The Law

[Alex]

I came across a case of animal cruelty in Rutherglen, Scotland, a place I once lived.  I won't post any of the details, suffice to say the puppy died from her injuries.  What I will post is the scumbag's name and sentence - if you can call it a sentence.

Levi Balmer was the piece of filth.   He was 'sentenced' on Monday after he pleaded guilty to the abuse at Glasgow Sheriff Court.  He received a 10 year ban on keeping dogs and a community payback order with a supervision requirement for 12 months and 162 hours of unpaid work.   What kind of message does this send to other animal abusers and why can't jail sentences be given for this type of crime ?    

[JBR]

I came across a case of animal cruelty in Rutherglen, Scotland, a place I once lived.  I won't post any of the details, suffice to say the puppy died from her injuries.  What I will post is the scumbag's name and sentence - if you can call it a sentence.

Levi Balmer was the piece of filth.  He was 'sentenced' on Monday after he pleaded guilty to the abuse at Glasgow Sheriff Court.  He received a 10 year ban on keeping dogs and a community payback order with a supervision requirement for 12 months and 162 hours of unpaid work.  What kind of message does this send to other animal abusers and why can't jail sentences be given for this type of crime ?    

I fully agree.  I have seen or heard of several recent 'sentences' like this over the past year or so, which I consider to be not worthy of the word 'punishment'.
Typically, '162 hours of unpaid work'.

40 hours is typically a week's work, so presumably this 'sentence' equated to four weeks of unpaid work.  I'd be interested to learn more, such as: is this typically five days of eight hours?  What sort of 'work'?  How many breaks and how often?  I suspect that this will not be regarded as hard, physical work, but I'd love to know exactly what they are obliged to do.

Personally, in 'JBR world' the perpetrator would have received physical punishment of exactly the same measure as received by the unfortunate puppy, terminating only after the perpetrator's death.

[Michael Rolls]

Disgraceful, both the act and the'sentence'

[Mups]

You hear cases like this time and time again.
I can't put into words how upset animal abuse  make me feel.   Our animals are so trusting normally, and must feel very afraid of bad owners.
People like that are beyond my comprehension. 

Trouble is,  there is a loop hole in this type of sentence.
Years ago I used to know an animal rescue woman,  she was a German Shepherd lover like myself.   
One day she was telling me about a cruelty case not far from me  (at that time),  and how she had to confiscate the poor dog because of the state it was in.   
When the case went to court,  the owner was banned from keeping another dog for 10 years.   

BUT,  not long afterwards, the inspector received a tip-off that the family had got another dog!

She again went to investigate,  but those crafty buggers knew all the tricks.   
How they got away with this second dog, even though he was banned,  was to put the new dog in his wife's name!
SHE had not been banned.
The previous poor animal had been in HIS name, so it meant HE  was the person banned.

Makes you marvel when the criminals are smarter than the the law, doesn't it.    Makes me sick.