Attitudes toward animal abuse

The recent case of a Pomeranian battered to death by a man who remains at large brought tears to the eyes of animal lovers who heard about the incident through news reports. Sympathetic people must have asked themselves: Could no one have stepped in to help? The poor dog must have been terrified and baffled, and throughout its ten minutes of horror before death finally took it, it must have wondered why none of the other humans standing around would intervene on its behalf.

When a dog’s life is worth less than a pack of beer
While some may suggest that Singaporeans are generally apathetic, or fear getting involved in matters beyond their personal affairs, others say that the people of this country do not empathise much with animals, which is why no one has come forward to identify the killer of the Pomeranian despite the offer of a large cash reward. Such lack of empathy may also be the reason why cases of pet abuse seem to be on the rise here.

If that is true, then laws against animal abuse should result in more severe punishment. Longer jail terms and bigger fines will help to send the message that abusing an animal is not a small matter with minor repercussions, but a serious offence that warrants serious action. When that message gets through, even people who do not empathise with non-humans will be more likely to refrain from animal abuse, or stop others from committing animal abuse, purely out of the awareness that a serious crime is being committed.

Yet, the heaviest sentences I have seen meted out include a mere six weeks’ jail for a man who killed a kitten in 2004, and a three-month jail term which a judge turned into a $1,500 fine for a man who kicked a Boxer to death in 1999.

Offenders who have stolen beer and sweets from supermarkets without physically injuring anyone or anything have been jailed for longer than that. Is the life of a dog or cat really worth less than a few packs of alcohol and chocolate? Is that the message our society wants to send out?

What constitutes animal abuse?
Psychologists and other experts who advise that animal abusers be prosecuted or counselled often say that it is wise to re-educate such offenders and keep an eye on them because those who kill or maim animals may go on to kill or maim humans.

While that is a sensible argument for getting through to people who don’t care for animals, it is interesting that we are obliged to resort to it at all. Shouldn’t abusing an animal be an appalling act in itself? Must it be prevented only because of the possibility that humans may later be harmed? Surely the animal’s life is of value in itself.

One difficulty in preventing animal abuse, though, is that people’s definitions of what constitutes abuse may differ. To one person, abuse involves inflicting serious and permanent physical harm on an animal; to another, it means depriving a pampered pet of luxuries.

Between those extremes is a range of acts that may include caning, smacking, confinement in small spaces, tying up the pet, failure to provide adequate food and water, failure to provide shelter from the elements, failure to provide companionship, failure to give the pet adequate exercise, depriving the pet of rest, pressuring the pet to perform tricks, failing to provide adequate medical attention, frightening or intimidating the animal, sending inconsistent disciplinary messages, causing unnecessary stress, and not providing love and affection.

To some pet owners, some of those acts are abusive; to other pet owners, some of those acts are part of the normal relationship between animals and humans. Those who campaign for animal rights consider slaughtering a chicken for food cruel and abusive; those who make a living selling meat regard slaughtering chickens as acceptable so long as the chickens aren’t pets, and are killed quickly, without unnecessary suffering.

People who take one position are not easily converted to another. However, definitions and societal tolerance may change over time, along with changes in society. Gradually, more people are seeing that causing emotional suffering and distress to a pet can be as abusive as harming it physically.

Even if a pet is not permanently or seriously hurt, but is a neurotic wreck because it never knows when it will or will not be punished, should that not be considered abuse? If a pet is regularly threatened, or tied up or confined to a cage all day, is that not abusive?

People attitudes towards pets are getting from bad to worst. They just abuse their pets like they are just an object. They even just abandoned the pets after abusing them without treating their wounds. They are so cruel! They should be caught and handed over to the police. Pets are also living creatures. They have feelings too. We should not just treat them like they are a object. Pets are the most loyal to you compared to people. The abusers even caused their pets to have psychological problems and the pets become mentally unstable. We should give our utmost care to the pets. Pet abusers should be disgusted of themself, for harming such a innocent little creature.