Please help! email court for max sentence on woman who abused puppy

[peacebuzzard]

in front of children. Puppy later euthanized. Details here:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/07/jury-convicts-woman-misdemeanor-cruelty/

and please email polite concerns on this issue to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Anderson County, Tennessee. The clerk is Barry Pelizzari, (DEM) for the judge: Judge Ron Elledge.

[e-mail]

The voiceless animals thank you, DUers, for your time.

P.S. can you believe the psycho woman's name is Princess???

[jgraz]

1. There should be no such thing as "misdemeanor" cruelty to animals

This kind of shit will continue until people start doing hard time for it.

[LandOLincoln]

2. I think they should just

"euthanize" her.

[kdmorris]

3. Veterinaria said:

Baron said the dog had sustained the equivalent of a “very bad concussion.’’ He said the animal “had a very poor ability’’ to use its left-side limbs.

The puppy was severely dehydrated, covered in fleas and ticks and suffered “a heavy parasitic burden within its intestines,’’ Baron testified.

So, that puppy's entire life was of no loving human, no water, and abuse. It doesn't say what happened to the other puppy this woman claims to have had. (She testified she saw children hitting her two recently adopted puppies with sticks the day before.)

I don't get how that's a misdemeanor. What the hell was the jury thinking? They lowered her sentence to the misdemeanor and the MAX she can get is 11 months. No way she'll serve that much time.

Just another symptom of a society that's become too mean.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Perhaps the jury listened to the elements of each crime

Weighed the evidence presented to it, and determined that the prosecution had only proven the elements of the included misdemeanor, not the felony.

I am not promoting cruelty to animals - I find it abhorrent that people are deliberately cruel to animals.

BUT - all we know is what the reporter chose to write - which may have little connection to reality (either factual or legal). That's why we have a jury system - so a group of individuals can be educated as to what must be proven, what occurred (including weighing the believability of individuals who may be presenting conflicting testimony) and decide whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged actually committed each and every element of the crime with which she is charged.

It's not perfect; there are occasionally guilty people who go free - and more often (poor, minority) innocent people who are convicted - but it's a lot more reliable than being judged by the membership of DU based on the story a single reporter chose to tell. As someone who has occasionally been called to challenge the imposition of the death penalty - I am grateful that the judge cannot legally consider any opinions about punishment s/he receives from family, friends, or emails from people who heard about the story on line. Frankly, I wish there were better insulation - since studies have shown that when an elected judge shows what can be portrayed by the media as leniency in a capital case s/he is generally not re-elected.

[kdmorris]

21. Perhaps...

But I was responding to the story. I understand what you are saying and I agree with your logic. I agree with you and your thoughts and ideas of why we have a jury system. And if I was on a jury, I would be as fair-minded as possible.

But I'm not on that jury and I can respond with outrage to what seems like an abhorrent act that was not punished in a way that I thought fair based on the reporting of the crime. I'm not "judging by the membership of DU based on the story a single reporter chose to tell". I'm responding to that story with outrage, which has nothing to do with the legal system whatsoever.

Based on what that reporter chose to tell, I find that I do not understand what the jury was thinking and I'm sad that this puppy suffered so much in his short life. And, yes, I'm familiar with the way the media portrays things.

Would it help if I just preface my entire previous post with "if that is true"?

[Ms. Toad]

24. I would encourage you to put your energy into changing the laws

I didn't look up the difference between the lesser crime she was convicted of and the greater crime she was accused of. Every crime has elements the prosecution has to prove, and sometimes they need to be tweaked.

Since the jury convicted of a lesser offense, you might want to find out why. It might be that the prosecution just didn't provide the right kind of evidence (or enough, or believable evidence) - or it may be that the law needs to be tweaked so that what the woman did is actually covered by the statute (and then the next person who comes along and does the same thing can be convicted of the greater charge).

That doesn't really just answer your question - but some of the most courageous judicial decisions of our time were dramatically opposed to prevailing public opinion:

1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (Upholding the 1964 Federal Civil Rights act as constitutional)

1973 Roe v. Wade (Upholding a woman's right to privacy in the area of abortion)

1967 Virginia v. Loving (The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.)

1972 Furman v. Georgia (Capital punishment, as it was then used, unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment)

1954 Brown v Board of Education (Separate is inherently unequal, with respect to segregated educational facilities)

Because of cases like these, which would have been decided very differently if the Supreme Court had been swayed by the public opinion of the times, I am fundamentally opposed to using public opinion to influence judicial action.

[kdmorris]

25. Oh, I agree with that

"Because of cases like these, which would have been decided very differently if the Supreme Court had been swayed by the public opinion of the times, I am fundamentally opposed to using public opinion to influence judicial action."

The emotions of your average human being are why I am against the death penalty, etc. If someone hurt my daughter, I would want him/her to be strung up and killed in the most horrible way possible, painfully and slowly. BUT, that emotion has no place in law.

Really, in that minute that I posted, I was feeling sorry for the puppy, not trying to get the laws changed. What I said was based on raw emotion, much the same as the emotion I would experience at harm done to a family member. I didn't write an email to the prosecutor, as I don't know the full facts of the case. It's possible this woman has mental issues. It's possible that she is telling the truth about the neighbors doing it (they did seem to be the only witnesses). A lot of things are possible. And I can allow for that now. At the time I posted that, though, I was just feeling really sad for that dog.

All I was trying to say is that I feel incredibly sorry for that dog, no matter what the facts of the case are. If what the veterinarian said is true, the poor thing didn't have much of a life. And it breaks my heart that any animal goes through that.

But I agree with everything you are saying, while still feeling very sad for the dog (again, emotion has no place in established law. But I can still feel it)

[peacebuzzard]

22. and, in this case I am sure she is poor, uneducated and underprivileged

however, outrage needs to be expressed for the anti-cruelty regulations to be leveraged and to become an education and exposure for the predominately poor and the underprivileged....

I agree, that the reporter for article in question obtained his references from a weekly publication in that particular community. I have no credence in the majority of facts produced by the media.

I do believe that this particular circumstance occurs (abuse of animals) with a much larger frequency than ever reaches our eyes.

It is an outrage, nonetheless. Unfortunately, it occurs. And the public instances must serve an an example. This kind of abuse cannot be tolerated.

The rich and powerful can hide abuses and get better legal help, but not always succeed.

The poor will dominate in the penal system, I have no doubt.

But the fact remains that the anti-cruelty laws needs to be extended to the animals who have no defense.

Thank you for your insightful input.

[Ms. Toad]

23. I agree on two counts

The cruelty to animals laws and regulations need to be beefed up, in many instances.

I also agree with what you implied - that the place to beef them up is at the legislative/regulatory level - not the judicial level (where the responsibility is only to apply the law).

[Booster]

4. What the Hell is wrong with people? Besides being abused by

this ugly woman, this little puppy was obviously not being cared for - the court should check her children - they probably weren't cared for either.

[tomreedtoon]

5. Come on! Dario Argento would love this!

You know who he is. The Italian filmmaker who kills lots of people through sadistic means in his movies. The American film fans who are bored with Freddy Krueger or the "Saw" guy just love to watch him cutting up people.

This teacher is just making sure that her children are imbued with the cruelty that will make them warriors in the next wave of recruitment for the Iraq War. Yeah, about 2015, but you gotta plan in advance.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. It's a scary day when the courts decide sentences based on public opinion.

:scared:

[tbyg52]

8. The woman appears deranged

“She was dancing around it, saying she was a witch and she brought it back to life,’’ the teen testified.

But you'd have to be deranged, or a monster, to mistreat an animal.

With regard to public opinion influencing sentencing--it may not have any influence, but I sure want to express my opinion.

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Or perhaps one only needs be mentally ill, and in need of therapy and help

(not to say she shouldn't also be locked up while getting help just to protect her and others, but still - "monster" is a rather strong word for the mentally ill, no?)

While I applaud your right to send a letter and attempt to influence for a stronger penalty, I hope you also won't mind if I hope that the judge does not take your opinion into account.

[peacebuzzard]

10. I also believe she is mentally ill.

A psychopath or schizophrenic. And the best place for her, under the circumstances would be a prison for the mentally ill where she would be given her dose of meds every day.

A witch? Dancing around a body-slammed pup? Filthy living conditions?

She needs supervision.

No living creature is safe around her.

[flvegan]

13. I don't.

If she was, she should have used that as a defense. Either she did and failed, or she didn't raise it as an issue. The court also could have raised the issue, and if there were merit, I'm sure her lawyer would have tried it.

She lied under oath, or at least tried to paint a circumstance prior to be the reason for the trauma. She is a monster, and she deserves to rot in jail.

Thanks for posting this, I hope there is sufficient public outcry such that the max sentence is issued. They'll hear from me and friends of mine.

[peacebuzzard]

16. thanks. I have sent an email to the clerk, Pelizzari.

anything is valid to get this one locked up for a very long time. The max on this sentence according to the article 11 months.

November is the sentencing. I will keep an eye on this local news and keep you posted.

[Oeditpus Rex]

17. Especially the opinions of those whose only familiarity with the case

comes from a 10-inch newspaper story.

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. And we all saw how effective that was the Duke LaCrosse team

Try 'em in public! Mob rules! Justice system be damned!!



Oh, by the way, there's a dead bishop on the landing.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Horrível!

Coitado cachorrinho! :cry:

[peacebuzzard]

11. coitadinho mesmo.

triste.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Tudo bem rapaz?

:hi:

Faz muito tempo desde eu vi você. :hi:

[peacebuzzard]

14. Tudo.

:hug: vai levando.....

[Swamp Rat]

15. abração

[Madrone]

19. Infuriating.

Sickening.

Thank you for sharing this... I think. :cry: