clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

DON'T EXPAND ANIMAL-RIGHTS LAWS

While I am opposed to intentional cruelty to animals, I must nevertheless disagree with the Deseret News editorial, which suggests an expansion of legislation in that area.

Our judicial system cannot find confessed murderers (the Menendez brothers) or in all likelihood O.J. Simpson guilty in spite of overwhelming blood evidence. That same system given an extreme "animal rights" type judge might find an imagined or accidental incident involving a pet worthy of jail time and/or a huge fine.Once the courts begin to gouge out their interpretation of what constitutes "cruelty" to animals, where will it end? Will we create a new branch of government police to ensure strict compliance with an ever-expanding law?

From wolves, who rip their living victims to shreds, to starvation, which is the ultimate force in controlling the expansion of wild-animal populations, Mother Nature remains unexcelled in downright cruelty.

There is no need to expand the laws regarding animal rights.

Alan Greenhalgh

Springville