Saturday, 19 October 2013

I Don't Understand

On 26th March 2013 a fourteen-year-old girl named Jade Lomas-Anderson was mauled to death by four dogs at a friend's house.
Yesterday the owner of the dogs was given a 16-week suspended sentence for causing suffering to animals.
Why was the owner not locked up the with four mad dogs for life?
1)     Apparently there was "insufficient evidence"  to prosecute a case of manslaughter.
2)     The much-criticised Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 did not apply because:
                a)     The dogs were not  a banned breed under the Act.
                b)     The attack took place on private property and the dogs were not "out of control in a public place"
I do not understand how a so-called civilised society can do nothing to punish someone obviously responsible for the horrible death of a young lady but can hand down a derisory sentence for the causing suffering to animals.
Am I the only person who finds this 
impossible to understand?

1 comment:

  1. No, me too. Although I am not surprised. Appalled yes! But not surprised by the idiocy of the law! If the magistrate had his hands tied by the law couldn't he at least have made it a custodial sentence? And surely, if a dog is dangerous and out of control it doesn't matter where it is!
    Kath (nb Herbie)


Comments will be removed if considered inappropriate