Dog-fighting: A Capital Offense?

A tremendous furor has been raised over NFL Quarterback Michael Vick's alleged involvement in dogfighting in South Carolina. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) went into a murderous rage over the subject, in effect saying that he wouldn't object to watching Michael Vick be executed. From Radar Online:

Byrd, 89, said he'd witnessed one execution in his life--a man put to death in the electric chair. "It's not a beautiful thing," he said. "I could say I could witness another one if it involves [long pause] ... this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic, business of training these vulnerable creatures to kill."

Many other people have jumped on this bandwagon. In response to this news story, Facebook groups have sprung up with thoughtful titles like "Michael Vick should be put in a ring with 50 rabid pit bulls," "All Those In Favor for the Injection of Rabies into Michael Vick!!," "Americans for the Death by Wild Dog Mauling of Michael Vick," and "All Those in Favor of Drowning Mike Vick and Then Electrocuting Him!"

Well, before we re-institute lynching, perhaps people should really think about what they are saying.

I would assert the following:

1. Dogs are sweet, fun, playful, loyal pieces of property.

2. An owner should enjoy full discretionary use of his own property, so long as he doesn't violate anyone else's right to do the same.

3. Michael Vick is not alleged to have stolen, vandalized, or otherwise violated any one else's property. He is not alleged to have committed any act of violence against any other person.

4. Highly sought after professional athletes frequently spend their money lavishly, and are the subject of envious resentment. This dog-fighting is apparently an outlandish behavior that Vick chooses to spend time and resources on while on private property and out of uniform.

5. Different people come from different cultural backgrounds, at least some of which celebrate dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting, and other completely legitimate, if arguably immoral, past-times that involve the injury or death of "sweet, fun, playful, loyal pieces of property." (And of course, many of these pieces of property aren't that sweet.)

6. Unless you are a vegan--which I think is an unnecessary, but consistent position--when you assert that companion animals are agents with rights you are effectively drawing an arbitrary legal distinction between dogs, cats, horses (animals to which people try to impute quasi-personhood because they are cute) and pigs, chickens, cows, minks, etc. (animals that we usually don't keep as pets in the US and thus don't care as much about). Animals from the latter group are subjected to pain all the time, with electrocution, drowning, boiling, and other fairly painful means used to harvest them.

If you want to punish Michael Vick, work to get him fired. He is an entertainer, and if he fails to entertain, or creates a net loss for his team organization, they will have to get rid of him. Do not threaten violence against a man for using his own property as he saw fit. That is just envy and tyranny. I am loyal to humans over all other creatures. No matter how much animal suffering might be alleviated by a human's death, I strongly believe that the human interest must trump the animal interest every time.

And really folks, let's be realistic here. Does the government really even care about animal suffering? If it does, why then is it legal to cause pain in minks destined to become fur coats, and cows destined to become steaks and dress shoes, but not to cause pain in dogs? The real reason that it is illegal to organize dogfights is that some busybodies think it is their responsibility to use violence against others to stamp out gambling. As an article in the Charlotte Observer reports, a spokesman for South Carolina's Attorney General Henry McMaster stated that,

Dogfighting is definitely a crime. Not only is it flat-out cruelty, but most of these cases involve heavy betting supported by drug money.

Aha! All of this moralizing and grandstanding by politicians is just an emotional appeal to the public's fervent desire to end gambling... unless, of course, you instead divert your entertainment dollars to the South Carolina Lottery--the government gambling monopoly. This is not the government fighting crime. This is the government fighting competition.

American Pit Bull Terriers are a splendidly friendly, loyal breed, and abusing them is immoral. It is not, however, unjust. People should do their best to avoid causing gratuitous suffering, both for social and moral reasons. There is some merit in trying to devise more humane methods of slaughtering animals, and some producers are already benefiting from increased demand for food processed by such methods. Animal abuse is distasteful, and people should be free to refuse to do business with or otherwise associate with anyone they view as acting in a distasteful manner.