Our final blog post will examine one of our second most important reasons why society should not only take animal abuse seriously, but improve the ways in which it is disciplined. There is much reason to believe that the gap between animal neglect and child abuse or public violence is closing in more each year. The anger and instability that a person feels to harm something smaller and less defensive than him/herself can be a strong indicator of their mindset. Although I understand that there are millions of cases in America alone of animal abuse, I believe that in the middle to severe cases where a ruling of probation and a fee are given there needs to be an investigation into the home life of that individual. When a person expresses the desire to force violence upon a pet in any way, what’s to say they will refrain from the same type of anger with family members? Also, there is a vicious circle that occurs when young adults are abused as children because they usually begin to harm small wild animals, and move towards other animals and possibly people like small children, who then are given the pain that their abuser felt.As a result of this abuse, people take their anger and aggression on something or someone that they find weaker than them. They use the others lack of defense as an excuse to build themselves up. Animals unfortunately catch the bad end of these bad situations too many times. Animals are put into homes or exploited against there will at their own expense and put into danger. We need to be more aware as a nation of the growing problem that our country faces. There needs to be a stop to the unnecessary abuse, and in that process abuse as a whole can be decreased; from animals to children to domestic. So join us in helping end abuse by starting with our furry friends!

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/188677.pdf

There's your trouble.

The trouble with animal abuse is that even though Every state in the United States and the District of Columbia has a law prohibiting cruelty to animals, "These laws do not give animals rights" (straypetadvocacy.org).. So this means that without justifiable cause that an animal is being abused, they are exempted to the right of a humane lifestyle with a family that will care for them. Isn't it believed that humans originally evolved from animals, and in that case, why should we have lists upon lists of rights when our furry friends do not have the simplest one? To live healthily. Along with this, the charges that the accused receive is slim in many states, and I think that needs to be changed and stricter. In the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota there are no penalties to cruelty to animals. And in some states like TN the most time that an individual will receive in prison is 9 months and no fine. There needs to be a government standard in accordance to causing intentional harm to domesticated animals. If there was, I would suggest at least a one year sentence on top of a hefty fine. If this was enacted, there would be expectations that national ads can print and organizations can begin to reach out to get more attention about. With such a range of charges it becomes difficult to have a commercial reaching to all 50 states when it does not apply to them all. Lastly in terms of the media, even though many organizations have been steady with their public awareness commercials-specifically of the adoption issue and lack of funding-it is clear that the consequences are not listed. If the public is not educated on the sentencing that can occur after causing harm to an animal like this, there is no way that they will be able to understand the seriousness of the matter. The action that needs to take place now is showing the people in our communities the real facts, that you can get jail time of more than 5 years in some states for crimes against animals. PSA's need to begin speaking out on this problem, and boldly drawing the lines for the public to see that they can and will be charged to the fullest extent. If all we do is smack a fine in somebody's face for their neglect, it will influence them just as much as a parking ticket. Do we really think a life is worth a dollar amount? http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_laws.php

Animals in Entertainment: The Downfall

Animals are abused and exploited in a variety of forms of "entertainment." One of the main focuses are on the use of animals in circuses; elephants, lions, tigers, and other animals are sentenced to a lifetime of misery in order to provide a few moments of human amusement. Using animals in circuses is an unnecessary and inhumane practice that's harmful to both the animals and the public. Unlike the human performers who choose to work in circuses, exotic animals are forced to take part in the show. They are involuntary actors in a program that degrades them and deprives them of their natural behaviors. Government inspection reports reveal ongoing mistreatment of animals in circuses, as well as failures to provide the basic minimal standards of care required by law. Animals used in circuses have been injured and killed, and have injured and killed humans. The tricks that animals are forced to perform, night after night, are frightening, unnatural, and even painful. “Standard circus industry practice is to use bullhooks and other objects to poke, prod, strike, shock, and hit animals in order to "train" them. Industries also claim that they only train animals to do the types of tricks they might naturally perform in their native habitat. But common sense dictates that elephants in the wild don't eagerly stand on their heads and that tigers don't naturally jump through hoops.” (bornfreeusa.org). Animals in circuses spend about 11 months of the year traveling and spend thousands of hours, are chained are chained in vehicles that lack climate control, and force them to stand or lie in their own waste. Circuses may seem like a friendly form of entertainment, but not many about the horrors that occur behind the scenes. What circuses are really teaching children is that it’s acceptable to exploit and mistreat animals for amusement. While circuses are the main source of animal abuse in entertainment, places such as marine parks, zoos, aquariums, animal race tracks, fighting venues, and move/television programs also exploit animals on a daily basis. We as race get so wrapped up in our own need for entertainment that we forget that animals are being abused regularly for our sake.

Animoto 2

Animoto 2


Story of the canines abandoned and left to roam Puerto Rico.

Animal Abuse

Animal Abuse

Less gore, more focus on the real issue.

During this week’s initial research on the cruelty of animals, specifically canines, Michelle and I decided to look through the general cases of abuse and stories that have shown up in the news and write about how we would like to respond to them. The first one that we came across described numerous events of neglect towards domestic dogs living with incapable owners. The article also describes the ways which the dogs were mistreated and how it has lead towards many stricter laws for future caretakers, but even though there are specialized police force out there like the ASPCA, most animal injuries go unnoticed. Even with the addition of stronger laws that are meant to protect these animals by setting a standard of harsher jail times and fees attached to the abusers, there is no way for these people to come to the realization that, “oh maybe I actually could get in pretty serious trouble by doing this” because of the serious lack of PSA’s in the US. Online articles may depict the stories of the animals and punishments that went along with it, but if I were not doing research on the subject, I would not ever come across it. The focus is more on showing the graphic nature of the abuse to the readers, maybe because of the gore factor, rather than giving the public more knowledge about recognizing the signs of an abuser, or the seriousness of animal cruelty. If the commercials for television took less emphasis on the need for funding the veterinary shelters and more towards the facts of jail time for criminals. The dollar a day fund only asks for money and shows a picture of a skinny dog. Instead what they should be doing is linking together both of the topics, or creating multiple advertisements where they can merge the focus groups. As important as I believe it is to fund a great project, I think that is only half the battle. Maybe we should be more concerned with stopping the acts before they are committed, and then shelters and animal hospitals will not have to continue to expand with rising populations.

http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/news-updates/dogs-that-inspired-stronger-animal-cruelty-laws

Elections test

The first statement that I want to put out onto this part of my blog post is how much I root for the underdog, because they are usually the ones who really understand how the world works when there are limits and money is not available at your fingertips. So what it takes to get elected in this country can change as the needs for the country do, but hands down it always has to do with the connections one has with the right people. Hard money is the governments’ way of setting a fair boundary among all competitors. Sure, using hard money as a resource is helpful to everybody, because it finances you to be able to reach out the society and visit different walks of life while on your campaign, but the real problem has to do with where the soft money is. The soft money is the portal for campaigns to receive funds in the form of public advertisements. Out of personal belief, I view Political Action Committees as another way to receive money from outside corporations. They are workers that are considered the middleman of the economic state of a candidate. I believe that to win an election you need to have public appeal and confidence in the issues that you stand by.
Democracy is defined as a system that is for the people, by the people, and power is vested in the people. The freedom of media coverage and funding attached to candidates makes me think that yes it is democratic the way campaigning works, but no I do not think that it is ‘fair’. Speaking of fair, media bias will be evident as long as there are opinions, and they can make a candidates run for office or break it. Both the reporter and public figure have to feed off of each other for success and without the crucial interviews and photos there is no hope for Americans to see their new representative in an objective light. After all of the ratings are in the next step is the voting. Between those who are able to and those who choose to, voter turnout is crucial because without it there is contentment with the race and the election has lost desire. Low turnout is not good for America, but then at the same time there should not be pressure to mandate voting because there are individuals out there that do not have the maturity level or whatnot to be deciding on the political figures of the county, state, or country. Only those who believe they are capable of the responsibility it takes to share their political opinion in a prepared and knowledgeable way.

"Civil Liberties Test"

Why is it that we can call the Bill of Rights “protected freedoms”, but we cannot justify it? When you combine the issues of protections vs. freedoms, the first step is always to keep a balance. The first amendmant adresses both cases of Tinker v. DesMoines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir in the interests of press freedoms and symbolic speech. With both cases, the matters were not serious enough that an individual needed to be convicted, so the main idea was to find that balance between protecting student rights and limiting them. The student that pronounced her grievances publicly had her own right to free speech, but the school had the right to limit that because of disruption of student learning. With Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, the freedom of press and speech was condemmed because of the way that they named other students in correspondence with controversial statements. The collision here ultimately came down to the right a school obtains to protect the majority of the student body over the protection of one students’ rights. On either side the outcome may have seen unfair, because of the Prior Restraint acts, but it was crucial that the school administrators put forth the safety of the students who had no control over the article.
Moving onto the 5th amendment, which reads No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a man was arrested, he confessed to a crime, and then later recanted his confession. Through the crack in the Due Process Amendments, he was uninformed of his rights, specifically that of his right to stay silent. His self incrimination was protected because of the fact that whomever placed him under arrest withheld his rights, and basically didn’t do their job correctly. In this situation, a man who had commited a crime was let go all because he had not been told about a loophole that would protect him. He was a part of a case that was when both protections and freedoms merged to keep him out of jail. Some may say that this is a result of the mixing of the two issues, and that when we put basic rights as stated by the constitution together with governments highest protections, it creates a pool for error within the juidicial system with respects to determining the “right” way to solve, prosecute, and convict a case. On the other hand, people say that the protection of the 5th amendment results in the withholding of information, and therefore the freedom of this certain American because of yet another flaw in the shakey system. When one person does their job incorrectly it can cause a spiral effect of the entire case, and it can, and will almost always result in the freedom of the accused. Not even a confession is free to use in courts against him.
Lastly I would like to talk about the 6th amendment, which concludes with the statement “and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense” a court is liable of keeping together the protection of the people by giving them every basic resource that they may need in court. The case of Gideon v. Wainright was considered a final juiciary malfunction, because as a poor man, he was unable to provide himself with a lawyer and was not appointed one by the courts. And whilehe did not receive that and was sent away, he still had the opportunity to get another trial because of a fault in the decision making of the courts. I believe strongly that the re-trial of this individual and all other cases were not a result in the clash of freedoms and protections, because I think that they coincide and create a balance in the otherwise complicated system. I think that sole reason that the men and women in the 5th and 6th amendment cases are more lucky from the lack of responsibility and knowledge of individuals that did not do their jobs, not that the laws were corrupted or the amendments were flawed. With the first amendment cases, the continuation of protection of students and freedom of speech is crucial on both sides, except in the end it resulted in the sacrifice of one persons freedom so that the protection of a group could be ensured. It is all about weighing the differences, and making the choice that will make more of a positive impact and positive result.

New Post

This is my test post.