english summary

Black = Your opinion/response

Red = Summary or paraphrase of the author’s point

Green = Direct quote from the author

Jones calls for the government to revise its current animal cruelty laws and give animals the same legal protections that humans have; making these changes would unnecessarily complicate the legal system and devalue human life at the same time. Most people would agree that it is inhumane to abuse animals, and people who do that should be punished. However, Jones is advocating for far more than simply punishing people who abuse animals. For example, he is in favor of the death penalty those who kill animals, and he wants to establish alimony for abandoned pets (14-15). Laws like this will create court cases that have to be tried, which will cost more money and slow down the justice system. Anytime someone fights against a charge of animal cruelty, it will necessitate a court battle which could drag on for weeks or perhaps months. This would divert resources from other cases that require more attention. Cases like this would also be sending a message that human life isn’t as important as society once believed. Jones made the following statement: “There is no difference between a hungry child and a hungry dog, and the people who cause both situations should be punished equally” (Jones 15). Such a belief could elevate the status of animals, or it could devalue the status of people. The risk of the second possibility it too great, so the belief should be abandoned. As it was mentioned before, animal cruelty is a terrible crime, but overemphasizing it could lead to even greater problem for the human race.