Man Receives 102 Year Prison Sentence For Dog Fighting Related Charges

[Joanne98]

http://www.itchmo.com/man-receives-102-year-prison-sentence-for-dog-fighting-related-charges-3856

Man Receives 102 Year Prison Sentence For Dog Fighting Related Charges

Posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 12:00 pm in News for Cats, Dogs & Owners, National Dog, Cat & Pet Info, Dogs.
By Emily Huh

A Cottonwood, Alabama man has been sentenced to 102 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of dog fighting related charges.

Circuit Court Judge Ed Jackson sentenced Johnny Ray Lewis to six years in prison for each of the 17 felony counts he was convicted of. He was found guilty of possessing dogs with the intent to train them for fighting.

The judge said his sentence was a “mid-range” sentence.

38 pit bulls died on Lewis’ property as a result of dog fighting. Officials seized 17 of his dogs and found syringes, heavy chains and a dog fighting video.

Houston County Assistant District Attorney Butch Binford said that Lewis will most likely serve at least 34 years of his prison sentence because typically, people serve at least a third of their sentence before they are released.


Jackson also ordered Lewis to pay $34,000 in fines.

Lewis’ lawyer said they planned to appeal the case.

Binford argued against Lewis’ release from custody on an appeal bond. He added that he thinks Lewis said that he still had dogs on his property.

Source: Dothan Eagle
http://www.itchmo.com/man-receives-102-year-prison-sentence-for-dog-fighting-related-charges-3856

[RebelOne]

1. Good. One scumbag got what he deserved. n/t

[ecstatic]

2. people get less time for murder, rape, and pedophilia nt

[RebelOne]

3. But he was responsible for the deaths of 38 dogs.

That's 38 murders.

[NorthernSpy]

11. no, that's 38 DOGS...

Murder refers to the intentional, unjustifiable killing of a human person. Dogs -- however much we may like them as pets -- are not humans, and they're not persons in the prevailing understanding of the word.


You know what else? I really do think that a Constitutional challenge generated from this case could eventually take down scads of animal protection statutes. Personally, I like animals, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. But this sort of judicial extremism can't go unanswered.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. I eat at McDonalds. I'm probably responsible for the deaths of 38 cows. n/t

[hlthe2b]

4. and their sentences being too light should somehow impact

the sentence given to this monster? No, sorry. I have little doubt anyone so callous with animal life wouldn't think twice about taking a human life had someone posed a threat to his illicit actions. Fortunately, we won't have to wait to that point.

[NorthernSpy]

13. hello? MOST people are "callous with animal life"!

Most people are also two-faced as hell. What else is new?


No, I welcome this case. Maybe if we can get it to the Supreme Court, we can get rid of the grey area that allows judicial extremism like this to flourish.

Make up your mind, America: are animals property, or are they persons? If they're persons, you have to stop shooting them, trapping them, and eating them. If they're property, you have to stop throwing people in prison for hundred-year sentences as a cunning way of persecuting people you don't like.

[blonndee]

19. What an obvious fallacy.

Even my first-year freshmen would have recognized such an obvious false choice. EITHER they are property, OR they are persons? Come on. You know better than that.

[NorthernSpy]

31. holy crap, what are you teaching those kids?

Even my first-year freshmen would have recognized such an obvious false choice. EITHER they are property, OR they are persons? Come on. You know better than that.

You think that legal personhood is actually compatible with literally being someone else's property?


Yikesssss....

[blonndee]

33. You're the one who made the comparsion. n/t

[NorthernSpy]

39. huh? what on earth are you talking about?

I wanted to know whether you really think that legal personhood is compatible with literally being someone else's property under law.

And your answer is" "You're the one who made the comparison".


:wtf:

[superduperfarleft]

40. So what is the choice then?

I'm sure that northernspy and myself are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to animal treatment, but he's correct that as long as the law views animals as nothing more than property (which it does), a 100-year sentence for dog fighting is, in that context, excessive, not to mention inconsistent in a society that eats, tests upon, and wears animals.

I think the guy is a scumbag, but our legal system should not simply cater to the whims of those who hold one animal to a higher standard than another.

[NorthernSpy]

42. don't assume that we're "on the opposite ends of the spectrum...

... when it comes to animal treatment".


We're actually not.


And it's nothing short of amazing that I find myself taking up for a dogfighter.


But I also think that a belief in human exceptionalism is one of the few firm obstacles to genocide.


So I won't assent when caste Hindus lynch Dalits for daring to kill and eat the cows that outrank them in social status. Or when some good ole boy 'Bama court finds a cunning way to make it official that black life is worthless compared to the life of a dog.

[superduperfarleft]

49. I'm truly interested in your reasoning.

I meant no offense. I just say that we're on opposite ends of the spectrum because I assume you're not a vegan. So while (again, I assume) we disagree fundamentally about the ways animals SHOULD be treated, I think we agree about the ways laws should be applied in the current atmosphere of our society. Maybe I should've been clearer.

I abhor dogfighting as much as I abhor killing a cow for food or pleasure or whatever. I also dislike the moral schizophrenia that our society holds towards "pets" and "food animals." That's why I really do appreciate your weighing in on this subject the way that you have. I just wish that these conversations would cause a real evaluation of our relationships with animals as opposed to cuddlytarians screaming about cruelty while they indirectly contribute to the billions of animals killed worldwide each year for food, clothing, etc.

[NorthernSpy]

57. you haven't offended me...

I guess that where I'm coming from on all this is most concisely laid out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2296626&mesg_id=2301616

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Just the fuzzy ones. n/t

[silverojo]

72. I think sentences like this should be given....

To rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, as well.

[malaise]

5. And Bush and Cheney walk n/t

[catnhatnh]

6. The sentence is too frickin' ridiculous to contenance...

and makes a joke of the sanctity of human life. Sorry, but even 38 dogs does NOT equal 1 human....I have owned and loved dogs, but they are animals and pets for God's sake....when a human is killed it is a tragedy, but when a hundred thousand COWS are killed it's a business day an the golden arches....And when the justice systems extols the death of animals over one of my species-even if black or female-then the system is fucked....

[hang a left]

23. Not only is the sentence cruel and unusual...

I just assumed it was a black man that was sentenced in "ALABAMA" to 132 years and then I clicked on the the daily story and saw the picture of the perp.

I am not defending his acts. I abhor people that torture animals, but the sentence goes beyond what is necessary.

Flame me. I don't give a shit.

[Forkboy]

7. Gee, that's a shame.

[ellie]

8. Buh-bye!

[Jacobin]

9. If they were Iraqis he indiscriminately killed, he'd get a suspended sentence

[Critters2]

20. He'd get a paycheck

from Blackwater.

[NorthernSpy]

10. the weekly meeting of Hypocrites Against Dogfighting will now come to order...

Decades in prison for dogfighting? In a country where leghold trapping and torture testing for nonessential products are legal?


Mark my words: this self-righteous hypocrisy will come back to bite us in the ass. It always does. When the fanatic wing of the animal rights movement get the impression that they've received the green light for the things they want to do to the people they hate, don't cry about it in my presence.


Obviously, this is a ridiculous sentence. It stands completely outside of American jurisprudence, and I should imagine that it will be reduced on appeal. In fact, I wouldn't rule out using this absurd judgement as the basis for a Constitutional case to decide these questions of animal rights for once and for all. Either animals actually DO have rights of personhood under law (and therefore much of what we traditionally have done to them is impermissible), or this man's rights have been grossly violated through an unConstitutional law that created a legal fiction allowing dogs to be treated by the court as though they were human persons.

[The Straight Story]

12. Soon you will get 100 years in prison for smoking out side

:rofl:

[blonndee]

18. Oh, yeah, like that's a realistic analogy.

But I wouldn't expect much different from you.

[WindRavenX]

21. Oh whatever.

38 living animals--capable of feeling pain--died horrible, gruesome deaths. He commited a felony. He deserves jail time for causing the suffering of a living animal. It's what a compassionate society should do, protect the most vulnerable of society.


These false dichotomies of forcing people to think you can only care for animals *or* humans is aggravating and ultimately leads to more of this type of injustice--cruelty, done to humans or animals, begets more cruelty.

Jail time is absolutely appropriate. The man showed, much like the human torturers that we've created abroad, a complete and utter disregard for life.

[NorthernSpy]

32. 102 years in prison isn't "compassionate": it's dishonest, arbitrary and vicious...

38 living animals--capable of feeling pain--died horrible, gruesome deaths. He commited a felony. He deserves jail time for causing the suffering of a living animal. It's what a compassionate society should do, protect the most vulnerable of society.

"Compassionate society, protecting the most vulnerable"? You must be joking. We're talking about Alabama, USA -- not Pinkofluffybunnyland. Whatever this is really about, bleeding-heart "compassion for the most vulnerable" isn't likely it.

"Capable of feeling pain, dying horrible, gruesome deaths": that's probably a good description of the creatures the crusading members of the court had for lunch before pulling off this flaming travesty of justice.

These false dichotomies of forcing people to think you can only care for animals *or* humans is aggravating and ultimately leads to more of this type of injustice--cruelty, done to humans or animals, begets more cruelty.

Yeah -- it begets extreme, outlandish cruelty from enlightened bigots, such as those Hindutva fanatics in India who want to make it clear that Dalits are officially lower than cows. That is why for India's "untouchable" Dalit people, eating beef is an act of liberation.

It's easy to forget that far from being the font of all that is evil, the concept of "human exceptionalism" was the advance in thinking that gave us a basis for ideas like universal rights and the brotherhood of man. Destroy that ideological basis, and we don't go forward; we go backward into fanaticism and bigotry. We start believing strange things -- like if we think someone is misusing our totem animal, we should throw him in a dungeon for a hundred years.

Jail time is absolutely appropriate. The man showed, much like the human torturers that we've created abroad, a complete and utter disregard for life.

He showed as much complete and utter disregard for life as anyone who eats a ham sandwich. This guy is unusual only in the fact of preferring to do his own dirty work.

As for showing a "complete and utter disregard for life", the insane 102-year prison sentence is what really demonstrates that.

[silverojo]

73. But it's not 102 years for a single crime

It's the combined sentences that add up to 102 years. Quite a few people have been sentenced that way for other crimes. O.J. Simpson might end up being one of them....

[superduperfarleft]

45. Billions of animals are killed each year

worldwide in similarly (if not far more) cruel ways, but because they are cows, pigs, and chickens, we don't bat an eye.

It's not about "a compassionate society" it's about whether or not the law can arbitrarily apply completely inconsistent standards of care towards what is considered in the eyes of our legal system as property.

[LeftyMom]

22. We'd only be hypocites if we were in favor of the war, moran. nt

[NorthernSpy]

30. in other words, you have to substitute name-calling for rational argument...

Can't honestly say I'm disappointed, LeftyMom.

[LeftyMom]

36. No, meaning I know better than to waste rational arguments on irrational people

:hi:

[NorthernSpy]

37. I'm making rational arguments; you're spewing insults...

Not sure I'm the one who risks coming off as "irrational" here.

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

43. Suggesting that criticizing dog fighting is an attack on black people is either irrational or racist

Did I err in giving you the benefit of the doubt?

[NorthernSpy]

44. imposing a 102-year sentence isn't just "criticizing dogfighting"...

... it's arbitrary and irrational. It's bigotry, and it's an abuse of power.


And what you just attempted is called equivocation. And that's not rational, either.

[LeftyMom]

46. Fighting dogs to the death is an abuse of power.

protecting animals and people from this man is the right thing to do. And with a shorter sentence he'd likely be out on parole sooner or later, abusing and killing more animals, stealing pets for bait, likely armed, and generally perpetuating the whole pile of dangerous and anti-social behavior that's part and parcel of dogfighting.

[NorthernSpy]

56. I remind you that we're talking about dogs...

"He might do it again!" isn't a legitimate rationale for life imprisonment in this case, because NOTHING in American jurisprudence suggests that any number of dogs' lives equal a man's life.

Your fantasy of this individual stealing other people's dogs in the future, and possibly carrying a gun while doing it -- because other dogfighting operations have done such things -- is also not a legitimate rationale for life imprisonment. We can only punish a person for what he himself actually does -- not for what some other dogfighters may have done in their own enterprises.

[LeftyMom]

65. And he was sentanced for what he did.

I'm only saying I'm fine with the sentence, and why.

[NorthernSpy]

67. no: he was sentenced for crimes far more serious than ones he committed...

That is the problem.

This is a sentence appropriate for the most egregious crimes against the person. Dogs aren't actually "persons" as far as the law is concerned.

[LeftyMom]

79. The law does not regard pets as either property or persons.

They sit in a middle-ground, treated as property in most respects but with some modifications based on their capacity to feel hurt and be abused.

Your argument is based on a false dichotomy- they're either property or persons! you keep saying, when neither is totally true from a legal standpoint.

My station wagon is property. If I walk outside and start pounding on it with a baseball bat I might be arrested for disturbing the peace or taken in for a mental health evaluation, but I will not have committed a crime against my Saturn because it's not a feeling entity. I am however legally responsible if the parking brake slips and it rolls into another car, because it's my property.

If I hit my (adult) sister, I go to jail because she's a feeling being and I have committed a crime against her. If she hits the neighbor, I don't go to jail because she's her own person and not my property, and responsible for her own actions.

Dogs occupy a middle ground. If I beat my dog, I'll go to jail because a dog is a thinking and feeling being. But if my dog bites the neighbor kids, I'm responsible because the dog is my property and responsibility and I'm ultimately liable for it's actions. Children also occupy this middleground, though they fall closer to the persons side than dogs. Interestingly enough, the modification of legal status began with dogs, kids came a few years later.

[RebelSansCause]

78. he might do it again is not a reason to give him a longer

sentence in any court. look at the new york state death penalty. it was voided in 2003 because of that very fact, people were giving death sentences because they were afraid of parole. well, the supreme court of new york ruled that it was unconstitutional for such a sentence to be given.

[spacelady]

54. This is also the state that is where the Gucci laws took effect -

which I wholeheartedly support (Pet torture becoming a felony because a dog was set on fire and horribly maimed).

The point I want to make here is that this sentence was ridiculous on purpose in order to be appealed so that it can be a test case for actual reform in the law. Alabama has some very interesting precedent in this sort of thing.

[NorthernSpy]

14. India: "untouchables" lynched over alleged cow-killing

Here it's dog worshippers; there it's cow worshippers. Here it's whites taking a hypocritical poke at blacks; there it's caste Hindus taking a hypocritical poke at "untouchable" Dalits. But the two-faced, selective hysteria is the same:

Two days after five Dalits were killed in a mob frenzy near a police post in Jhajjar, the Haryana police on Thursday remained clueless about the identity of the culprits who allegedly incited the mob.

The victims were Virender, his cousin Dayanand, their business associate and skin trader Kailash, a truck driver Raju Gupta and helper Tota Ram. They were carrying animal skins in a mini-truck when the alleged incident took place.
Police claim they are proceeding cautiously as the offence includes cow slaughter which could heighten tension in the area. Meanwhile a victim’s family has rubbished the cow slaughter theory accusing the police of engineering the murders as the victims had refused to pay extortion money. Deputy superintendent of police Narender Singh said some youths had seen them skinning a cow. They first beat up the victims and then brought them to the police post in Dulina at about 6.15 pm on Wednesday.
‘‘A mob surrounded the police post and it swelled as rumours about cow slaughter spread. After about three hours, the situation got out of control and someone in the mob assaulted the victims,’’ he said. The mob later tried to lynch two of them and torch their mini-truck laden with animal skin, Singh added.

Family members of the victims, however, countered the police version on mob frenzy and described these as custody deaths. They claim the police cooked up the story of a mob frenzy.
‘‘The police beat them up when they refused to pay extortion money for being allowed to carry animal skins,’’ alleged Rattan Singh, father of Virender, one of the victims. He said the men travelling in the truck were not carrying the tools needed to skin a cow. ‘‘Why would our boys, who were carrying a truck-load of skin, stop in the middle of a journey and try to skin a cow?’’ he asked.
Moreover there are questions as to why the victims could not be saved despite presence of five policemen at the police post. The police did not pacify the mob nor shift the victims to a safer place.

Singh defended the policemen posted at the Dulina post despite their failure to avert the killings. ‘‘There were armed with lathis and they could not do anything to defend the victims. They sought additional force but the victims were killed much before it could reach them. The traffic jam on the road due to the crowd prevented the additional force to reach in time,’’ he said. Rattan said skinning dead animals was their family profession.
He claimed Virender along with others had left Badshahpur at about 2.15 pm on October 15 and they must have reached Jhajjar at about 6 pm. ‘‘Virender was supposed to return with a payment from Karnal in the same truck,’’ he said.
City magistrate, Raj Pal Singh, said a part of the investigation into the case involved an autopsy on the cow’s carcass, from which the victims were allegedly removing the skin.

‘‘We want to know whether the victims actually killed the cow or whether they were removing skin from a dead animal,’’ he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/25589960.cms


So they're going to autopsy the COW! To discover the answer to the all important question: had the victims of the lynching killed the cow, or were they just skinning a found carcass. Because in a land where cows have more status than Dalits do, the answer matters.

[NorthernSpy]

41. what -- no takers?

Color me unsurprised.


For two reasons. One, animal rights people don't like being made aware of what really lies behind the ahimsa mask.

And two, most people want to believe that their own culture's norms and preferences are uniquely sensible and just -- instead of being just as arbitrary and questionable as those of many other cultures.

[flvegan]

48. I'm your huckleberry.

I failed to see the point in that blathering post above. But if you'd like to phrase it as a question and call my on my hypocrisy when I answer it, please do.

Oh, and you probably don't know shit about activism and any "ahimsa mask"

[NorthernSpy]

55. if you don't see the parallels between these two examples...

... it's probably because you don't want to.

[Lord Helmet]

15. if he lives that long

[rug]

16. How long is that in human years?

[Hoof Hearted]

17. Um. Good. n/t

[ShaneGR]

24. While I certainly agree that this man deserved harsh punishment, 102 years?

Seriously, 102 years? Parole after 35? Rapists get out faster, a lot faster. If he was sentenced to 25, with a chance for parole after 15, that seems about right. I really cringe when we start locking people up for these terms for these crimes, because these sentences can carry over to other crimes we don't view as so harsh.

[JCMach1]

26. Seems like something the Saudis would pull out of their hat

I suspect the sentence is more about being a minority in the Alabama justice system.

[JohnLocke]

25. Good (nt).

[Balbus]

27. Sounds appropriate to me.

And for all you "they're only dogs" people - you're the reason dogs are better than people.

[WindRavenX]

29. ...

:yourock:

My baby girl--who is a pit bull--is our best friend in every sense of the word.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. What should the penalty be if they were rats? n/t

[varkam]

28. That's obscene.

102 years? For killing dogs? I don't think that what he did was a good thing, and he should obviously be punished for it, but you can get liquored up, get behind the wheel of a car, kill a family of four and get a lighter sentence than that. Hell, you can go out, gun down someone in cold blood and get a lighter sentence than that.

I know that there were 38 dogs, but the difference is that they were dogs. That's not to say that we do not have responsibilities to dogs and that we should keep them safe and criminalize their abuse, but that there's a major difference between dogs and people (and, likewise, our responsibilites are different).

[flvegan]

34. And it's a shame that he likely won't serve every single day of it.

Good call, judge. One less scumbag on the street.

[NorthernSpy]

38. actually, you should be relieved if the sentence is overturned on appeal...

... and that's the end of it.


Because an animal welfare statute that permitted such an outrageous sentence really demands a challenge on Constitutional grounds.

[flvegan]

51. Why should I be relieved?

The appeal will take facts into account...again. They may change the sentence, but they're not going to let him go.

[NorthernSpy]

59. because those taking up his case may opt to push for judicial review...

... of the statute itself.

A lot of animal welfare statutes may be on shaky ground, Constitutionally speaking.

[BadgerLaw2010]

35. That's a just a little bit of abuse of consecutive sentences.

[MoonRiver]

47. GOOD. This will deter other psychopaths from abusing innocent sentient beings. n/t

[superduperfarleft]

50. Like slaughterhouse workers? n/t

[MoonRiver]

52. That's a much bigger issue.

I would love to see the day when slaughter houses no longer exist.

[superduperfarleft]

53. I agree. n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

58. I have no sympathy for animal abusers. Justice was served. n/t

[NorthernSpy]

60. awful lot of (nt) posts from those approving of the sentence...

Interesting.

[Truthiness Inspector]

66. Strange reply

My opinion is that anyone convicted of abusing animals should fry in hell. Before they are fried they should be strapped to a chair, smeared with raw meat, and then ripped to shreds while they scream for mercy, and I hope mercy is not available.

I hope my position is clear. What was your question?

[superduperfarleft]

68. Smeared with raw meat?

How would you get that meat without killing an animal?

[NorthernSpy]

70. uh-oh...

Contradiction City.


This oughtta be good.

[superduperfarleft]

71. It was probably a chicken.

They don't matter. After all, they're not covered as "animals" under humane slaughter laws.

And I hope he's not wearing leather shoes. :whistles nonchalantly:

[Truthiness Inspector]

75. Yes, this outta be good

What is it you are accusing me of doing "wrong"? Don't be vague or cryptic.

[NorthernSpy]

69. I figured that the surfeit of (nt) posts indicated...

... that those posting them -- clearly in favor of the sentence -- were probably indicating that they were taking an unreasoned, purely emotional stance.

[Truthiness Inspector]

76. My position is clear

Anyone who takes advantage of and/or abuses those who can't defend themselves should face harsh penalties. The HARSHEST of penalties, to be clear.

[appleannie1]

61. And a murderer can get out in two years.

Child molesters can get house arrest and rapists walk the streets in 18 months. I think we need an overhaul of our justice system. All of the things I mentioned should have much higher penalties.

[Didereaux]

74. For those 'soft' on dog fighters...they also are HIGH on the list of wife and kid abusers lists n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

77. Amazing isn't it?

Anyone who excuses animal abuse is human refuse. That is beyond politics entirely and something upon which all sentient humans should agree.