Do you support stronger penalties for people with prior convictions of cruelty to animals?

Question

I read this article today (http://ontariospca.ca/press_releases/200... about a couple in Ontario charged with several accounts of cruelty between 1964 and 2005 - involving over 800 animals. Do you think these people should be banned for life from owning animals?

Canadians - would you be willling to write your MP to request them to re-consider Bill C-50?

Bill C-50 summaary:

Move animals out of the property part of the Code and into a new part created just for animal cruelty offences;
Make it illegal to brutally or viciously kill animals;
Raise the penalty for intentional cruelty to a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, up from the current six-month penalty;
Give judges the authority to raise the fine for summary convictions to $10,000 from the current maximum fine of $2,000;

Answer 1

Personally I don't think that the initial conviction is enough. I also don't think that being banned for life from owning an animal is a penalty. People who abuse animals could really care less if they own them or not. It's easy to find an animal on the street or someone's backyard to torture. Those people are sickos.

G

Answer 2

It relies upon on your definition of animal cruelty. in the adventure that your definition is wide and encompasses any killing of animals, then the answer is sure. in the adventure that your answer is somewhat extra slender, and there are circumstances lower than which killing an animal is morally defensible (say for survival, in case you hunt the animal your self, if the animal is killed in a "humane" way) then the answer will be no. fairly some the beef you purchase on the food market has a quite grizzly backstory, regrettably. although, that's nevertheless questionable no matter in the adventure that your purchase "instantly" helps cruelty to animals. you're perpetuating an marketplace which kills cows by bashing them contained in the top with a metallic bolt, in case you purchase the incorrect kind. in case you purchase the right kind, although, you're ingesting an animal it really is been fed malted hops and Heineken beer its finished life, and has gotten professional massages 5 circumstances a week. it really is a reliable idea to analyze the organizations you purchase meat from if that's something you're annoying about. seem for corporations that help free-variety, grass fed animals that are slaughtered humanely or in accordance with kosher guidelines for the smallest quantity of cruelty in line with pound of chow.

Answer 3

Repeat offenders should always receive a stiffer penalty, no matter what the crime is as, by the very act of repeating, the perpetrator has said that the penalty is insufficient for him or her to stop their illegal actions. A stiffer penalty may also not work but it will keep that person out of circulation longer.

Answer 4

I believe once you have been charged with consciously harming an animal (not accidental) it should be made near impossible to adopt again. End of story. You dont belong having an animal if you are just goign to hurt them. They are defenseless.

Answer 5

Not only should they be banned from owning pets - they should be jailed!

There is NO EXCUSE for cruelty to animals!

Answer 6

I think any repeat offender of any crime should have a much greater penalty the 2nd or 3rd time convicted.

Answer 7

Absolutely.

Answer 8

Yes, they should be prosecuted above and beyond the limits.
And they should never be allowed to own any type of animal.

Answer 9

yes i do, they should rot in jail for their crimes, you know they are impotent people who take out their frustration on animals cause they cant deal with daily life, they are cowards.

Answer 10

VERY MUCH!