Recently a sad and disturbing story appeared on the front page of The Leader.
It was in regards to the sentencing of a convicted child abuser.
While the tragedy of that story is obvious, there …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
Recently a sad and disturbing story appeared on the front page of The Leader.
It was in regards to the sentencing of a convicted child abuser.
While the tragedy of that story is obvious, there was a bit of information in the article that risks being overlooked.
As a part of the sentence handed down by the court, it was stipulated that when the defendant is released, he is not to be allowed to own a “pit bull.” There is no mention of other breeds such as rottweiler, Doberman or German shepherd.
This kind of subtle breed discrimination is harmful and unfair, and I would hope that the Humane Society would speak up as well. Many communities across the country are stepping up in defense of this historically significant breed. One of its nicknames is the “nanny dog.”
I am disappointed that the court would add such a stipulation to a sentence and risk perpetuating the myth about this fabulous and wonderful breed.
JOHN MAXWELL
Port Townsend
