Sentencing in Iowa City case not harsh enough

To the editor:

Regarding the July 28 article 'Probation in torture of roommate's cat, 30 days in jail for drunken driving case”:

I'm not sure what the minimum and maximum penalties are for animal torture, but two years of probation with a suspended sentence sounds minimal to me. This is the sentence imposed recently upon a man whose well-publicized torture of a cat has been part of our local news. The newspaper articles have stated that he was an Eagle Scout who lost his way and committed this horrible deed only because he was in a cocaine-induced psychotic state. What? If he is an Eagle Scout, I am the Queen of England. Is using cocaine an excuse for his disgusting behavior? I don't think so.

Even though the judge was quoted as finding the man's character issues 'troubling” (after he clearly tortured and nearly killed a cat), the man was given probation. Why didn't the judge order him to contribute money to the animal shelter? If he had money to buy cocaine, why shouldn't he be forced to spend it on animal care? Why didn't the judge prohibit him from being anywhere near animals? Why isn't he doing community service? What is wrong with our legal system?

This man is clearly not receiving the punishment he deserves. Most animal lovers, including this one, can think of some extremely appropriate suggestions, but they are probably against the law. A sad irony.

Dixie Saylor

Iowa City