How is justice best served in a case like this?


JLM
#1
Emma Paulsen, B.C. dog walker, charged in deaths of 6 dogs - British Columbia - CBC News


First of all I'm a dog owner and I love dogs. I think what this woman did was incredibly stupid and then things escalated. I don't think throwing her in jail for 100 years and fining her $50,000 is going to improve the situation. I think her subsequent actions after the death of the dogs are an indication she recognized the seriousness of what she had done. Maybe picking up dog sh*t in the parks for a year might be a more appropriate sentence, it would improve the environment at no cost to the taxpayers.
 
B00Mer
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
6 years in jail..

Wish Canada would adopt US legislation for animal cruelty ... stiff penalties, you can loose your home or car and jail time.
 
JLM
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

6 years in jail..

Wish Canada would adopt US legislation for animal cruelty ... stiff penalties, you can loose your home or car and jail time.


If it was deliberate cruelty I would fully agree. Seeing her own dog was one of the victims tells me it was more stupidity. I think she should possibly serve 30 days for lying. Picking up dog sh*t would do more good than languishing in jail for 6 years. We want to improve the woman not destroy her.
 
B00Mer
+1
#4
So you leave your kid in the car and it dies.. what do you get..??
 
JLM
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Wish Canada would adopt US legislation for animal cruelty ... stiff penalties, you can loose your home or car and jail time.


So you think making her homeless and possibly jobless would improve the situation?
 
B00Mer
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you think making her homeless and possibly jobless would improve the situation?

She certainly wouldn't be homeless..
Last edited by B00Mer; Aug 11th, 2014 at 09:47 PM..
 
JLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

So you leave your kid in the car and it dies.. what do you get..??


A lot depends on intent at the time the crime was committed.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

She certainly wouldn't be homeless..

Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Jail for the Killing of Two Dogs | Life With Dogs (external - login to view)


It was you who advocated losing her home, like they would in the U.S.
 
Praxius
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

A lot depends on intent at the time the crime was committed.

Whether the intent was stupidity, forgetfulness or deliberate neglect, the punishment should remain the same.... it's something you don't do and anybody with common sense should know this by now, and yet... many idiot parents out there around the world still do it.
 
B00Mer
#9
Cats & especially dogs, are not ''mindless'' animals. The jobs that they do should be a huge reminder of that. They work with police, military & they help people with all sorts of illnesses and disability's. They lead the deaf & blind, and help them in every day life - they help these people do things they could NEVER do without a dog. They help them to have independence. They support the mentally ill & are specially selected and trained to calm them down when needed. They save peoples lives.

Dogs are not JUST mindless animals.

Killing cockroaches, rats, pigs and birds is a completely different story. They're either killed because they're pests or for food - which is, and should be acceptable in today's society. The human race has killed animals for food for hundreds/thousands of years.

However, dogs are animals with status & importance. There is a reason man domesticated dogs - because they were almost vital to our survival, when they first came around. Think about it - wherever there are humans, there are dogs... Right? That's not just for no reason. There's a reason behind everything.

Anybody that can kill a valuable animal, with emotions & such complex makeup and intelligence - such as the dog - deserves a length prison sentence. Think about it... If they can kill a dog - it wouldn't be that hard to kill a human.

This lady says it was accidental, we don't know that for sure.. do we?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you think making her homeless and possibly jobless would improve the situation?

Wouldn't hurt it. At least she would be less likely to do something else stupid.
 
JLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Whether the intent was stupidity, forgetfulness or deliberate neglect, the punishment should remain the same.... it's something you don't do and anybody with common sense should know this by now, and yet... many idiot parents out there around the world still do it.


If it was determined she has Down's syndrome, do you think the sentence should be the same?

Does anyone recall the sentence handed down to the guy who euthanized the 100 sled dogs after the 2010 Olympics?
 
damngrumpy
+1
#12
Ever notice people want stiff jail sentences for almost everything sometime me included.
that is called a reaction to a repugnant act. Reaction.
What we need to focus on is pro action. What did she do what she did? She didn't
understand the impact of her actions or she wouldn't have left them in the truck.
She is looking after dogs yes but that does not mean she knew don't don't sweat like us
and perish much quicker.
Even though we would like there is no charge of stupidity. Clearly she did not intend for the
dogs to die, she didn't plan the death of the dogs. This is important for a lack of intent means
she is guilty of something less that does not translate to six years.
I am tired of the American sentences also sentences should remain in the hands of judges
 
JLM
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Ever notice people want stiff jail sentences for almost everything sometime me included.
that is called a reaction to a repugnant act. Reaction.
What we need to focus on is pro action. What did she do what she did? She didn't
understand the impact of her actions or she wouldn't have left them in the truck.
She is looking after dogs yes but that does not mean she knew don't don't sweat like us
and perish much quicker.
Even though we would like there is no charge of stupidity. Clearly she did not intend for the
dogs to die, she didn't plan the death of the dogs. This is important for a lack of intent means
she is guilty of something less that does not translate to six years.
I am tired of the American sentences also sentences should remain in the hands of judges


Quite often people do stupid things that have tragic consequences and the gut reaction of the public at large is to "show them"! There are occasionally nefarious acts committed like chaining a child up in a shed for two years while feeding them black bread and water, but the vast majority of acts are not like that and after it's all over we have to remember we are still left with a human being at the end of it.
 
B00Mer
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If it was determined she has Down's syndrome, do you think the sentence should be the same?

Does anyone recall the sentence handed down to the guy who euthanized the 100 sled dogs after the 2010 Olympics?

Whistler sled dog cull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

OK, the girl has down's Syndrome?? What is your personal connection, if any??

The animal owners should not have place their dogs with a girl with down's syndrome, as they get mood swings and become violent at times and do not know what they are doing..
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Whistler sled dog cull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

OK, the girl has down's Syndrome?? What is your personal connection, if any??

The animal owners should not have place their dogs with a girl with down's syndrome, as they get mood swings and become violent at times and do not know what they are doing..


"Robert Fawcett was sentenced to three years’ probation on November 22, 2012 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to nine of the animals. Judge Steve Merrick concluded Fawcett had the best interests of the dogs at heart when he culled the pack near Whistler."


So how do you justify a six year sentence for the death of six dogs while a guy gets three years PROBATION for the death of 56 dogs? Especially as the one act was deliberate while the other one wasn't!

Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

OK, the girl has down's Syndrome?? What is your personal connection, if any??


There's no personal connection. Quite often when someone does something stupid there's a valid reason. That is why it's important to determine intent. Have you ever noticed quite often a judge will deliberate for a week or two before passing sentence. There's a reason for that.
 
Kreskin
+1
#16
It's a good question JLM. I'm sure she has been through a lot already. Perhaps the penalty should be banning her from offering commercial animal services in the future, and leave it at that.
 
Praxius
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Ever notice people want stiff jail sentences for almost everything sometime me included.
that is called a reaction to a repugnant act. Reaction.
What we need to focus on is pro action. What did she do what she did? She didn't
understand the impact of her actions or she wouldn't have left them in the truck.
She is looking after dogs yes but that does not mean she knew don't don't sweat like us
and perish much quicker.
Even though we would like there is no charge of stupidity. Clearly she did not intend for the
dogs to die, she didn't plan the death of the dogs. This is important for a lack of intent means
she is guilty of something less that does not translate to six years.
I am tired of the American sentences also sentences should remain in the hands of judges

No charge for stupidity?

No, there isn't, but ignorance of the law and plain stupidity does not excuse you from a crime or the law.

If this was the profession she wanted to offer the public and gain a taxable income from this profession, then she had damn well have educated herself on how to handle the animals which were placed in her care.

A fk'n google search on basic handling and treatment of any pet can be done within a few seconds.

Six years jail time is pretty damn fair. Her intent is irrelevant. Her actions are what matters.



So let's say I was completely ignorant and a moron regarding the combustible reactions of gasoline... I drive up to an Irving station off the side of the highway where there are dozens of cars getting refueled and families are getting their snacks and bathroom breaks for their summer vacation trip. I then decide to light up a cigarette while pumping fuel along side everybody else and then BOOM, the whole place lights up and explodes, killing several people and injuring dozens of other men, women & children. I was too busy to read any of the warning signs along the station about no smoking and I just glazed over all the obvious signs of the danger I was putting myself and everybody else in.

My intentions weren't to kill all these people and forever ruining the lives of many others.... I just needed a smoke break.

Should I be let off lightly because of my own stupidity and ignorance?

Everybody knows not to do this at gas stations.... at least you would think.

And you would think that anybody who has pets, or especially those who make it a profession to take care of other's pets, would know not to leave an animal in a state like she did.

You don't leave any living being inside a sealed up car in a hot summer's day.

Not only did she do this to multiple animals at once (which would have only sped up the time it took for them to all die) but she then lied and tried to cover it all up by saying someone took them from her car, when in fact, she dumped them in a ditch.

And you think she's guilty of something less that shouldn't be at least six years for her crimes?

 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

It's a good question JLM. I'm sure she has been through a lot already. Perhaps the penalty should be banning her from offering commercial animal services in the future, and leave it at that.


I mostly agree although I think she should do some time for lying and getting the investigation off to a false start.
 
Praxius
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

"Robert Fawcett was sentenced to three years’ probation on November 22, 2012 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to nine of the animals. Judge Steve Merrick concluded Fawcett had the best interests of the dogs at heart when he culled the pack near Whistler."

So how do you justify a six year sentence for the death of six dogs while a guy gets three years PROBATION for the death of 56 dogs? Especially as the one act was deliberate while the other one wasn't!

Easy answer... between 2012 to today, animal cruelty laws were toughened due to cases just like this one.
 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

No charge for stupidity?

No, there isn't, but ignorance of the law and plain stupidity does not excuse you from a crime or the law.

If this was the profession she wanted to offer the public and gain a taxable income from this profession, then she had damn well have educated herself on how to handle the animals which were placed in her care.

A fk'n google search on basic handling and treatment of any pet can be done within a few seconds.

Six years jail time is pretty damn fair. Her intent is irrelevant. Her actions are what matters.



So let's say I was completely ignorant and a moron regarding the combustible reactions of gasoline... I drive up to an Irving station off the side of the highway where there are dozens of cars getting refueled and families are getting their snacks and bathroom breaks for their summer vacation trip. I then decide to light up a cigarette while pumping fuel along side everybody else and then BOOM, the whole place lights up and explodes, killing several people and injuring dozens of other men, women & children. I was too busy to read any of the warning signs along the station about no smoking and I just glazed over all the obvious signs of the danger I was putting myself and everybody else in.

My intentions weren't to kill all these people and forever ruining the lives of many others.... I just needed a smoke break.

Should I be let off lightly because of my own stupidity and ignorance?

Everybody knows not to do this at gas stations.... at least you would think.

And you would think that anybody who has pets, or especially those who make it a profession to take care of other's pets, would know not to leave an animal in a state like she did.

You don't leave any living being inside a sealed up car in a hot summer's day.

Not only did she do this to multiple animals at once (which would have only sped up the time it took for them to all die) but she then lied and tried to cover it all up by saying someone took them from her car, when in fact, she dumped them in a ditch.

And you think she's guilty of something less that shouldn't be at least six years for her crimes?


Why use an extreme case with no similarities to make your point? Even the sled dog case is a little more reasonable!
 
Praxius
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Why use an extreme case with no similarities to make your point? Even the sled dog case is a little more reasonable!

The case is about ignorance and stupidity, regardless of how extreme the example is.
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

The case is about ignorance and stupidity, regardless of how extreme the example is.


But there is no law against stupidity! -
 
petros
#23
Cattle are smart, protective, loyal companions and tasty.
 
Praxius
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

But there is no law against stupidity! -

...... but the point was about ignorance and stupidity from the law is now excu...... never mind.
 
BaalsTears
#25
Let her give the gift of life by sentencing her to make monthy deposits in the blood bank, and donation of a kidney and lung to those in need.
 
JLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

Let her give the gift of life by sentencing her to make monthy deposits in the blood bank, and donation of a kidney and lung to those in need.


Nothing wrong with a "gift of life" as long as it can be done without diminishing her own!. The trick is to correct a situation while keeping everyone whole! -
 

Similar Threads

25
Branding Sea Lions-Justice Served at Last!
by bill barilko | Mar 26th, 2013
45
Justice in Michael Bryant case
by CDNBear | May 28th, 2010
16
Justice is Served in Texas
by Nascar_James | Sep 14th, 2005
15
Justice served....?
by I think not | Jul 5th, 2005
no new posts