Can Retributive Justice on Animals Act as Cruelty

Humans and Animals

Humans have developed a close relationship with animals, both domestic and wild. Many American households have a pet that they regard to be a member of the family. Human-wildlife conflict has become all too common. Several human-wildlife confrontations have occurred, eliciting a variety of responses from impacted individuals and authorities. In July 2016, authorities in New Mexico shot a bear after it injured a man (Brulliard, 2016). The bear mauled a guy before being captured and killed.

Animal Capital Sentencing

Animal capital sentencing has sparked outrage among activists. They also questioned whether the authorities were certain about the identity of the deceased bear. There are many instances when animals have falling victim to capital punishments. This are unfortunate situations where human beings expect animals to be as rational as them. Authorities have justified retributive justice.

Protecting Wildlife

Wildlife authorities are set up to protect the animals and ensure that they cause little harm to human beings. The animals do not have the rationality of human beings. Harm done by these animals to human beings should be treated as a failure of the authorities. Harming the animals after damage has been done does not help in restoring their relationship with human beings. Therefore, animals should only be killed if they pose a threat to human beings. The issue of animal rights and welfare fully depends on human beings and the decisions that they make. Killing animals as part of retributive justice is immoral and unfair. It does little in avoiding future human-wildlife conflict. The authorities have the capacity to keep these animals safe and far away from human beings.

References

Brulliard, K. (2016). Do wild animals that attack people always need to die? The Washington Post, July 1, 2016. Web: https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/nation-world/2016/06/22/do-wild-animals-that-attack-people-always-need-to-die/. Web, March 30, 2016.