MovieChat Forums > The Practice (1997) Discussion > The Cat Episode

The Cat Episode

posted 15 years ago by cshep79406
13 replies | jump to latest

Don't know the name of this episode, but Lindsey and Helen were planning an afternoon of pampering and were rushing to get through with their cases for the day. Helen had a case where she was prosecuting a kid for killing his next door neighbor's cat as a prank--she told Lindsey she didn't expect it to take long because she was going to try to give the kid community service or something. However, she was visited by the old lady who had owned the cat and who explained how much it meant to her, and Helen's attitude changed and she went all-out prosecuting the kid--I think he got some time. Anyone remember this? It was one of my favorite episodes because it showed that someone shouldn't be allowed to kill someone's pet and just waltz away from it because "it's just an animal."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cshep79406 15 years ago

With all due respect for your opinion, you are mistaken about the severity of penalties for people who harm animals. They are now, as they should be, much more severe and people often get time for killing animals. Don't you think they deserve it? You say "...people should at least get a 'scarlet letter' for cruelty to animals, but you can't be turning lives over for that sort of thing!..." Yes, you can, and you should. Did you know that virtually EVERY serial killer started out by "practicing" cruelty and mutilation on animals? I'm certainly not saying everyone who has harmed an animal is a potential serial killer, but there is something wrong in the psyche of someone who would do something like that. Obviously, I don't mean an instance where you accidentally run over your neighbor's dog or a farmer kills a cow for food; I mean someone cruelly, deliberately killing a helpless animal for their own pleasure. Did God not create animals as well as people? If you don't want your life "turned" by harming or killing an animal, then don't do it.

[–] gobears87 15 years ago

Agree with cschep. The statistical correlation between cruelty to animals and the development of serial killers raises all sorts of questions about people who would deliberately torture an animal. If Jeffrey Dahmer had been sent to prison early on for mutilating and killing his neighbors' pets, would that have stopped him in his tracks? I doubt it, but you never know, maybe it would have made a difference.

Consider the public reaction to the Michael Vick case. It's clear that our society views cruelty to animals in an extremely negative light. Jail terms for the perpetrators is an appropriate statement of how the public views these crimes.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cshep79406 15 years ago

I wasn't suggesting that the kid's entire life should be ruined, but he did deserve a significant punishment so he would understand that animals aren't like toys that you can destroy at will.

[–] fionak-1 14 years ago

The point is not whether the kid deserved to go to jail or not(though in my opinion some sort of punishment is needed here and maybe a psychologist) but the fact that Helen Gamble manipulates the law to satisfy her own hang ups and she has been doing so it since the beginning of the show. I only hope that in real life DAs can show a little more objectivity and restraint. Anyway, Helen Gamble really ruins the show for me.

[–] PrepaidVenerealDisease 15 years ago

The teenager in the episode didn't do "hard time" he was sentenced to 1 year with 9 months suspended. So he only served 3 months. For his crime that was a good sentence. You shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist for taking someone's pet then throwing them out of your car going 60mph on the highway.

Am I the only one who thinks you go a little overboard on the exclamation points?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrepaidVenerealDisease 15 years ago

One would think someone would fix or replace the keyboard. Or at least use the period key on the number pad.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrepaidVenerealDisease 15 years ago

I've never told you to "get a life" so your entire post doesn't have anything to do with what I said. My initial reply to you was mainly about the episode with the line about your enthusiastic use of exclamation points tacked on. You could have easily ignored the last line and stuck to what I said about the episode. Or ignored my reply all together. In replying solely about the "stupid subject" of your 12-year-old-girl-who-forgot-to-take-her-Ritalin style of typing you've made a bigger deal of it.
My last reply took all of several seconds to type up and was my first post dedicated to your typing. And this will be my second and last.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]