mickb wrote:And you could also say a great many crimes cause pain, suffering, deliberate harm to people, like breaking a guys jaw, or arm, or stealing grandmas pension money. But not all crimes apply torture to the charge list for reasons it falls under a specific application and to over apply it yoyu risk it becomeing superflous.
My opinion is the application is overused for a case of running down animals. Frankly its sensationlaism. In fact I would not even have it in relation to animals any more than I would have 'murder' against an animal.
This is just my position sorry. You dont have to agree with it, but at least say you understand the words because I have written it three times now.
cruel
[ kroo-uhl ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR cruel ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
Answered above, again.
As for the drug dealer reference: people who take drugs have a choice in the matter
Defenceless animals don't have a say.
No 'kids' are not 'people' being seen to have a choice in 'such matters', as they are minors. Unless you are saying they have a choice in being abused , coercion, and could just seek help to avoid it.
Read my first paragraph again. We can agree to disagree, but at least if we understand one anothers position, the semantics you are so worried about will reduce about 95%.
In this case, it's a legal definition. And – personally – I don't see it is a big stretch from action to legal definition. If you chased a mother and infant with a car, swerving across the road as they were trying to run away, then hit them, then left the mother to die on the side of the road while the infant slowly died of hypothermia next to her, then that is a form of torture in anyone's language.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, and I do take your point about the word "torture" conjuring up a slow and prolonged act of cruelty, but my opinion is the charges were correct and I don't think it takes away from other crimes such as one-punch assault or theft (though in those cases, no-one has lost their life).
As for the drug dealer reference, we were all kids once – some of us took drugs or tried to sneak into the pub – and while we were certainly impressionable minors, there was at least an element of free choice in the matter, even under peer pressure. It's not really the same as someone lining you up with a car trying to maim or kill you. If drug dealers did that, they'd have no customers!
I'm not saying I don't understand what you are saying, either. I'm saying I disagree with your interpretation. At least we are both free to do that – spare a thought for the poor animals that had no say and the sods that got enjoyment out of their suffering.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.