Just found this wild detail in the special prosecutor's report on the beagle cruelty case at Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin. The prosecutor found clear evidence of criminal cruelty — including employees cutting out parts of dogs' eyes without pain relief or veterinary care (he this the 'cherry-eye procedure'). But he declined to prosecute, in part after speaking with local factory farmers who told him they had 'different views' about animal mistreatment. After speaking with them, he concluded that 'the reality is that the Ridglan Farms business model was not unusual.' Of course, 'different views' and industry norms are not legal defenses to animal cruelty. So he called them 'equity considerations.' In other words, it would be unfair to prosecute these animal abusers because their neighbors also abuse animals.