a dog who is trained to be vicious, and more to the point, bred to be vicious will one day be a vicious dog. I cannot fault a polar bear for being a polar bear. If one chose to go to the north pole and bring one to a populated neighborhood and the bear kills someone then it is the fault of that person who brought it into that situation. In this particular case there were many warnings. These dogs had attacked before. It is very foreseeable that if a dog attacks once it will do it again. This is a case of complete indifference for the safety of other humans. It's no different than pointing a gun at someone.

in that particular case you're right. i agree with you. let the perpetrators pay.

but it's not always like that. overly opinionated people always assume too much.

A big circus problem, in my opinion, is with regards to elephants. They get extremely depressed and every now and then, one will go on a tear, killing or smashing just a bout anything they run into. I've seen serious depression in zoo elephants as well. If you see an elephant swinging his head back and forth over and over, that is serious depression, and it should never happen.

doesn't that break your heart? don't you feel for that elephant? the poor thing.

and kids will die because Mr. Circus-Tycoon wants to make money. the whole situation disturbs me.

WTF?

There is definately a difference. The legal system of every large country I know of recognizes the difference between first degree murder and negligent homicide.