This letter is in regard to The Gazette's "thumbs down" Monday to "animal rights vigilantes" regarding the man who scalded his dog. Calling animal rights people "vigilantes" should have been edited for good taste and libel per The Gazette letters policy.
You think animal lovers relish the idea of torturing a human being? I am sure their motivation is simply for the fair punishment for the dog's torturer.
If the man who scalded the dog had used the good sense to house train the dog, it wouldn't have urinated or defecated in the house at the age of 11 months. Also, after this happened, the man would be expected to clean the house, but it wouldn't be necessary to bathe the dog. The man also admitted he had set the water temperature to maximum before putting the dog in the tub. If he was actually washing the dog, he would have lost the skin on his own hands since the water was hot enough to remove the dog's hair and skin and muscle.
He mentioned that he left the dog in the tub to check on a child in another room. If the way he treated the dog is any indication of his temperament, I would hesitate to leave a child in his care.
As to your comparison of punishment for those guilty of animal cruelty and those guilty of crimes against human beings, those accused humans are afforded a trial to determine their guilt and need for punishment. There should be no comparison.