Yes, it seems to.

Yeah, you're right. I was just trying to throw some content up. :smt100

(I was able to find some cool emoticons though) :smt112

Eh, no prob. Wasn't sure how serious you were, figured my answer fit either way.

Too bad? I have to disagree. I think a jail cell will do just as nicely, and hopefully some guy named Jose will make sure he feels the "love."

Do you think this will really serve as a deterrant to such cruel acts towards animals? Is it really the case that you feel that some people really do "deserve" an outcome such as hell, or sexual abuse in prison? I'm just wondering because I so frequently see people saying things similar to what you have, and I wonder if they actually think that way, or if it is a knee-jerk reaction that they have due to the promotion of such a response by our social norms. This isn't necesarily to pick on just you, but I wonder this about anyone who makes statements such as the one above.

Oh man that is sad.
But hey, it isn?t like men-of-god are ever told they are to be kind to their fellow animals. Too bad this asshole couldn?t figure it out on his own.

Is that metal grate, "natural?"

Being held accountable for one's actions doesn't necesarily mean punishment, does it? If, for example, Martha Stewart had been told to make financial reparations and then never participate directly in stock trade again, would that not have been her being held accountable? Doesn't it make better sense than jail time (it would cost less money, and Martha wasn't really a physical danger to people)? Would that not have been a better natural consequence?

Is there a reason to believe that jail is the best form of consequences, or that it makes the most sense? Or, as my initial objection was, that sexual violations in prison are?

However, why is it that you feel this particular event should cause the effects mentioned - a sexual assault in prison, or a prison term at all? Just because there are cause and effects, how does it follow that the most effective response to this particular crime is logically a jail term where others might be cruel to them? (I do find it particularly disturbing that people do often imply that sexual assault in prison is somehow something that individuals "deserve"

Should that be the case though? How does society benefit from such things? How does anyone benefit from those things? Does it change anything about the initial crime or about the person in such a way that this crime is prevented in the future? (I would venture a guess to say "no, it does not"

However, once a voting member of this particular society, your views on social and political issues such as this can have an effect on legal approaches to these issues. In that sense, if you support some of these things, your votes can have an effect on them. If you vote, for example, to keep prisons as they are now as a favored stance over changing them to protect the prison populace more from acts of violence, then in some part you are responsible if it has remained as it is and people suffer as a result. You are not to blame for individual instances, however, your decisions have played some role (though they may be minor) in the situations existing which fostered such things.

If the systems remain as they are, yes. However, that doesn't justify the stance that such events are reasonable effects of the crime.

Thanks for the response

It doesn't, there have been studies done on that which show fairly well that incarceration is an ineffective deterrant, the same thing applies to capital punishment.

Well, that depends on the situation, really. At this point, we can only speculate about alot of this situation. However, there are ways that we could approach this situation and others like it that could serve as a deterrant. This person, I would think, should have an assessment to see how detrimental he could be to other animals and humans. I think it is very reasonable that this person not be allowed around animals whenever that can be controlled. Also, if this person has children, it might benefit them to have an assessment done on how they are cared for - to ensure that he does not have any habits that are detrimental to them. Certainly, if there is a predictable consequence, and something that relates to the event itself, that is likely to be more beneficial to society.

That's terrible, and I think that a similar approach to that should be taken in regards to this event.

That's just a non-answer. It's like when people justify rape with, "he's a man." It has nothing to do with anything at all.

How would that solve anything, though?

----------------

The duck thing is sad, but the response you guys had was amusing, lol.

Poor ducks ... my question was, what was the photographer doing?

I?d vote yes. I seem to differ in what I define as Natural Selection and Artificial Selection when compared to what I was taught. The following is my thoughts on it only:

Natural Selection involves animals being weeded out by their environment, whether it is manmade or not (even though ?nature? is usually in the defined cause, I consider humanity as a part of nature).

Even if we set up the grate as a ?duck trap? to kill them, that would be natural selection. Some will be weeded out but we aren?t deciding which ones to weed out. We are making the environment more hazardous though. I will elaborate below.

The opposite of natural selection would be artificial selection. This is defined as ?intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others.? (wiki)

I tend to think of it more in terms of being artificial selection only if we are choosing what to weed out to select based on genetics. This is from my considering humanity and civilizations as a part of nature.

Unintentional changes we cause (in terms of genetics) are natural selection to me. An example of this would be if I wanted to be hunting and grab some deer. I am just another animal out there doing what animals do. I have no concern with changing the genetics of the population.

Intentional changes we cause (in terms of genetics) are artificial selection to me. An example of this would be if I wanted to breed a certain style of dog or cattle. My actions are based on the desired outcome in the offspring.

That is just me.

Prove that it serves as a deterrant. In the studies that I have seen, current systems, including those that enforce this kind of punishment, don't serve as deterrants, that is a large part of why the current Criminal Justice system doesn't work.