Bob Kerridge: Plea for tougher stance on such callous acts of torture

COMMENT

They are only animals ... that is the only interpretation the nation could possibly place on a comment by a Northland judge when handing down a miserable sentence to two offenders convicted of the heinous crime of dog-fighting.

Judge Thomas Everitt included in his summary his view that "these are offences against animals and have to be put on a lesser level than offences against humans". It is a view that we at the SPCA cannot possibly allow to be aired unchallenged.

The comment came at the end of a trial that had lumbered on for two years with the accused, who defended themselves, making a mockery of the judicial system, expressing their "customary rights" under the Treaty of Waitangi while clearly not recognising the jurisdiction of the court.

Their interminable delays ensured that the dogs, which were the victims of their crimes, remained incarcerated, adding to the escalating costs endured by the Bay of Islands SPCA (which prosecuted) and others.

Their crimes were deliberate and callously calculated as they bent the minds of the hapless dogs into machines with a frenzied desire to fight, tortured their bodies while they were pitted against other dogs, and left them in a state of emaciation that was described by the prosecutor as being "like rakes with skin on them".

Of all the crimes against animals those indulging seriously in dog-fighting have to be the most revolting, but after all "they are only animals".

It is perhaps this type of attitude that epitomises the SPCA's problem in effectively tackling cruelty against animals, particularly when it comes from the heady heights of the Judiciary.

This is the message that will have been heard by the perpetrators of the following crimes, representing only a few that have plagued us, and the community, this year:

* The person who threw a 5-week-old kitten out of a speeding car.

* The person who chained a puppy to a tree and shot it 15 times with a slug-gun.

* The person who blew up a duck with a homemade bomb.

* The person who inserted fish hooks into the hind legs of a kitten and dragged it behind a car.

* The person who slit the throat of an abandoned dog.

* The person who stabbed three pet chickens with pencils.

* The person who injected ducks with petrol and set them alight (as reported in the Herald on the same day that Judge Everitt's comments were reported).

Are we to believe that those disgusting crimes against animals are not to be taken seriously and are not equal to violence against humans? If this is the message from the Judiciary, those who commit such crimes against animals will feel no threat from the court for their wicked deeds.

Of significance is the well-established fact that the perpetrators of crimes against animals are well on their way to similar crimes against people, and that any leniency at this level will not stop the inevitable path to crime that will undoubtedly follow.

Surely the Judiciary has a duty to the community to intervene, severely, against such animal crimes, and not dismiss them as being of little significance.

When I hear such words from a judge in this century I wonder whether we have progressed from those ancient days when, as Aristotle put it, "animals lack reason and, therefore, are not part of our moral community".

Surely we have progressed since then? Perhaps some have not.

Now, with this misguided example behind us, it is time for us to reject such medieval thinking and realise that companion animals, with all their unconditional love and trust, their therapeutic value in our troubled lives, and the companionship and impact they have on those who love them, deserve more respect than has been shown by those who we look to for wisdom and guidance.

No sir, they are not only animals.

* Bob Kerridge is the chief executive of the Auckland SPCA.