In the past few days, courts in Bangladesh have handed down two notable verdicts in cases of animal cruelty. In one case, a Dhaka court sentenced three men to two and a half years’ imprisonment each for killing 20 dogs in Jatrabari. Case documents reveal that the trio killed the dogs in the Lichu Bagan area of Dhalpur in Jatrabari using iron rods, pliers, and lethal injections on January 23, 2021. In another case, the court sentenced a man to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Tk 10,000 after CCTV footage showed him kicking his neighbour’s pet cat in Mohammadpur in February 2025.
These cases are significant not only because they show that the justice system can act to punish cruelty to animals, but also because they highlight the way society views justice and its limitations—particularly the tendency to treat different forms of justice as competing priorities rather than complementary obligations.
So, you have a scenario where the courts have applied the law, heard evidence, and delivered sentences reflecting the seriousness of the crimes, signalling that animal welfare laws in Bangladesh are being enforced. Yet, in the comment sections under several news posts on social media, particularly on Facebook, many readers have been seen responding not with appreciation for the rulings but with criticism, ridicule, and disbelief.
A common theme in these comments ran along the lines of: “In Bangladesh, people are murdered and raped and often go unpunished, but someone gets jailed for killing an animal.” Simply put, many tend to think it is unfair to punish someone for killing a dog or a cat when so many serious human crimes remain unresolved. This reflects a common but flawed way of thinking: the belief that problems in one area of justice mean we can ignore others. This is an example of the fallacy of relative privation, which argues that one problem is more important than another and therefore the second should be ignored or overlooked.
While frustration over delayed or absent justice in cases of murder, sexual assault, or corruption is understandable, it cannot be used as a reason to dismiss cruelty to animals. Justice is not a zero-sum game; the failure to punish human-centred crimes does not mean animal abuse should go unpunished. Each crime exists on its own, and each deserves proper response. Allowing animal cruelty to continue simply because other crimes remain unresolved weakens both the rule of law and our moral standards.
There is also a social and psychological dimension to animal cruelty that makes enforcing the law important. Studies in criminology and psychology show that people who harm animals are more likely to commit other violent or antisocial acts later in life. Childhood cruelty to animals is one of the behaviours identified in the Macdonald triad, alongside fire-setting and chronic bed-wetting, and has been linked to a higher likelihood of developing violent tendencies in adulthood.
The behaviour of zoosadism—deriving pleasure from harming animals—has also been associated with violence and other criminal acts. Many cases worldwide show that individuals involved in animal abuse are often connected to other crimes, such as weapons possession, drug offences, or violence against humans. Punishing animal cruelty is therefore not only about justice for the immediate victims; it can also help prevent wider harm, reinforcing the preventive role of law enforcement.
The recent cases further underline the need for a change in societal attitudes. Many people still see animals as expendable or less important than humans, which partly explains the backlash on social media. Promoting awareness about animal welfare through schools, media campaigns, and community programmes can help cultivate empathy from an early age. Media coverage that illustrates the legal consequences of abuse, along with stories that highlight the emotional lives of animals, can also play a powerful role in shaping public attitudes. By fostering a culture of compassion alongside legal enforcement, Bangladesh can strengthen both social and legal protections for animals.
Across the world, many countries treat animal cruelty as a serious crime, with protections embedded in their legal systems. In the United Kingdom, for example, animal abusers can be sentenced to up to five years in prison, and the number of prosecutions has steadily increased. In Brazil, high-profile cases such as the Sansão dog case—in which a dog’s legs were severed—led lawmakers to increase penalties for cruelty and strengthen protections for animals. In the United States, federal and state laws address animal abuse, with serious offences carrying multi-year prison terms. Even in countries where animal welfare laws are newer, courts increasingly treat animal abuse as a serious offence rather than a minor matter. These examples show that societies recognise the value of animal welfare and view its enforcement as part of a broader moral and legal responsibility, rather than as a distraction from human-centred justice.
The ethical argument for punishing cruelty to animals is simple. Enforcing laws against animal abuse does not diminish the need to punish crimes against humans. Justice for one group does not take away justice from another. Rather, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
So, the recent court rulings in Dhaka, though modest in scope, mark a step towards demonstrating that cruelty is unacceptable and punishable, no matter who the victim is. They send a clear message: the justice system recognises the value of life beyond human beings and will enforce laws to protect the vulnerable. By rejecting the idea that the lack of justice for humans allows animal abuse to go unpunished, society can uphold a consistent and principled approach to law and morality.
Jannatul Naym Pieal is a Dhaka-based writer, researcher, and journalist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
