Recently, public outrage erupted in Britain when Daniel Frankish filmed his brother, Andrew, attacking a female bulldog. Andrew threw the dog down a set of stairs after repeatedly stomping on her. He and his brother received only a suspended sentence for doing so. Millions of animals and pets suffer from attacks such as this, so why aren’t we calling for harsher sentences for those who engage in animal cruelty?

Later on, after the dog had been abused by the brothers, she became paralyzed in her back legs and had to be put down. After word got around about the abuse of the dog, many people called for a tougher sentence, saying the brothers should be locked up. Anna Turley, member of the UK Labour Party, has created an Animal Cruelty Bill with the intention of increasing the maximum sentence for animal abusers to five years. Her stance on animal abuse was influenced after two of her colleagues buried a dog alive just after forcing a nail through its head.

Animal cruelty isn’t exclusive to the UK. Sean Kerr, a puppy breeder, was discovered to be causing unnecessary suffering to young puppies and, as a result, was sentenced to six months in prison. The living conditions of the puppies were unhealthy, with the young pups living in their own filth and waste.

Two snakes had their heads decapitated and consumed by their drunk owner. For that, the owner of the snakes received a four month sentence.

Our sentences on animal cruelty in California have been too gentle, too careless. Michigan has a three offense system for animal abusers: one year in jail for the first offense, two years for the second offense, and four years in jail for the third offense. California has a system of six months in jail for the first time, and three years for the second. Why don’t we have a third offense for animal abuse perpetrators? Why aren’t our two offenses harsher than they are?

(This article was inspired by a BBC News piece by Bethany Bell titled “Are We Tough Enough On Animal Cruelty?”)