“Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is; whether its victim is human or animal, we cannot expect things to be much better in this world…we cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity.”
-Rachel Carson

The sentencing of Anjalo Abeywickrema is an interesting one: he will have to go to jail for 4 months for his crimes and a 5 year ban on owning a pet.
 
But should if at all an individual go to jail for harming other creatures? Perhaps it is because people sense that an injustice has taken a place.  A defenceless creature has lost its freedom and liberty to life. 
 
 
I used to ask myself, “Why do some groups like PETA put resources towards better treatment of animals when there are millions of their fellow humankind suffering from poverty, environmental catastrophes, and war?” 
 
My dad one day explained to me, “Son, when any creature suffers in this world, all of us suffer the consequences of that injustice.” I think his statement was a criticism to insensitivity towards injustice in any form that may take place. 
 
I would argue that all social justice issues are inter-linked. In fact, I am optimistic that many sources of injustice can be solved with the same tools. In order to avoid the suffering of an animal we must investigate the sources of injustice.  Are we as human beings genetically engineered to cause harm onto other creatures, or are we socialized?  If we area socialized, then perhaps we can change that socialization in order to have better animal owners in the future.
 
When a human goes to jail for causing harm to his animal, people start to speak of the action of unnecessary pain. This increases sensitivity. When we start to talk about causing pain, we may even formulate solutions such as access to education and prevention instead of prosecution.  Should we just put people in jail and throw the key away? 
 
Historically, Canadian Criminal Law has functioned retroactively.  In other words, someone like Abeywickrema acts with the intention of harming others in a way that is prohibited.  Consequently he was punished by the Legal system.  My question is, what proactive role if any should the Law and Legla professionals played in the past in educating the public regarding what is acceptable and what will send them to jail.  Why not identifying the sources of sadistic behaviour?
 
I can tell you that as an immigrant, my family and I know no greater treasure than freedom.  We travelled the planet to find a place where we can be free to speak our mind, wear the clothes we want, and many other freedoms that people take for granted.  Perhaps it is time for the Law to teach people why we should not take our freedoms for granted.  When an individual goes to jail to be “corrected” as the name of the government department foreshadows he/she does that at the cost of freedom and liberty: to my family and I, this is a heart breaking punishments because we come from a place where their Law has made the whole country feel like a jail most of the time!
 
 
I want to ask what deep failures in society have helped create an individual like Anjalo Abeywickrema.  What kind of parenting; what kind of social and financial context; who educated this individual regarding his rights and how he can protect his liberties.  Perhaps the kinds of behaviours that is acceptable for an animal owner?  Despite the fact that people do have a choice in how they behave, this choice I would argue is always affected by social context, physiological stability, and many other variables and that is why the Law and Legal professionals need to be proactively involved in educating our communities.
 
My suggestion for the reform of “Correctional Services” comes from the Middle East. An interesting interpretation of Islamic Sharia Law is that people can only be punished harshly when they live in an almost perfect community without considerable social disparity.  The Islamic community would have a role in socialization and identification of individuals who are in need of guidance. 
 
In conclusion, when we are sensitized to the pain of an individual dog, we can no doubt become more sensitized to the deep social roots for the criminal’s actus reus and mens rea in the crime that he has committed.  I would add to the famous saying by Ghandi “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind;” if someone has weak eyesight, let’s give him/her glasses before he falls into the ditch.