While I agree that everyone should be outraged at that kind of cruelty, its important to remember that the judge cannot act outside the capacity of the law.

In determining whether or not the accused could keep any of the animals, the judge has to analyze what the law says s/he can deny someone. S/he may have been horrifed at having to allow the accused to return home with the animals she kept, but there is no way any type of awful crime can be properly prosecuted if the judge is allowed to impose his/her beliefs or moral inclinations.

We all know it's wrong, but sometimes the judge's hands are tied. I have a friend who works in juvenile public defense who runs into similar catch-22's all the time.

The real solution is preventive - allowing a devolution of greater authority to animal control authorities or local government/admin. groups so that they can broaden the definition of an offense or allow for catch-all offenses, i.e., two strikes you're out, etc.

What a sick, sad world it sometimes is . . .