some of my impressions:
from the original article:
the farm owner accepted restitution for the dead animals and so far has not pressed charges. authorities, however, still can file other charges.
Quote from defenition from dcitionary.com
restitution = damages: a sum of money paid in compensation for loss or injury
in my humble opinion - this is an open and shut case. two idiots vandalised the property of the farmer. farmer has accepted restitution for the damages to his property. he has declined
to press charges - though he is within the law to do so.
to my humble self, that speaks volumes.
now ofcourse, seeing how many posts on this thread have refered to "psych evals", i felt i ought to offer this in return. puerly from a "discussion" perspective (i say from a "discussion perspective" because i don't desire anyone to get offended, nor do i wish snarky comments in response).
just because serial killers and rapists tend to do some particular thing while young doesn't mean that everyone who does that particular thing while young is in danger of becoming a serial killer or rapist.
i can already see a counter argument:
criminals who have displayed animal cruelty in their childhood also seem to be more prone to aggressive violence against humans - i.e. serial murderers.
and it's not me just saying so: the dsm (iv) lists animal cruelty as a "conduct disorder".
since the late 1970s, the fbi has considered animal cruelty to be a possible indicator of future serial murder. the fbi documented the connection between cruelty to animals and serial murder following a study of 35 imprisoned serial murderers. the convicted murderers were asked questions regarding their child-hood cruelty toward animals. more than half of the serial murderers admitted tohurting or torturing animals as children or adolescents (humane society of theunited states, 2001).
@ :: http://ddl.uwinnipeg.ca/viol_cr/file.../reading11.pdf
yes, and i'll bet that if the fbi conducted a survery interviewing 35 inmates about their breathing as youngsters, they'd find a curious similarity in the responses.
new rule: just because a governmental body conducts a survey does not validate its legitimacy.
likely, a survey of all persons (not just incarcerated criminals) with questions about animal cruelty might be much more illuminating and well worth the fbi's time. it is quite possible that 98% of all children are especially cruel to animals, and thus the propensity of serial killers and rapists toward same activities means absolutely nothing.
if what i said above makes no sense, let me try a different approach:
all of group a does action b. therefore anyone who does action b must belong to group a. that basically was what was being said in the original statement--or implied.
but isn't it possible that some of the people who do action b are not included in group a?
let me use this example:
all birds have two legs.
people have two legs.
therefore people are birds.
sounds silly don't it.
back to the point, just cause i beat a groundhog to death with a pole iron when i was a child doesn't make me a serial killer, etc.
now you might come back with:
yes, breathing and eating parsley are also common traits, but if you are trying to build a profile - including these two commonalities would make the target group simply too large.
this is what i'm talking about. i have (still) not seen any statistics on the commonality of children exhibiting 'cruelty' to animals (which has yet to be defined, i might add), so i don't see how anyone can draw such a distinction between cruelty to animals and eating parsley. it is the idea of 'trying to build a profile' based on purely inductive reasoning that is unnerving, no matter how much you couch your terms.
my rather weighty
matthew (who, considering his post above, no doubt eats babies for lunch).