I was disturbed to read about the 26-year-old man “who butchered dogs while performing illegal veterinarian work — then posted videos of the procedures online” (Man who performed illegal dog surgeries heads to prison, June 30).
Lazaro Ruiz pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and could have been sentenced up to 20 years.
Instead, he was rewarded with one year in prison and five years’ probation, during which time he will be banned from having access to animals. Does that mean he’ll be allowed to have free access to animals after that?
I have no issue with plea bargaining in general, especially for nonviolent offenders. But for someone with a documented history of the animal cruelty the sentence should be longer.
It’s possible that he is developmentally challenged and isn’t aware of the impact of his actions. In that case, he needs help that prison won’t provide.
If not, then when he is released in a year, it’ll be just a matter of time before he’s back in the news, only for crimes — possibly violent and twisted — against humans.
The man has issues that one year in prison, with no chance of rehabilitation, won’t cure.
Julianne Craig, Miami