Real animal abuse and cyberpets relating to the law?

Question

Theoretical scenario. Bob is indited for animal abuse but the prosecuter has minimal evidence. Nothing concrete. But Bob is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to enjoy abusing and torturing cyberpets and tamagotchis on a regular basis. The prosecuter presents this as part of the case evidence against Bob. Would this be admissable in a court of law? Would it sway the judge / jury at all towards a guilty verdict?

Answer 1

why why why do you post questions like this?????????

Theoretically he would probably get the death penalty as humans care more about animals than each other!

Answer 2

Hey that's a good idea as in some schools now they are giving dolls that act like real babies to the children so they know what its like to get up in the middle of the night and feed the baby and change its bum, In the same way they could do the same with a cyberpet, To see if you really do look after your pet the right way.

Answer 3

It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with the real animal abuse case and the prosecutor would not have him in court in the first place unless he could have proven it. He could not just get a warrant because someone "thinks" he may be abusing anumals, he needs concrete evidence to get the warrant, so the hypothetical situation just does not ring true.

Answer 4

I wouldnt have thought so no. cyberpets are not real, so it would only show he likes abusing a computer

Answer 5

That would be a NO then.
You need evidence of having commited an actual crime, abusing cyber pets would just be circumstantial.

Answer 6

No. No probable cause, no warrant - no warrant, no arrest, no prosecution.

Answer 7

don't know i'm not an attorney.