Honestly, I realise that the ‘other side’ of this case is going to be trying to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, there is just so much against them that I cannot help but side with Vanessa. Even if she did bite the accuser (which of course we have no evidence of as the dog’s description was left off the report and unable to be verified under oath) I feel the sentence is much too harsh. This is a family dog that has been around plenty of humans big and small and has never shown any aggression. If she were provoked to bite in a hypothetical situation, there would be a very good reason for the bite. Further, the shady dealings of the other side – including the unprofessional fist bump after an uncalled for death sentence, the close personal relationship between the judge, the accuser, and the prosecution team, the close personal relationship between the accuser and her lawyer, and the history of mishandled dog bite cases + blatant breed discrimination by town officials is highly concerning when it comes to evaluating the fairness of the trial. The United States court system is meant to be held up as an example for the ideal democratic justice system, but the barely concealed corruption ongoing in this town – receiving no investigation from higher bodies despite the international attention – is scary. Overall, Vanessa does not deserve to be put down, certainly does not deserve to be kept in the conditions she’s being kept in (I mean, convicted murderers are kept in better conditions and allowed visits from their families yet a dog whose guilt is incredibly questionable is being neglected by the state body whose job it is to protect and maintain neutrality until guilt is proven – innocent until proven guilty), and does not deserve to become a martyr in the fight against institutionalised corruption in our political and court systems. There are many big issues at stake here, and we cannot let corruption win. Vanessa deserves to be freed, and investigations need to take place to ensure the values of our justice system are being upheld on all levels. Nobody is above the law, and the law must be fair – not biased and discriminatory as it seems to have been warped into in this case.
