Day: February 9, 2005

Three Strikes? Why Did This Monster Ever Got Out on Two?

There’s yet another controversy over California’s three-strikes law after a man was convicted of a relatively minor gun felony. But the issue shouldn’t be “why is this guy going to jail for the rest of his life for a minor gun crime” but rather “what sort of sick, twisted system ever let this guy out?”

Charles Rothenberg is scum who should have died in prison. Apparently his fellow Californians agreed, and he obtained that illegaly-obtained gun to protect himself from citizens who felt the state hadn’t done enough to protect society from monsters like him.

In 1983, Rothenberg took his six year old son to California to see Disneyland. The problem was Rothenberg was divorced, and had lied to his wife to make her think he wasn’t taking the child out of New York state. The wife threatened to use the incident to permanently revoke Rothenberg’s visitation rights.

So Rothenberg took the child to a hotel room, gave him a sleeping pill, doused him with gasoline, and then set him on fire. The child survived, but was burned over 90 percent of his body.

And how did the state of California protect citizens against such a monster? It released Rothenberg from jail after only 6 1/2 years. Six and a half years?? For setting a child on fire? WTF?

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, he apparently even revelled in the negative attention he drew,

When he testified last week, Charles portrayed his life as one of near-constant harassment since being paroled in 1990. He said he had to keep moving and leave jobs because people would recognize him. In 1997, he said, someone on Market Street yelled, “That’s the man who burned his son” and fired two shots at him.

When police showed no interest in investigating, Charles said, he bought the gun, ammunition and a holster for $500. He said he changed his name in 1998 and was constantly afraid someone would harm him.

“I’m always aware that the possibility existed that I was going to get hurt or worse,” Charles testified. “I can’t think about it all the time. I try to live a normal life. I do the best I can.”

He spoke softly, sometimes hesitantly. At other times, he appeared defiant, accusing the prosecutor of trying to manipulate him into saying he had not been in immediate fear for his life on the day the gun was found.

Prosecutors argued that far from being fearful, Charles had gone out of his way to attract attention. They noted that he had appeared on TV talk shows with Larry King and Maury Povich in the mid-1990s, and they said that at times he would walk into a restaurant and announce his presence to diners.

Why the hell did California ever let this guy out?

Source:

Man who burned son looking at third strike. Jaxon Van Derbeken, The San Francisco Chronicle, February 9, 2005.

British Universities Struggle to Preserve Researchers’ Anonymity

Universities are finding it difficult to comply with the new British Freedom of Information Act and also preserve the privacy/anonymity of their researchers.

Universities like Oxford obviously want to prevent researchers from becoming targets of animal rights extremists, but guidelines are still a bit vague as to how much they have to disclose in Freedom of Information Act requests and whether or not they can refuse such requests by certain individuals.

The Times Higher Education Supplement recently reported that,

The Freedom of Information requests that universities are dealing with have been described as “very specific.’ Universities are concerned that the Act does not allow an institution or government department to refuse an application simply because it comes from a person with a criminal record for animal-rights activism.

Which seems like a pretty silly objection — after all, if you prevent someone with a criminal record from having access to such information, it has to be near-trivial for that person to simply enlist a friend who does not have a criminal record to file the request.

Oxford has posted nine summaries of animal research projects on its website that it received Freedom of Information requests about.

ON the one hand, Nancy Rothwell of Manchester University tells the Times that it would be easy to guess who the individual researcher is based on the summary,

I’m pretty sure I could identify some of the license holders because their work is so specialized. I do not see a way of maintaining anonymity yet retaining a summary that has value.

On the other hand the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection complains that the summaries do not contain enough details. Adolfo Sansolini, chief executive of BUAV, told The Times,

This is a smokescreen for further secrecy by the Government.

Look, at some point the research is going to be made public if the results are ever published. Its silly to sit back and try to keep animal rights activists from learning the names of individuals working on animal research projects. The problem is not that this sort of information might be public, but rather that the government has done such a poor job protecting researchers and containing animal rights extremism.

Source:

UK scientists seek anonymity. Anna Fazackerley, The Times Higher Education Supplement, January 28, 2005.

PETA Actually Donates to A Small Number of Animal Shelters

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently awarded grants of $1,500 to 15 animal shelters around the country. What did these shelters have to do to be recipients of PETA’s largesse? They each are boycotting Iams pet food because of PETA’s allegations that Iams relies on “painful and often deadly laboratory tests on dogs, cats, and other animals.”

PETA’s Mary Beth Sweetland told The Lake City Report (Florida),

Nearly 100 shelters have decided to boycott Iams after learning about the company’s cruel and unnecessary tests on animals. Iams uses its profits to create misery for dogs and cats, but these shelters need funds for their vital work of protecting animals from harm.

Iams spokesman Kurt Iverson responded by saying that PETA is,

. . . spreading a lot of untruths and sensationalized stories. The story that they are telling is based on a facility we used two years ago and that we no longer use. They also don’t tell you that the person that was gathering their video footage was the person Iams was paying to take care of those dogs and cats.

Source:

PETA donates $1,500 to local animal shelter. Justin Lang, Lake City Reporter (Florida), January 27, 2005.

Activists in UK Target Greyhound Racing

The Independent published a story recently suggesting that after the ban on fox hunting with hounds finally goes into effect in Great Britain, that activists will turn their attention next to outlaying greyhound racing.

According to The Independent, greyhound racing in the UK is a Pound 2.5 billion annual business. There are a total of 51 greyhound racetracks in Great Britain, with 31 part of the British Greyhound Racing Board and the other 20 being independent and unlicensed tracks.

Animal rights activists charge that as many as 6,000 dogs are abandoned or put to death by those involved in greyhound racing once their usefulness in the races has finished. Organizers of greyhound races counter that while there are some involved in racing who do abandon or kill dogs that are no longer useful, that this represents a small segment of racing and that the problem is greatly exaggerated considering large numbers of animals abandoned by people who simply no longer want to keep dogs as pets.

According to the Independent, the audience for greyhound racing has all but disappeared and greyhound races today are primarily events intended for television broadcast for betting purposes.

Opponents of greyhound racing in the UK are also venting their anger in Ireland, which the Independent reports is where 80 percent of the dogs that end up in the races are bred. According to The Independent,

The industry has recently been targeted by the Animal Liberation Front. In November, activists vandalized part of Shelbourne Park racing track. A statement released afterwards said the action was “in protest at the slaughter of thousands of greyhounds at the hands of Bord na gCon (the Irish Greyhound Board) . . . Actions against greyhound tracks will continue until racing is ended.” It singed off with the ALF slogan “Till all are free.” The previous month, Kerry Foods’ billboards at Limerick Greyhound Stadium were damaged. Claiming responsibility, ALF said: “Message to the greyhound industry in Ireland: we will be back until Kerry Foods stop sponsoring animal abuse.”

Source:

A Dog’s Life Ain’t What It Used to Be. Jonathan Brown, The Independent (London), January 17, 2005.

Research Group Says Animal Rights Extremism Increasing in UK

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry released figures in January suggesting that the number of attacks on suppliers of pharmaceutical firms by animal rights extremists is increasing and suggested that unless the government does more to control this problem it may drive pharmaceutical companies out of the UK.

According to the ABPI, 42 companies quit supplying animal research firms in the fourth quarter of 2004 due to pressure from animal rights extremists. The group reported that in the first quarter, 22 firms bowed to pressure, in the second quarter 23, and in the third quarter 26, bringing the total for the year to 113. The ABPI also documented more than 108 cases of campaigns of threatening and abusive phone calls and 177 instance of property damage to the property of British companies and their employees by animal rights extremists.

Philip Wright, ABPI’s director of science and technology, told Reuters,

The fact that more and more suppliers are being forced to drop their business with companies involved in animals research in especially ominous. If this trend continues, it is by no means fanciful to suggest that pharmaceutical companies will seriously considered whether it is still appropriate to carry out this essential research work in the UK.

Sources:

U.K Animal Rights Activists Scare Away Suppliers, Group Says. Bloomberg, January 19, 2005.

Animal protests scare drug firm suppliers. Reuters, January 19, 2005.

Animal Care Foundation Runs Ads Slamming Hawaiian Humane Society

The Hawaii-based Animal Care Foundation recently placed an ad on buses in Oahu criticizing the Hawaiian Humane Society.

KHON2 reported that,

The ad shows faces of animals displayed around an incinerator. The language is harsh, the ad reads: “Tens of thousands of animals like these are torched in the Hawaiian Humane Society incinerator. Help us end the slaughter.”

The Hawaiian Humane Society responded with a statement saying,

We’re disappointed by these ads. What these ads do not tell is that we have rescued and returned, thousands upon thousands of animals each year — more than any other organization in the state.

Source:

Bus ads critical of Hawaiian Humane Society. Ron Mizutani, KHON2, January 11, 2005.

Controversial Bus Ads Run. Press Release, Animal Care Foundation, January 11, 2005.