I fully respect your position on this issue, but I must point out some of your rhetoric for its uniquely Western bias. As an initial matter, I object to the offhand reference to animal life as “another” living being and “disregard for life” to the extent it implies animals have some fractional human value or that all “life” exists on an equal plane.

I consider point #6 (the idea that you cannot legislate moral behavior into someone who does not hold an emotional bond with a species of animal) pivotal to the discussion of animal abuse laws. You mention that a person is not expected to cause harm to another living being for no reason, which calls into question what constitutes “no reason.” After all, you yourself pointed out that Vick had a reason for fighting dogs: entertainment. Is nuisance an adequate reason? Is sport? These are adequate reasons for killing cockroaches, rats, ducks, deer, etc. - for no particular useful purpose other than to ensure that the animal dies. Yet no killer of these animals would find themselves prosecuted for their actions. It is acceptable in at least the United States to kill these creatures because it is not culturally typical to form emotional bonds with them. Different cultures, different creatures.

As such, Vick did nothing that our animal abuse laws are intended to combat because he was not violating an emotional bond with the animals (ergo, not a threat to society).

What does the law accomplish when simple moral outrage would do the trick?

Cruelty to animals is forbidden under the Seven Noachide Laws. It basically prohibits severing limbs and bleeding live animals for broth (preservation) according to Genesis 9 and Acts 15:20. However The Sanhedrin interpretes administration to mean basically that no animal should suffer more than a quick death for food and resources.

Regards,

David Merrill.