animal precinct

as a lover of animals, i quite frequently watch animal planet and i often find myself watching the vast array of animal cop shows that deal with animal abuse.

one of the things that i have noticed from watching these shows is the severe lack of justice for the animals that are abused.

one instance that i watched today in fact, featured a pitbull who the people at the Arizona humane society named Lewis. Lewis was hog-tied, severely beaten, thrown into a dustbin, closed in there and then placed in an alleyway bin. Left there to die.

What's even more incredulous than the sheer brutality of Lewis's abuse, is the fact that the person who inflicted such abuse was never found, and thus never convicted.

And worse than that, is the fact that even when they know the people who have caused the animals pain and trauma, and even when they send them to court, and even when the animals have to be put down as a result of the abuse they suffered, what punishment do the people receive?

a $400 fine. a week in jail. a month's community service.

How is it in any way justice for the crimes that they have committed?

Why is it that our justice system for humans is so different from our justice system for animals?

If the sort of crime that had happened to Lewis had happened to a human; an adult or even a child, the law enforcement would be using leagues of crime scene investigators and detectives in order to try and find the culprit and when found, they would be serving a lot more than one week in jail.

I understand that due to the fact that we are one of the only "animals" on the Earth with sentient abilities and because we are certainly the most sophisticated and evolved animals on the planet may mean that we feel as if we are "above" all the other creatures and that we rule this planet over them, but surely, since we are so civilised and so highly sophisticated we would be able to put aside our narcissistic customs and serve equal justice for all crimes of that manner.

i just don't know how we can call ourselves civilised if we allow our people to treat seemingly "inferior" animals like that, with little consequence.

the other thing that baffles me, is that we hold quite severe punishment for people who poach in Africa and for people who sell animals parts on the black market, yet when it comes to domesticated animals, the level of importance seems to drop quite exponentially. Why?

perhaps because we have made domesticated animals, as they are, domesticated, we have little respect for them because they are not wild, they do not surpass us in any way and they have been changed to suit us and therefore we see them as even less important than or 'dignified' than the animals that still put up a 'fight' and that still have their primal instincts in full swing.

and i think that's particular poignant too. by making dogs and cats domestic as well as horses and other pets, we have stripped them of their fighting nature, their protective instincts and have left them at the will of man, defenseless. that should give us even more incentive to protect them. it was us that made them so powerless. we did that to them. making any action of abuse purely unexplainable. inexcusable.

Justice?  my ass.

oh no you didn't

what amazes me is the way that a person's mentality can change once their anonymity changes too.
my excellent friend and IB graduate was talking to me about it the other day and he said

"anyone who has the benefit of anonymity is always going to be unnecessarily harsh, even if they dont believe what theyre saying. I studied it in psychology. Anonymity gives people power to say and do things that they know are wrong. Thats why you see people laughing on facebook groups about people who die because insensitivity becomes irrelevant if you dont have an identity"

I think that last line is fantastic - insensitivity becomes irrelevant when you don't have an identity

And i think its exactly right. When people don't have to worry about being identified they suddenly decide to throw all their morals out the window and become a new person, whether for the better or for the worst. This is evident throughout many forums, blogs and all over facebook. Anonymous comments can be seen all over the web attacking people for their beliefs and making purely insulting and unsubstantiated comments about people the don't even know.

this could also work the other way around. Insensitivity become irrelevant when you're doing it to someone who doesn't have an identithy. I believe that sort of mentality may have some relevance when mentioning certain aspects of torture during periods of war and civil unrest such as WW2. This is not in any way an excuse for the actions of course, but acts merely as a statement of the possible frame of mind and concept belief that those people may have held.

Why is this so however?

I guess a lot of people love the idea of being able to act without consequences, something that is unlikely to happen in their everyday life but in the anonymous world of the internet can be a frequent occurence.

What this says about us as people i don't really know. And i dont even know what this says about us as knowers.

But i suppose it is a good thing that we all have identities, they put boundaries on us and on our actions and make us think twice before acting the way we do.

censor censor

The other day in TOK i had to present an issue that i thought was relevant and that i had come across in everyday life.

I decided to focus on an issue that my parents and i were talking about the other day during dinner.

We were talking about issues from the past, such as the Vietnam War and the Apartheid as well as the genocide with Pol Pot.

My mum then said to my dad

"god i remember when i was much younger and i was watching the news with my parents when they showed this man getting shot by one of Pol Pot's men on the tv, do you remember that?"

and it got me thinking.

When was the last time we saw something like that on our news?

We very seldom get shown any violent footage on the news anymore, nothing compared to what they used to show, and although i would agree world issues has become more televised as a whole, i would argue that the content has been lessened in violence.

If this is the case, should it be up to the news, to decide the extent to which we see things?

As suggested in class the reason behind the news's choice to not show such violent footage could be due to the fact that the public may react negatively and cause problems for the news companies.

But I still don't believe that this is morally right. A lot of people rely on the news to show them important world issues. And although a lot of people may not want to see violent or disturbing footage on the news, it is the truth and just because it makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean we should detach ourselves from it.

In terms of parental issues. I think that it is their responsibility to shield the violent footage from their children if they wish, but not the news channel's decision to not even give the public the choice either way.

As knowers, this says that we may not actually know a lot of what we think we know, and that a lot of our knowledge claims could be more altered or censored than we realise. I guess this particular issue really highlights the concern of truth and reality compared to the perception of reality.