Inconsistent response to animal cruelty.

[Catherine]

A woman was found to have twelve dead horses on her property. There were also five seriously underweight horses. The horses and her other pets were taken away and she now has a lifetime ban on owning animals.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10572988/nb-s...entencing/


A young couple left three rabbits in their hutches without food or water. It took three weeks for them to die. Then they left the bodies in the hutches to rot.
They are technically banned from owning animals for 5 years, but their dog, cat and hamster were not taken away.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...mster.html

I know the two incidents happened in very different places, but the variation in response is just too great.
Why would they leave animals in the care of someone who just starved some of their animals to death.
They must have watched the bunnies getting weaker and weaker before they died. Three weeks is a long time to watch something suffer and die.
The twelve horses didn't die quickly either. A life time ban seems reasonable. A five year ban does not. The rabbits deserve better than that.

[LPC]

I suspect that human "judgements" about the relative value of different animals are at work here. Of course, this is *totally* wrong, as one life is not more important than another. But nonetheless, I fear that this is the explanation.

[Catherine]

Quote:I suspect that human "judgements" about the relative value of different animals are at work here. Of course, this is *totally* wrong, as one life is not more important than another. But nonetheless, I fear that this is the explanation.

I think you are right. Horses are considered valuable. 
Rabbits are not considered valuable and neither is a hamster or the cat and dog, unless they were purebreds.
This is a sad truth. It also holds true for humans. Some humans are considered more valuable in the eyes of the law.

We have yet to learn that life is valuable and we should respect all life equally.