Egregious animal cruelty offences are treated as insignificant by justice administrations across Australia, one example being the overturning of the sentence of Sydney financier Brendan Francis McMahon for brutalizing and mutilating dozens of rabbits and a guinea pig.

He was also originally charged with bestiality, but those charges were later dropped (why? if there was evidence to support those charges, they should have proceeded). The gaol sentence was quashed on the grounds of "mental illness". McMahon claimed that he was mentally ill from smoking hundreds of dollars a day worth of "ice" (methamphetamine)

Representations were made to the NSW government that smoking "ice" is in fact a lifestyle choice, not a "mental illness".

Pet shops continued to sell these defenceless animals to this man, and this case illustrates why animals should not be allowed to be sold by pet shops, where there is no responsibility of forethought given to their future welfare.

The response from the NSW Attorney General's department clearly rates McMahon's lifestyle choices significantly higher than the obscene suffering to which he subjected these unfortunate animals, merely affirming that McMahon was mentally ill at the time.

Now he can go out there and do it all again!

No justice system is more lacking in animal welfare sanctions than Tasmania's.

In October a sheep farmer of 20 years experience, Robert Charles Gregg from York Plains in the Midlands of Tasmania, was charged under Sections 7, 8 and 9 ("using an inappropriate method of management of an animal", cruelty and aggravated cruelty).

RSPCA inspectors found more than 150 sheep on Gregg's property had starved to death. 1,000 more were scored by a Tasmanian Government Veterinary Officer as "emaciated, near death", four were "cast" (too weak to rise), and their eyes had been pecked out by crows. Gregg said that he "didn't mean to do it", he was an "avid animal lover" (God help the animals he doesn't love), and he didn't know how much he should have been feeding them. For this carnage, he got a one month suspended sentence. That's all. The RSPCA Chief Animal Welfare Officer said that a prohibition upon his ever having control over animals again "couldn't be done because they were his livelihood"

More recently, Richard Rainbird, a farmer from near New Norfolk in southern Tasmania was charged over an unknown number of dead and dying cattle and 150 severely neglected sheep. He "didn't mean to do it" either, and got a 28 day suspended sentence. They can both go right out there and do it all again.

At least two other animal abusers failed to attend court and remain unapprehended.

Tasmania is unique in its inclusion in the Act of provisions about "using an unsatisfactory method of management of an animal", the mechanism by which the charges are little more than a "slap on the wrist". Early this year, the hideous death of the bull "After Dark" at the Carrick Rodeo was televised nationally. The people who kicked his face and paralyzed body as they forced him to drag himself to a truck, where they left him for over an hour without veterinary assistance, have been thus charged

Pleas to the supremely ineffectual Minister, the DPP and the Attorney General have fallen upon deaf ears.

Where is the justice for the animals?

To reply to Nicky, I have to agree. If you have ever had a dog or a cat, they are trusting and devoted. They will do anything for you. Then someone comes along and abuses the animal. There are only three differences between the abuse of an animal abuse of a person. The first is the animal cannot talk. The second is the punishment never is fitting. The third is they are allowed to repeat offend. So what is the solution, there must be someone in power who actually cares for their pets. I know that if someone abused my dog, I would not stand by and let the courts stand by and issue a slap on the wrist. Once the conviction was passed, I would go after them in civil court as well. I would put up posters, go to the media, appeal laws, whatever it takes to get people like this off the streets. Here is a question. If a dog bites some one, the owner is held liable and the dog is destroyed, even if it is defending itself against someone throwing rocks at it. As the dog does not understand the legal system, it is destroyed. The person does understand the legal system and has a voice, gets away with a fine. My point is the dog has to give up its life, the person walks away. There are only two things that people feel. Time and money, If they have to do time, whether it is community service or prison, or large sums of money. If the abuse of a child carries a 5 year sentence, let them do 5 years of community service, make the punishment a deterrent not a joke.

I think most animal cruelty starts with the animal being unwanted. Whether it is a paddock of starving sheep or a cat. My blood boils when I see advertisements in the paper “wanted a good home for fluffy kittens”. The “fluffy Kittens” would be better served if sold for lobster bait or fertiliser, as they are almost certain to end up unwanted and targeted with cruelty or neglect. Cats and dogs need to be registered with realistic charges not token amounts, if you keep a dog or a cat then you should pay at least $100 per year for de-sexed animals and several hundred for unsexed animals. We do not need the burden of unlimited supplies of fluffy kittens and pups handed out to anyone who responds to these advertisements.

Using the case of one crazy drugged-up yuppie to generalize on animal cruelty is not the most stable of starting-points, Nicky.

The line between being sane/responsible and insane/not responsible is one that has exercised psychologists, legislators, philosophers (and more recently pharmacologists) for generations. Refresh your thinking on it with these recent pieces:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8453850

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-2251248.html

Back on the subject, I have a major problem with cruelty, whether practised on humans or animals. One result of this is that I firmly believe that keeping animals as pets carries with it the same level of cruelty as depriving a human being of their liberty and free will.

So when I see the courts taking it easy on cruelty simply because it is perpetrated on animals, I am totally unsurprised, as it is all of a piece with people's attitude in general to other species. If and when we see the light, and owning animals becomes as frowned upon as - say - smoking, I may be a little more sympathetic.

Pericles, hugely interesting links and also right at the cutting
edge of science, so I'd say way above the heads of most bleading
heart animal lovers on this thread. But certainly lots of food
for thought, for those interested, which includes me.

The question you raise is an interesting one. Is the life of an
animal, say one of our pets, better off not having been lived at
all, rather then lived as it is? Call them slaves, companion
species, whatever. Everyone has to make a living and it seems
to me that some have simply evolved to make their living in this
way.

Lets take Nicky's dogs. Would they have been better off, never
having existed, then the life they lead, with Nicky as their
"God" ? Interesting question it certainly is. I don't claim
to know all the answers.

Yup judges are lenient on animal cruelty, but they are lenient on
many crimes. I agree that people with a history of obvious
cruelty, should lose the right to be responsible for a whole lot
of other animals. We ourselves, are simply another species of
animals, after all.