Animal cruelty encompasses a range of different behaviors harmful to animals, from neglect to malicious, brutal killings. Studies show that animal cruelty may lead to more serious forms of crime, like heavy drug use, violent outbursts, and most common, cold blooded murder. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last twenty-five years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. A web page that goes by the name Animal Alliance says most cruelty investigated by humane officers, is unintentional neglect, and can be resolved through education. (3) I was slightly shocked when I saw this comment. Anyone who puts an animals life in their hands, has a responsibility to it. You dont just forget to feed him/her, or forget to show them love unless it is intentional, it get so much worse, though. These people arent just forgetting to feed their pets, or give them attention, theyre kicking and beating them, poisoning and butchering these poor creatures, and what makes me sick to my stomach, is that some of these people do it for fun!! I recently ran across a link to a web page that contained a online petition to put a cats killers to justice with maximum sentence. This is the article I found on this brutal torture of an innocent creature. ***WARNING*** (graphic details) On October 10, 1999, a beautiful female cat came willingly to the four boys who stopped on the side of the road and called to her. Her trust was rewarded by unthinkable terror and cruelty – being used as a tug-of-war toy until the boys heard something “pop”, having her legs broken, being jumped up and down on like a trampoline. Even when her pitiful battered body was mercifully dead, her suffering was not at an end. The boys then placed her ravaged body under the wheel of their car, braking over her, as they drove off to find other amusement. Once the Chesapeake Animal Control conducted their investigation and performed a necropsy, criminal charges were filed against 3 of the 4 boys involved. If these charges are found to be accurate, these boys are not only in violation of the laws of the State of Virginia, but are also in need of immediate psychiatric intervention. (1)*** Another horrific article I ran across was even worse. It was about a dog who to was also a victim of rancid brutality. Here is that story. ***WARNING*** (graphic details) Jose, Marcus, Richard and Lance are accused of obtaining a video camera, pressing the ‘record’ button, luring Scruffy from his home, and then torturing and killing him in an unspeakably monstrous act of cruelty. In the videotape that the police and media have in their possession, four men are shown torturing and killing Scruffy in lurid detail. The quality of the tape is very good, and the police have been able to obtain photographs of the men in the tape. In this tape, one of the four men is shown to elevate Scruffy off the ground by the neck, and then begin this horrific abuse by choking him. This 6 pound little dog did not have a fighting chance against these men. Scruffy, still alive, was then placed in a trash bag. The four men shown in the tape then doused the trash bag with what appeared in the video to be lamp oil, took a cigarette lighter, and set Scruffy on fire. Scruffy, at this point in the video, began to run wildly in pain and agony around the trees while the four men watched and laughed. When the flames finally went out, Scruffy was still alive, but his torture was not over. Next, the men decided to try to decapitate Scruffy with a shovel. After slamming the shovel into Scruffy’s neck and not being able to attain their goal, they realized that Scruffy was more of a fighter than they had expected. The men then opened Scruffy’s mouth and began to pull his jaws apart, as if trying to rip his face in two. Using the shovel in place of a club, the men then beat Scruffy until his tiny body gave out, and he died. Throughout the videotape the four men are all shown laughing and having a good time as they are carrying out these unspeakable tortures. (1) *** After I read these stories I was disgusted, revolted, down right sickened by the realization that these men needed to be institutionalized or locked down. Its scares me to think of what they would and are capable of doing to a human being. The FBI uses reports of animal cruelty in analyzing the threat potential of suspected and known violent criminals. Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of Training Initiatives for The Humane Society of the United States, states that Researchers, as well as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies nationwide, have linked animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse, serial killings, and to the recent rash of killings by school-age children.(2) I found yet another web page listing some reports from police case files. I was astonished! These are a few excerpts from that page. ***WARNING*** (graphic details) “Russell Weston Jr., tortured and killed 12 cats, by burning, cutting their tails, paws, ears off, put toxic chemicals in their eyes, blinding them, forcing them to eat poison, hanging them from trees; the noose loose enough to create a slow and painful death, as the cat/kitten struggles to free itself as the noose gets tighter with each attempt. Later killed 2 officers at our Nation’s Capitol.” “Jeffery Dahmer loved to dissect animals (he learned this in school). Later he dissected boys, and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. Murdered 17 men.” “On May 21, 1998 in Springfield, Oregon; 15-year-old Kip Kinkel set a live cat on fire and dragged the innocent creature through the main street of town. He walked into his high school cafeteria and opened fire on his classmates. Two classmates were killed and 22 others injured, four critically. Later that day, police found his parents shot to death in their home.” “Prior to committing multiple murders, Luke Woodham, age 16, wrote in his personal journal that he and an accomplice beat, burned and tortured his dog, Sparkle, to death. Woodham said it was “true beauty.” He poured liquid fuel down his dog’s throat and set fire to her neck, both inside and outside. On 10/1/1977, Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to his high school where he shot and killed two classmates — two girls aged 16 and 17, and injured seven others. In June 1998, Woodham was found guilty of three murders and seven counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to three life sentences and an additional 20 years for each assault.” “The Kobe Killer, an as yet unnamed 15-year-old boy in Japan, beheaded a cat and strangled several pigeons. Decapitated 11-year-old Jun Hase, and battered to death a 10-year-old girl with a hammer, and assaulted three other children in separate attacks.” “At 9 years old, Eric Smith strangled a neighbor’s cat. At 13 years old, he bludgeoned four-year-old Derrick Robie to death. Smith lured the little boy into the woods, choked him, sodomized him with a stick, then beat him to death with a rock.” “Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion. Killed a young girl. Then, after serving 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women.” (4) *** Dr. Randall Lockwood stated, Violence directed at animals by young people is a sign that something is terribly wrong, and often acts as a warning of future violence, even killings directed against humans. (2) In the in the past 18 months, we have seen seven school shootings. In each one, it was learned that the perpetrators had abuse, tortured, and killed animals before moving on to their human victims and our nation is wondering what happened. One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it. Our child must be taught young that it wrong to poke at puppys eyes. We cant afford to ignore what we think of as childish exploration. Our children learn the most important aspects of life young and if theyre not aware of what is right and wrong, it could possibly lead to more dangerous attempts. As a society, we can not tolerate cruelty towards animals. People inclined to inflict pain and torture upon animals have a predisposition to violence against both animals and humans. A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) reports that youngsters convicted of animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, four times more likely to be involved in acts against property, and three times more likely to be drug offenders. (2)
Bibliography 1. No More Cruelty- http://www.geocities.com/animalabusealert/index.html a) Cat Killers b) Scruffy 2. Colorado High School Gunmen Linked To Animal Cruelty (web article) http://www.hsus.org/whatnew/litteton032399.html a)Lockwood 3. Animal Alliance-http://animalalliance.ca/factsheets/humviol.py 4. Animal Victims/Human Victims: Reports from Police Case Files- http://members.tripod.com/nocruelty/anicru.htm#avh
Word Count: 1498
.. bureau fits them. Like a Christian rating bureau would appeal to a Christian family. Some people believe that PICS is a lot like the V-chip. Its true they are similar but their differences are very notable. The V-chip is a chip that is put in all TVs larger than 13 by the FCC that blocks the display of television programming based upon its rating.
There are many links in the information food chain separating your personal computer from the source of information. And what you see on the Internet can potentially be filtered at any of those points so you in fact are not in total control of what comes to your screen, unlike the V-chip. You can block material at your computer, but so can libraries, your employer, your internet service provider, your university, or even – depending on where you live – your nation-state. With the V-chip you control what comes on your television set. But with PICS the choice may not be yours (Marshall).
There is also one more problem with PICS, when internet is filtered you dont know what you are not seeing. The companies that would provide the blocking services would have to hide their list of what they are blocking or else they would lose their edge. They wouldnt have a service to provide. So lets say a public library is using a certain business to filter they have no idea what they are actually blocking. PICS seems to be good solution since it doesnt compromise the freedom of expression and it filters out unwanted material, but overall PICS is an unwanted and unethical solution. It filters not only unwanted material but also a lot of material that is useful and you wont even know you are missing it.
If the internet is censored then all Americans rights to freedom of expression would be in jeopardy. We either assume the government is going to be regulating the internet or some kind of public company will be doing the filtering. If the government would be the one regulating the internet via CDA, for example, then a lot of people who are in the pornography business would definitely lose their rights to express themselves. The CDA prohibited the sending of indecent or obscene telecommunications knowingly to anyone under the age of 18. It was found unconstitutional since it violated the first amendment.
If filtering was left up to the public, in the form of businesses, such as the use of PICS it would also be at risk. Lets take a look at this a little closer. With PICS they want to have a variety of rating systems but that is not how the computer industry operates. Everything in the internet industry is done by a few major companies such as: operating systems, software, printers, browsers, computer manufacturers, scanners, monitors, and speakers. The idea that there will be a great multiplicity of rating systems may also be deceptive. Despite the possibility of an infinite variety of rating systems for a multitude of different cultural perspectives, everything we know about the computer and internet industries tells us that pressures lead not toward multiplicity but toward concentration (Marshall). So just by knowing the industry itself you know its going to be ruled by about four or five companies.
The internet and site blocking fields would demand a larger variety of options in the field but economic pressures and the need to create economies of scale would be too high and overpower it. The economies of scale would definitely be required in this field though. Since only a few companies would be filtering and censoring every part of the internet would be so time consuming, making it impossible for a small company. You would also have to have a lot of customers or subscribers to make any money as a site blocking company. Now you see why the industry would be so concentrated, and being controlled by a few major companies really limits the consumers choices. Since their choices of who to subscribe to are limited they dont have a lot of options and a lot of peoples sites would get filtered out by the few companies.
With the public doing the regulating we should not focus so much on the government and reconsider our values of free speech and expression to better understand our goals and what we need to censor. It is easy to see that any form of regulation or filtering of the internet will in fact bring unwanted solutions and conditions to the people and in most cases stomp on their rights as a citizen. The COPA and CDA prove that any government regulation is basically unacceptable because it can never satisfy everyone who contributes to the internet and they cant just make a law and say deal with it since they dont own or run the internet. So maybe we should stop focusing on the government and look towards the public on this issue, since they will be the ones that will end up doing the regulating if we go that route. Another question that comes to mind is: do we actually need censorship? If you think about it, all censorship really does is make the internet a little more productive and gets rid of a small amount of pornography.
This is definitely not a good reason to give up your rights and thats why internet censorship is a very unwanted and unethical solution. Bibliography Works Cited Burton, Paul. CONTENT ON THE INTERNET: FREE OR FETTERED?. University of Strathclyde. 23 November 2001.
. Chapin, Betty. Filtering the Internet for young people: the comfortable pew is a thorny Throne. Teacher Librarian May/June 1999. Op-ed page. Wilson Web.
UMD Library. 21 November 2001. Keyword: internet censorship. Chapin, Rich. Content Management, Filtering and the World Wide Web. T H E Journal.
Sept 1999. Op-ed page. Infotrac. UMD Library. 21 November 2001. Keyword: internet censorship.
Marshall, Joshua Micah. Will free speech get tangled in the net? The American Prospect Jan-Feb 1998. Op-ed page. Infotrac. UMD Library.
20 November 2001. Keyword: internet censorship. Miller, Heather L. Strike two: an analysis of the Child Online Protection Act’s constitutional failures. Federal Communications Law Journal Dec 1999.
Op-ed page. Infotrac. UMD Library. 21 November 2001. Keyword: internet censorship.
Neumann, Peter G., Lauren Weinstein. Risks of Content Filtering. Communications of the ACM Nov. 1999. Op-ed page. Infotrac.
UMD Library. 21 November 2001. Keyword: internet censorship. Weinberg, Jonathan. the Net. Wayne State University Law School. 23 November 2001.
. Computers Essays.