Cat death sentences too short?

HERE we go again - a mediocre sentence for the killing by drowning of four innocent creatures (Mail, August 23).

What paltry punishment - a suspended prison sentence, fine, supervision for two years and 180 hours of unpaid work plus a ten-year ban on keeping animals.

Samantha Browning and her friend Sophie Bird, both prime specimens of the dross of humanity without an ounce of compassion in their bodies, should have gone to prison for at least one year, preferably longer.

Animals give you their unconditional love. They don't ask for much except food and a warm place to sleep.

Yes, food can be expensive, especially for several animals, but why take them on in the first place since1 it is obvious that purchasing drink was more important than the upkeep of the cats? Did it never occur to Sophie Bird that she could have taken them to a refuge where they would have stood a chance of re-homing by a new loving owner? I am totally disgusted by the court's sentence.

I will vote for any party that guarantees a revision of sentences for animal cruelty, making them much more severe.

Have your say and comment below...

No comments:

Post a Comment