Michael Macartney, 50, confessed to the BBC his role in an extreme monkey torture network.

A ringleader in a global monkey torture network exposed by the BBC has been charged by US federal prosecutors.

Michael Macartney, 50, who went by the alias “Torture King”, was charged in Virginia with conspiracy to create and distribute animal-crushing videos.

Mr Macartney was one of three key distributors identified by the BBC Eye team during a year-long investigation into sadistic monkey torture groups.

Two women have also been charged in the UK following the investigation.

Warning: This article contains disturbing content

Mr Macartney, a former motorcycle gang member who previously spent time in prison, ran several chat groups for monkey torture enthusiasts from around the world on the encrypted messaging app Telegram.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      344·
      8 months ago

      Why not? If you do the act yourself it’s worse than asking someone. Just like it would be for murder, the murderer gets longer behind bars, this is not surprising.

      • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
        231·
        8 months ago

        I disagree

        Willingly and knowingly promoting and distributing and organizing inhumane acts is as equally bad as commiting the core inhumane act directly. The goal and impact are equal.

        In my opinion there is no spectrum for comparison in inhumane acts. It simple is or isn’t.

        Hitler was just as inhumane as the ones he ordered to commit the acts.

        There is no better or worse, just is or isn’t.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          217·
          8 months ago

          Those are fair points. Would, hypothetically, someone who is off the deep end be punished just as badly as someone who decided to follow those words? Or would it depend on their position of authority?

          • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
            12·
            8 months ago

            I’d leave that up to judge and jury with real details rather than hypotheticals, but I do think for justice to be accurate the state of mind, intentions, and many other factors should be considered.

            I do think a person who was mentally competent, understanding the act is inhumane would get a more harsh justice than a person who wasn’t.

            I think authority doesn’t have a direct role in deciding justice

            I don’t think following orders is an excuse, each of us has a duty to understand what we are doing and are responsible for the results. but if a person was incapable of understanding the results of their actions that is different from a person who was.

            A person who has authority likely is knowing and competent and intentional, and the wider impact of their actions will implicitly have harsher justice without directly considering their authority

            Most countries have protections for people disobeying illegal orders, and most countries make inhumane acts illegal so I feel like this well covered.