Curley claimed that animals were being fed hay and meal by his teenage son but Judge Kevin Kilrane told the accused that he was blatantly lying. The judge said that the animals were “utterly and absolutely starving”. Remanding the accused in custody, the judge said that he felt that Curley was showing no remorse but would come to his senses when he had time in custody to reflect. Sligo County Council veterinary officer Conal Colleary told the court that, when he visited the farm, he found the carcass of a donkey at the gate and he discovered other animals that were emaciated.
A six-month-old donkey was in such poor condition that it had to be put down. He saw a brown gelding whose bones were sticking out, while another female donkey was emaciated and had a bad fungal condition. The feet of all the animals were in bad condition. The court heard that the grass in the field had been eaten back to nothing. It also heard that there was no sign of any supplementary food and no water for the animals to drink.
Judge Kilrane did not accept the defendant’s suggestion that the animals were getting hay or meal. He said all they were getting was frost, snow and bark. The court heard that the bark of the hedges had been eaten and the animals had also chewed back the fence posts because they were so hungry. Judge Kilrane said it seemed that nobody had been visiting the land. He expressed concern about the fact that Curley had other livestock and horses.
With graphic photo.
13 comments:
Yes, they definitely should, Insolitus.
He definitely should be banned from keeping animals though, this is a horrible thing to do.
Insolitus, by that logic any authority should have a higher authority, ad infinitum, so that in reality there is no authority at all. Should those reponsible for incarcerating criminals be incarcerated themselves by default? The whole point of government is law, and that implies punishment. There are evil people who do evil things and they should be held responsible. Besides, Mr. Curley doesn't need a torturer; he just needs to be neglected to death.
Oh, anonymous person, you're still being silly, comparing torture and jail like that. Are you telling me you think those people who, in your scenario, would be torturing Mr. Curley to death, would not be doing "evil things"?
Name calling is not a very nice, but you are fine with doing it. Is everyone who disagrees with you "silly"? It a passive aggressive way of putting someone down. So, yes, there are all sorts of levels of what constitutes "evil". It's a relative term. I consider name calling a bad thing. I consider abusing the helpless and the innocent a bad thing. I believe society should stand up for the rights of the abused, and I can see no other way than to impose some sort of punishment on the guilty. I'm sure there are many incarcerated people that would consider their treatment to be torture. It's easy to rely on a platitude that two wrongs don't make a right. What is "right"? Who determines what is "right"? Different countries and cultures have different answers for these questions. I am expressing my opinion. I believe that a person forfeits their humanity when they behave inhumanely and society has a right to punish people for their behavior with a corresponding level of treatment. If you and your loved ones were tortured, you may forgive the person who did it. I would not. I would want a system in place that would punish them for their actions. The accepted level of punishment is relative to specific time and place in a culture. I personally have no qualms about a system that punishes criminals with a level of cruelty that they themselves have meted out. It may be a difficult and disagreeable job to have to punish evil people, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I would not consider that evil. In my definition, evil can only be attributed to an action done to the undeserving.
That is no longer just silly. As it happens, last night I briefly and with revulsion remembered an article here on Arbroath (I think) about a Saudi man who was sentenced to be surgically paralyzed for causing a similar injury to another man. They had trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do such a horrible thing, even in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what eventually happened.
I personally find a society that at least tries to avoid being driven by the basest, darkest human emotions much more palatable. I also recognise there are people who disagree with me and wouldn't mind turning the clock of criminal justice back a century or three.
Wow. "Even in Saudi Arabia"? Evidently they are all, but one, just a bunch of barbarians in your opinion. So far you've shown that people who disagree with you are "silly" and all but one Saudi Arabian are "driven by the basest, darkest human emotions." I take it you live in a homogenized area so you can avoid such people.
If you turned back the clock on criminal justice you'd find more in agreement with me. Most of human history has felt justified in punishing criminals with a level of severity commensurate with their crimes.
I have a feeling you've never been a victim of a traumatizing crime. You might feel differently otherwise. It seems more appropriate to me to have the victims decide the punishment, not disinterested people. In the case of animals and children, this would have to be inferred, of course.
Far be it from me to accuse you of constructing strawmen, my dear Anonymous, so let's just assume you genuinely misunderstood. Please read my previous comment again and tell me, did I really say there is only one person in Saudi Arabia who doesn't embrace the barbaric court ruling? You might also want to re-read what I actually wrote in the second paragraph concerning the basest, darkest human emotions.
You said "They had trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do such a horrible thing, even in Saudi Arabia." That seems to be saying that you are surprised they had trouble finding someone who would object to doing horrible things in Saudi Arabia. I've read and reread your words. It honestly sounds to me like your statement is that Saudia Arabians are a group you expect more people to do "horrible things", which leaves you surprised they had trouble finding one. Otherwise, why did you even mention Saudi Arabia? What does Saudi Arabia have to do with punishing criminals?
People in Saudi Arabia, or at least their society is generally more pro doing horrible things to other people as punisment than your standard western nation. No public lashings, mutilations or beheadings here. Or do you really disagree?
So yes, I was positively surprised, and think it is to the credit of the people of Saudi Arabia that they didn't find a doctor who would go along with a religious court ruling against their responsibility of doing no harm.
How could that be understood as my saying there's only one decent person in the country? Stop being silly :-)
I am a very silly person indeed. I still don't see the significance of what you are saying. One person in a specific country didn't like his job. I'm sure you'd find one person in every country that doesn't like how prisoners are treated and shouldn't pursue a career in that system. That doesn't seem to be an argument for anything.
Humans are very good at selective denial. I'm suggesting that you take a moment to reflect on whether your opinions are a culturally learned denial. I have no doubt that most people would be horrified to actually witness what happens to an animal before it ends up on their dinner plate, but they choose not to look because it makes them uncomfortable. Most people continue to eat animals, even if they were treated abhorrently, all while being perfectly comfortable petting their dog. It's a selective cultural denial that one animal is loved and another is abused.
Why is putting people in cages acceptable to you? At what point in your life did you say to yourself, "I think it's perfectly fine for some people to put some other people in cages"? Even when the cage is only as wide as an arm span. Why is fine that the person in the cage receives almost no sunlight, fresh air, respect, or occupation? This sort of treatment is acceptable, but when and why did you decide that?
Why is acceptable that one person can go to another country and kill a person he's never met before simply because we use the word "war"? War accepted by most people as a proper solution to disagreements, so that thousands of people are killed arbitrarily. But it's not okay to kill a mass murderer? My point is that we create zones of acceptable and unacceptable cruelty in our lives; if you're going to draw a specific line between the two in your judgement, you should be prepared to answer why you put it where you did. Eating animals, putting people in cages, and killing strangers seem a lot more senseless to me than lex talionis.
Oh, so that's what's acceptable to me! How nice of you to tell me.
So tell me, snarky. Are you against jailing criminals then?
Post a Comment