The jury concluded that the sum of the value of each of those 23 cats' lives did not amount to $500. In essence the cats were seen as unwanted "throwaways": the jury found that there was no significant harm in killing them, even in this violent, senseless way. When asked, Juror Jeremie McCoy, aged 19, called the acts "a stupid, childish mistake." When asked if he had ever killed a cat, the juror replied "I think everybody has in their childhoodRyan Stewart.
Law & Society.
Professor Schiava.
April 23, 2002.
Animal Rights.
In our society today many people share a very close relationship with other non-human animals. These animals often include cats, dogs, birds and fish to name a few and many treat them as if they were another member of their family. Of course, as said by Francione, many of these people do not think twice before eating meat or wearing leather clothing. This just exemplifies the distinguished differences that many people see between certain animals. The question is now whether or not it is right to treat animals with that double standard. What is the difference between treating some animals humanely as "part of the family" while also justifying maiming and violence toward animals for the purpose of food or religious rituals? Do some animals have more "rights" than others because we believe they are more intelligent and have the ability to reason and therefore, serve a better purpose to us? The answers to these questions are quite evident in the way human beings treat animals both socially and legally. Whether or not this is morally right is a different story.
Constantly in our legal system animals are looked at as property of humans, not as living creatures. They are judged by their value, just the same as a car or a television set would be. Traditionally judgements even rule in favor that an inanimate object such as a television set that is worth $1,000 in monetary value, is more valuable than a cat someone may have purchased at an animal shelter for maybe $50.
