5 ms·

Fantastic news. Nobody needs rhino horn "supplements", ivory anything or giraffe skin items. Killing these endangered animals for pure vanity and/or commercial

by DLA 8y ago

Fantastic news. Nobody needs rhino horn "supplements", ivory anything or giraffe skin items. Killing these endangered animals for pure vanity and/or commercial gain is barbaric. Time for poachers to get what's coming to them. Now this needs to happen in Tanzanian law also.

olliej 8y ago
But is the death penalty really a reasonable response?
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  Well, what is a more reasonable response to genocide? And not just committing genocide, but they are profiting from it. Kind of like punching Nazi's - I'm willing to overlook the idea that it might not be entirely reasonable as long as it puts a stop to the thing.
  - cornholio 8y ago
    Genocide means wiping a nation or people and has expanded in modern times to cover mass killings for various political reasons. Mass killing of animals is not genocide in any form. Your philosophy might deem them equivalent and I respect that view, but you should accept it's an extreme, minority position.
    - magduf 8y ago
      The only reason "genocide" doesn't technically apply here is because these creatures are not humans. But unlike human genocide where only some group of humans gets wiped out in large numbers, leaving plenty of other humans walking the planet, here it's much worse: an entire species is being wiped out to complete extinction. It's demonstrably far, far worse.
      - d0lph 8y ago
        I think a key distinction here is that their intentions are not to wipe out all animals of a species, which would cause them to lose their income. Genocide is a relatively new term, created to describe the Nazis. It combines the word genos, which means race or tribe, and -cide, death.
      - cornholio 8y ago
        > It's demonstrably far, far worse. The major problem with genocide is not the disparition of a culture or ethic type, it's the killing of scores of humans that have value unto themselves. In contrast, the vast majority of legal systems and societies in existence today do not recognize the mere killing of an animal as wrong. Humans widely believe they have the right to take the life of an animal, as long as it'd done humanely, for sensible reasons and does not threaten biodiversity. So genocide and extinction are fundamentally different, orthogonal moral issues.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Reasonable might be to move higher up the food chain and impose life sentences on the people with the dollars ordering these species to be killed. It is just a bowl of tragedy down in the trenches.
- kikoreis 8y ago
  “When it comes to execution, I think people need to understand that the death penalty is not a humane act.” -- Robert Dunham in http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-is-there-a-humane-way-to-kill-a-criminal http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-is-there-a-humane-w...
sneak 8y ago
The enshrinement of human rights violations in public policy is never fantastic news.
WA 8y ago
The problem with the death penalty is that sooner or later, someone innocent might get killed.
- DLA 8y ago
  Yes, agree here. Big problem. A long prison term to allow for all due process and appeals should be used.
- magduf 8y ago
  If someone is caught out in a wild area with endangered animals and has poaching equipment on them (i.e., a large rifle), I don't see how you can argue that they're innocent. We're not talking about a murder in a first-world urban area where you didn't catch the suspect red-handed.
maxxxxx 8y ago
To be consistent, every buyer of poached items should also get the death penalty. Do we want this?
- magduf 8y ago
  Well considering that poaching is going to result in species extinction, while there's absolutely no danger of humans going extinct any time soon, I don't see the problem.
berbec 8y ago
This can also be seen as tranfering blame to the poorest of the poaching chain - the poachers themselves. The smugglers and especially buyers won't be affected by this and are just as guilty. Do they get the noose too? I'm not being argumentative, I am curious how far your belief this is a good idea goes.
- DLA 8y ago
  Agree, and feel sad we need to go here. This transfer to the bottom of the chain is a real and difficult problem for sure. But at some point is the supply of people who will do this crime gets cut off then the entire supply chain falls apart. In an ideal world it would be best to target the kingpins, but we all know how difficult this can be with their use of lawyers, cut-outs, front companies, and other evasive moves. It sucks that humans will hunt a species to extinction for pure vanity (skins, jeweler and horn potions). Agree further with you and maxxxxx that smugglers and buyers of said animal contraband should be severely punished. But again, that's so far after the fact and there are so many possible outlets for these goods that a demand side solution will just not work. The Chinese government, if they really wanted to cut down on ivory and rhino supplement trade, could enact and enforce severe buy-side punishments. The sad fact is, there is one and only one choke point in this entire global supply chain and that's the guy with the gun that chooses of his own free will to kill one of these animals for money. Stop him and the entire enterprise folds. Yes, I know it's harsh, but other efforts are just not working.

by DLA 8y ago

olliej 8y ago

But is the death penalty really a reasonable response?

drivingmenuts 8y ago
Well, what is a more reasonable response to genocide? And not just committing genocide, but they are profiting from it. Kind of like punching Nazi's - I'm willing to overlook the idea that it might not be entirely reasonable as long as it puts a stop to the thing.
- cornholio 8y ago
  Genocide means wiping a nation or people and has expanded in modern times to cover mass killings for various political reasons. Mass killing of animals is not genocide in any form. Your philosophy might deem them equivalent and I respect that view, but you should accept it's an extreme, minority position.
  - magduf 8y ago
    The only reason "genocide" doesn't technically apply here is because these creatures are not humans. But unlike human genocide where only some group of humans gets wiped out in large numbers, leaving plenty of other humans walking the planet, here it's much worse: an entire species is being wiped out to complete extinction. It's demonstrably far, far worse.
    - d0lph 8y ago
      I think a key distinction here is that their intentions are not to wipe out all animals of a species, which would cause them to lose their income. Genocide is a relatively new term, created to describe the Nazis. It combines the word genos, which means race or tribe, and -cide, death.
    - cornholio 8y ago
      > It's demonstrably far, far worse. The major problem with genocide is not the disparition of a culture or ethic type, it's the killing of scores of humans that have value unto themselves. In contrast, the vast majority of legal systems and societies in existence today do not recognize the mere killing of an animal as wrong. Humans widely believe they have the right to take the life of an animal, as long as it'd done humanely, for sensible reasons and does not threaten biodiversity. So genocide and extinction are fundamentally different, orthogonal moral issues.
- foolrush 8y ago
  Reasonable might be to move higher up the food chain and impose life sentences on the people with the dollars ordering these species to be killed. It is just a bowl of tragedy down in the trenches.
kikoreis 8y ago
“When it comes to execution, I think people need to understand that the death penalty is not a humane act.” -- Robert Dunham in http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-is-there-a-humane-way-to-kill-a-criminal http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-is-there-a-humane-w...

sneak 8y ago

The enshrinement of human rights violations in public policy is never fantastic news.

WA 8y ago

The problem with the death penalty is that sooner or later, someone innocent might get killed.

DLA 8y ago
Yes, agree here. Big problem. A long prison term to allow for all due process and appeals should be used.
magduf 8y ago
If someone is caught out in a wild area with endangered animals and has poaching equipment on them (i.e., a large rifle), I don't see how you can argue that they're innocent. We're not talking about a murder in a first-world urban area where you didn't catch the suspect red-handed.

maxxxxx 8y ago

To be consistent, every buyer of poached items should also get the death penalty. Do we want this?

magduf 8y ago
Well considering that poaching is going to result in species extinction, while there's absolutely no danger of humans going extinct any time soon, I don't see the problem.

berbec 8y ago

This can also be seen as tranfering blame to the poorest of the poaching chain - the poachers themselves. The smugglers and especially buyers won't be affected by this and are just as guilty. Do they get the noose too? I'm not being argumentative, I am curious how far your belief this is a good idea goes.

DLA 8y ago
Agree, and feel sad we need to go here. This transfer to the bottom of the chain is a real and difficult problem for sure. But at some point is the supply of people who will do this crime gets cut off then the entire supply chain falls apart. In an ideal world it would be best to target the kingpins, but we all know how difficult this can be with their use of lawyers, cut-outs, front companies, and other evasive moves. It sucks that humans will hunt a species to extinction for pure vanity (skins, jeweler and horn potions). Agree further with you and maxxxxx that smugglers and buyers of said animal contraband should be severely punished. But again, that's so far after the fact and there are so many possible outlets for these goods that a demand side solution will just not work. The Chinese government, if they really wanted to cut down on ivory and rhino supplement trade, could enact and enforce severe buy-side punishments. The sad fact is, there is one and only one choke point in this entire global supply chain and that's the guy with the gun that chooses of his own free will to kill one of these animals for money. Stop him and the entire enterprise folds. Yes, I know it's harsh, but other efforts are just not working.