Applied to humans, cruelty involves abusive, scandalous and inhuman treatment that causes suffering to be intentionally and unnecessarily inflicted on the body or mind. The first is the lens agent concept, which “is […] A free will that goes in the degree and beyond in the type of [suffering] permitted by the applicable norms. [3] According to this view, the victim suffered cruelty because of the “objective nature of the act or treatment” to which she was subjected. Cruelty in this sense is defined as “the inclination of the mind to the side of hardness.” [3] Any punishment or other treatment that exceeds the scope of complacency and ventures into possibility is considered excessive and therefore cruel. In this area, the law recognizes that in the normal course of human society, great pain is intentionally inflicted on animals, but for legitimate purposes (for example, hot iron mark). Thus, in order to represent cruelty to animals in the eyes of the law, the conduct must be deprived of justification or of the legitimate or lawful purpose or object. “In a group, each action is such that it negatively affects or is likely to negatively affect the other party as a single factor. Such an act can be considered cruelty in itself. Cruelty occurs in three different areas of law: international law or human rights law prohibiting cruel punishment; in animal law in the criminal offence of cruelty to animals (see comments below) and in divorce law, for which it is a ground for divorce in many jurisdictions.
These four conceptions not only serve as an analytical framework, but also reflect the peculiarities of each individual, as well as their collective development – the reality that “the phenomenon of cruelty […] is a man-made problem that requires preventive and corrective responses. [3] The FindLaw Legal Dictionary – free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries. FindLaw.com Free and reliable legal information for consumers and legal professionals The intentional and malicious infliction of physical suffering on living beings, in particular humans; or, as applied to the latter, the gratuitous, malicious and unnecessary infliction of pain on the body or on feelings and emotions; abusive treatment; Inhumanity; Indignation. Mainly used in divorce law, in formulations such as “cruel and abusive treatment”, “cruel and barbaric treatment” or “cruel and inhuman treatment”, the meaning and “cruelty” in this sense see May v. May, 62 Pa. 206; Waldron vs. Waldron, 85 Cal. 251, 24 Pac. 049, 9 L. R. A.
48T; Ring vs. Ring, 118 Ga. 183, 44 p. E. 801, 62 S. R. A. 878; Sharp v Sharp, 16,111 App. 348; Myrick v.
Myrick, Ga. 67,771; Bowl vs. Shell, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 716; Vignos vs. Vignos, 15 III. 180; Schlecht v. Arm, 8 N. II. 307, 29:00 Dec. 604; Goodrich v Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670; Bailey v. Bailey, 97.
Mass. 373; Close v. Close, 25 N.J. Equation 520; Cole vs. Cole, 23 Iowa. 433; Turner vs. Turner. 122 Iowa, 113 97 N.W. 997; Levin v. Levin, 68 p. c.
123, 40 p.e. 945. As between man and woman. Actions that affect the life, health or even comfort of the injured party and give rise to a reasonable concern about bodily harm are called “cruelty.” What only hurts feelings is rarely accepted as cruelty, unless the act is accompanied by bodily harm, real or threatening. The mere austerity of temperament, the petulence of morals, the rudeness of language, the lack of civil attention and courtesy, even the occasional tone of passion, will not constitute legal cruelty; a fortiori, the refusal of small indulgences and special shelters, which the delicacy of the world can count among its necessities, is not cruelty. Negative descriptions of cruelty are perhaps the best, among the infinite variety of cases that can occur by showing what is not cruelty. Evans vs. Evans, 1 Hagg. Const.
15 years Old Westmeath vs Westmeath, 4 Eng. Ecc. 238, 311, 312. Cruelty includes both the intent and malevolent temperament with which an act is committed, as well as a high degree of pain inflicted. Actions that are only random, although they cause great pain, are not “cruel” in the sense of the word, as used in laws against cruelty. Komm. c. Me-Clellan, 101 Mass 34. The fourth and final conception is the accumulation of all previous ideas: the lenses of the victim and the independent agent. This conception “refers to serious violations of respect, recognition and attention commanded by the unconditional and inherent dignity of each individual.” [3] According to this view, “cruelty occurs when a serious violation of human dignity, which under normal circumstances would amount to cruelty, is caused by individuals or by the functioning of impersonal social institutions, structures or processes, even if the victim is unaware of his or her predicament.” [3] CRUELTY. This word has different meanings because it is applied to different things.
Cruelty can be, 1. From husband to wife or vice versa. 2. From greater to lower, 3. From master to slave. 4. To animals. These are considered separately. 2.-1. Between husband and wife, acts that affect the life, health or even comfort of the injured party and give rise to a reasonable concern about bodily harm are called cruelty.
What only hurts feelings is rarely accepted as cruelty, unless the act is accompanied by bodily harm, real or threatening. The mere austerity of temperament, the petulence of morals, the rudeness of language, the lack of civil attention and courtesy, even the occasional tone of passion, will not constitute legal cruelty; 17 cann. 189; a fortiori, the refusal of small indulgences and special shelters, which the delicacy of the world can count among its necessities, is not cruelty. Negative descriptions of cruelty are perhaps the best, among the infinite variety of cases that can occur by showing what is not cruelty. 1 Hagg. R. 35; S. C. 4 Eccles. R. 311, 312; 2 Hagg. Supplement 1; S.
C. 4 Eccles. R. 238; 1 McCord`s Ch. R. 205; 2 J. J. Marsh R. 324; 2 chit. Pr.
461, 489; Poynt. March and Div. c. 15, p. 208; Shelf. on Mar. & Div. 425; 1 Hagg. Against R.
37, 458; 2 Ragg. Contradictions Rep. 154; 1. Phillim. 111, 132; 8 N H. Rep. 307; 3. Fair 321; 4 Fair 487.
It should be noted that displays of passion and outbursts of anger, which would be enough to generate irreconcilable hatred between people educated and trained to respect each other`s feelings, would only have a temporary effect on individuals with crude manners and habits. An act that causes only a temporary difference from the second would be excessive cruelty with the first. 1 Briand Med. Leg. 1 ere Teil. c. 2, art. 3.3.-2. Cruelty to weak and defenceless persons occurs when a party, who is obliged to care for and protect them, abuses them either by whipping them unnecessarily or by failing to provide them with what is necessary for their state of helplessness. Expose a person of tender years under the care of a part to the inclination of the weather; 2 campb. 650; or such a child who is unable to take care of himself or herself without keeping adequate food; 1 laundry, 137; Russ.
& Ry. 20 or a guard who does not provide food and medical care to a poor person who has an urgent and immediate opportunity for them; Russ. & Ry. 46, 47, 48; are examples of this kind of cruelty. 4.-3. Article 192 of the Louisiana Civil Code decrees that if the master is found guilty of cruel treatment of his slave, the judge may, in addition to the penalty established for such cases, announce that the slave will be sold at public auction in order to put him out of reach of the power that his master has abused. 5.-4. Cruelty to animals is a punishable offence. An accused was convicted of an offence for tying a calf`s tongue so close to the root that it was not breastfed to sell the cow at a higher price by making its udder appear to be full of milk while giving the calf everything it needed.
6 Rogers, City Hall Rec. 62. A man can be accused of cruelly beating his horse. 3 Rogers, City of Rec. 191. The second conception is agent-subjective, in which “cruelty is attained only when the agent`s deviant behavior is accompanied by the character`s guilt, which consists in deriving personal pleasure, causing suffering and testifying.” [3] This conception is best understood by assuming that punishment or any other violence is a means of restoring the balance caused by misconduct in the cosmic order of the universe. So anything beyond what is necessary for this restoration is cruel; Peace and harmony are not counterbalanced by excessive punishment or violence – the level of misconduct only shifts to the other side. For example, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which means that we must “investigate the state of mind of a prison officer…” if we find that the officer does not like to inflict pain and that the punishment does not exceed the crime.
[3] n. the intentional and malicious infliction of physical or psychological pain on others. In most states, various forms of “cruelty,” “extreme cruelty,” and/or “mental cruelty” were early grounds for divorce if proven. This has led to a lot of unnecessary (and sometimes exaggerated or false) derogatory (bad) statements about the other party. There was little normalization of what constituted “cruelty” sufficient to prove that a divorce should be granted. Beginning in the 1960s, divorce (sometimes called “dissolution”) began to replace contentious divorces in most states, so incompatibility became a sufficient reason to grant a divorce. (See: cruel and unusual punishment, divorce) At FindLaw.com, we are proud to be the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional website » A person commits a crime if he intentionally or recklessly neglects an animal in his or her custody, abuses an animal, or kills or injures an animal without legal privilege or the consent of its owner.