Why kill a dog who bites, but not a man who kills?

[Soapy Sam]

In a thread in community, about the dog that savaged tim and several other people, Rolfe (who is, of course, a vet, not an executioner) wrote-

I find it hard to be all that sad. Lovely, friendly dogs are being put down every day just because they don't have a home. This one, I can cope with. I'd do it myself in a heartbeat.

Now Rolfe and I assuredly agree it's sad that "good", socialised dogs are killed for reasons of minor inconvenience to owners, while the dangerous animal that attacked tim and others is still alive. There's every chance it might attack someone else. The rational case for killing it is clear and Rolfe would kill it herself.

I'm not sure I could kill a dog, unless it was in serious pain and that was all I could do for it. But I've killed turkeys and sheep and goats, for no reason besides dinner. I never (as far as I know) killed a human either, but there are some whose execution I think would cause me no greater qualms than Rolfe's in the case of the vicious dog.

Rolfe is a Christian as well as a vet and firmly opposed to the death penalty for any and all human criminals, while accepting of it in terms of asocial and dangerous animals.
It's a paradoxical attitude I cannot understand in purely rational terms.

Why is it fine to "put down" a healthy animal which simply behaved according to it's nature, yet it is unacceptable to apply the same standard to a human?

Many people will feel the answer is obvious- that it's just wrong to kill a human and there's an end to it. It just is!

But that's no answer at all, as sceptics ought to appreciate. It's just a restatement of the assumption.

So what are the rational reasons to oppose the execution of the small percentage of criminals we have already decided can never be released from prison? (As opposed to the moral or emotional ones).

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I think (and I'm being serious here) that a lot (not all, by any means) of the anti-death penalty talk around here is based solely on the fact that the US still uses it in some states.

And whatever the US does is bad. If we had "Free Cupcake Friday" in the US, thousands of Euros would immediately shun cupcakes and go to geat lengths to make sure everyone else knew that not only do they not eat cupcakes, but consider anyone who would eat a cupcake as a barbarian.

So, basically, I don't think there really is a rational reason.

 

[Xulld]

The morality is not different, however your ability to respond often is, this is about the situation and where we find the dangerous animal (people are animals too!)

firmly opposed to the death penalty for any and all human criminals, while accepting of it in terms of asocial and dangerous animals.
It's a paradoxical attitude I cannot understand in purely rational terms.

My point is this, your situation sets up two very different scenarios. The man in prison is not capable of harming me right this minute, we have time to investigate and maybe even rehabilitate.

The dog in the street in the act of attacking would be on par with the criminal on the street in the act of attacking. Deal with it based on the threat level. No threat, you have options. Deadly threat, counter it with deadly force.

Personally I am all for taking these kinds of dogs, and trying to rehabilitate them, however you must understand this poses all kinds of risks for the person making the attempt, and if no such person steps forward . . . . .

Do we then tax dog owners so we can have a life sentence and create a doggy prison?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

We do lots of things to other animals that we don't do to humans. Did I miss a memo? Are we supposed to see them as equivalent?

 

[tim]

Sam, I take your point. Why is it ok to kill a dog but not a man?
Have you considered that a dog has no idea of it's impending death and as such doesn't feel the anguish a human being may suffer knowing he's going to die?
But yes, there is an assumption that a human life is more important. As the person who has been the bitee, as it were, I have no hatred for the dog in question and if I could be sure that it wouldn't bite anyone else, then - let him live. But he has bitten two others since including a 4 year old boy. The guilt lies with the owner, Mr Ward, for not keeping his dog under control.

 

[Soapy Sam]

We do lots of things to other animals that we don't do to humans. Did I miss a memo? Are we supposed to see them as equivalent?

Not necessarily, but the actions are equivalent and a Martian , who accepted the reason to destroy a dog, might be excused for thinking it applied at least as much to a human.
Your response assumes (as we generally do) that the equivalency has limits. The question I'm really interested in, is how do we decide where to set those limits.

 

[tim]

And by the way, I totally oppose the death penalty. But. The. Dog. Bit. Me. I have the scars. My dominant hand is crippled. I have the witnesses. Mr Ward accepts, and has pled guilty to two charges of having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. There's no doubt here. The dog is dangerous.

 

[Ryokan]

I think (and I'm being serious here) that a lot (not all, by any means) of the anti-death penalty talk around here is based solely on the fact that the US still uses it in some states.

And whatever the US does is bad. If we had "Free Cupcake Friday" in the US, thousands of Euros would immediately shun cupcakes and go to geat lengths to make sure everyone else knew that not only do they not eat cupcakes, but consider anyone who would eat a cupcake as a barbarian.

So, basically, I don't think there really is a rational reason.

No.

 

[bookitty]

The dog can not fully understand why it is bad to bite, or what the repercussions of that bite will be. A human can understand why it is bad to kill. This is one of the reasons why we differ from animals.

The humans who are responsible for choosing which humans will legally die because they have killed are elected officials. They represent everyone in their district. Not everyone in that district wants to be socially responsible for a death or to be involved in a vengeance murder. Being involved in killing someone should not be forced upon anyone.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

No.

You owe Scrut fifty cents.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Sam, I take your point. Why is it ok to kill a dog but not a man?
Have you considered that a dog has no idea of it's impending death and as such doesn't feel the anguish a human being may suffer knowing he's going to die?
But yes, there is an assumption that a human life is more important. As the person who has been the bitee, as it were, I have no hatred for the dog in question and if I could be sure that it wouldn't bite anyone else, then - let him live. But he has bitten two others since including a 4 year old boy. The guilt lies with the owner, Mr Ward, for not keeping his dog under control.

I have no idea what a dog experiences , tim. The arguments Victorian eugenicists used about black people being insensitive to pain , while whites showed stoical bravery in resisting it sound oddly like some of the things we say about animals. I doubt we need to understand fear in order to feel it.
It's also arguable that a life sentence is also a horrific thing to hold over someone . (To me, far worse than a bullet in the night, though everyone will differ on this).

But we have some thoughtful responses already.

 

[Xulld]

With no doggy prison, we can have no life sentences.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think (and I'm being serious here) that a lot (not all, by any means) of the anti-death penalty talk around here is based solely on the fact that the US still uses it in some states.

And whatever the US does is bad. If we had "Free Cupcake Friday" in the US, thousands of Euros would immediately shun cupcakes and go to geat lengths to make sure everyone else knew that not only do they not eat cupcakes, but consider anyone who would eat a cupcake as a barbarian.

So, basically, I don't think there really is a rational reason.

I accept there will be some who take that sort of contrarian stance, but it's no more rational than the opposite view. I'm seeking objective, reasoned arguments..

 

[Soapy Sam]

With no doggy prison, we can have no life sentences.

All dogs are prisoners to a degree. They do not share human level freedoms or rights. They are property. I've known some very unhappy dogs.And there are long stay kennels and pounds...

 

[Cleon]

It's a paradoxical attitude I cannot understand in purely rational terms.

Perhaps a "purely rational" outlook is less than useful in this situation.

We treat other species differently than we treat our own; this is hardly limited to the "why is it ok to put down a dog but not a human" argument. We eat animals, plants, fungii, etc - but eating other people tends to be frowned upon, especially in public.

Even the way we treat other species isn't exactly consistent. We swat flies without a second thought, we slaughter cows and pigs by the metric ****load, but if we get wind of someone in Korea or China eating dog for dinner our panties start bunching up.

 

[Belz...]

Dogs are not people.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The dog can not fully understand why it is bad to bite, or what the repercussions of that bite will be. A human can understand why it is bad to kill. This is one of the reasons why we differ from animals.

The humans who are responsible for choosing which humans will legally die because they have killed are elected officials. They represent everyone in their district. Not everyone in that district wants to be socially responsible for a death or to be involved in a vengeance murder. Being involved in killing someone should not be forced upon anyone.

This seems to be the leader so far, deeply cynical though it is. (Not you, Bookitty, the officials). However, till now (though maybe not in future) neither police nor judges are elected officials in the UK.

 

[James Fox]

I'm not opposed to killing a person as a means of punishment for exceptionally serious crimes; however I am opposed to the death penalty overall (except perhaps when it’s mass murder or genocide with overwhelming evidence) because there are too many issues related to the justice process and the inherent limitations of the humans involved to make the death penalty a reasonable and just option. My opinion regarding dangerous animals is that destroying/putting down/killing such an animal is often not only reasonable, it should be mandatory in many circumstances; and as others have mentioned an apples v oranges discussion IMO.

 

[Dessi]

We do lots of things to other animals that we don't do to humans. Did I miss a memo? Are we supposed to see them as equivalent?

I can count 6 or 7 forumites who seem to think so.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Dogs are not people.

That is not a reason. It's a statement of fact. What I'm after is how we draw conclusions from the fact.