It is not to be swiped aside that we do not want a dog, nor a cat, nor a horse, to be mistreated, but what of criminals? A “right” is temporary when one abandons it. Like the dog, abandoned, and then “rescued” to be placed behind a cage, how does one see the inmate in the same regard?
Who is the “victim” in this scenario? Is there even a one?
We’ve never hung a dog in the past, nor have we ever boiled one in oil. We’ve shot criminals, and we’ve shot animals. Now, we place a lethal injection into an animal, like we do with a criminal.
Animals and criminals are treated almost in the same environment, when behind cages. Both side’s behaviors, when not domesticated, become feral and rabid. They look for a wound to dive within, or a person to manipulate, or someone to stalk. Both the rapist and the wolf will stalk. Yet, we will mainly call the latter a beautiful creature.
We will be fascinated by the wolf and its ability to stalk prey. Yet, we will say of the rapist that he needs to be locked up.
We see of those even turning the act of “rebellion” into a fashion show. We see of that, the ways with running away from something that holds onto a person, in place. This is the case, such as when women in the past wanted more than simply to be married. Freedom is this, until one is captured by something that either captivates, or strangulates.
It is in no way through this discourse, to say that a criminal is ever victimized. They have given up their right for freedom, when they abandoned it, themselves. They did their act of criminal ways, and thus, they have given up their right to roam.
How then, in knowing that a dog that is kept on a leash by an owner, is not the same as a criminal hung? Or, how is the dog upon the leash not the same, in appearance, to the child abducted by the kidnapper, and kept on the same sort of confinement in a cellar?
We sometimes do not wish for animals to roam, after their abandonment, because their rabid behavior may cause damage to others. Yet, the movement of Animal Rights cannot seem to comprehend that a criminal is just as much the animal, deserving death, as any diseased dog.
Are we simply arrogant enough to state that we are not animals? Simply by removing the trees around us, the caves around us, the boulders around us, and replacing them with lampposts and skyscrapers, we seemed to have only introduced a new sort of jungle. The skyscrapers, the mythical giants. The lampposts, perhaps our new sunlight.
The behaviors, being a key term in this discourse, of an animal are very similar to that of a criminal, when not domesticated by masters. One has no freedom when captivated by their lovers, nor strangulated by their slavers. Whether the confinement consists of a marriage or a job, it is still a purport to the person. Because, as it seems, “freedom” is limited to the desire to roam. Yet, one will indeed stop at a destination. At that destination, they have found belonging. That belonging could be the pound for the animal, or the prison for the criminal. That belonging may be the home for the animal, or the home for the criminal.
It is at this time where we can understand that one’s “rights” are limited to what one finds to be precious in their life. It is not the road, but the destination, that a person will now see as a right for themselves. For we only ever realize the value of something once we have lost it, and because of this, we don’t want to see the past for seeing the future.