Was two-day dog trial worth it?

A March 13 story reports on a two-day criminal trial heard by DuPage County Circuit Judge Blanche Hill Fawell to determine if Mario Spizzirri inflicted fatal injuries to his live-in girlfriend's (Jennifer Linhart) nine year old Shih Tzu-Maltese named Scooby. It's sad that Scooby suffered injuries that resulted in his death. However, in my opinion, common sense has been overlooked concerning this incident.

It seem obvious to me that the appropriate practical venue to respond to this circumstance was civil court not criminal court, if Mr. Spizzirri and Ms. Linhart could not resolve the matter. This was a tort, not a crime. The following people responded to this "criminal" action: A representative from the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, the Bartlett Police Department, the DuPage County State Attorney's office, Mr. Spizzirri's defense attorney, Mr. Spizzirri's expert witness, Judge Fawell and staff.

I'm confused as to who to be frustrated with. Should I be aggravated with the veterinarian at Arboretum View who contacted the police? Should I be irritated at the police department who recommended this case be prosecuted? The DuPage County State's Attorney's office, which decided that the death of Scooby merited spending taxpayers money in a two-day trial? Should I be annoyed at Judge Fawell for not dismissing this matter?

If any one of these individuals/institutions had used common sense, our already overburdened judicial system, tax dollars and professional time would have been better utilized.

If Mr. Spizzirri did injure Scooby, is justice being served by sentencing him to a maximum jail sentence of three years? The cost of jailing would be $69,441. Ms. Linhart has suffered no more than $1,000 in property damage for her dog.

Lastly, and most importantly, I question the values of a society that puts this kind of significance in a 9-year-old Shih Tzu-Maltese named Scooby.

Bill Becker

Antioch