Yesterday the owner of the dogs was given a 16-week suspended sentence for causing suffering to animals.
Why?
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?
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!
ReplyDeleteKath (nb Herbie)