Dear friends, The sentence in Justice's case is getting a lot of publicity! I think the fact that Michael Hill was ordered to submit a DNA sample is justified and a sign of the fact that times are changing when it comes to the way people and the courts are thinking about animal abuse. The article focuses on the fact that the requirement to give a DNA sample may infringe Hill's rights because it is directed toward possible future crimes, which are unknown. However, in my opinion, Hill's present and past crimes should have been enough to warrant him providing a DNA sample. Justice Micheline Rawlins should be commended for this sentence because it demonstrates that she understands the link between animal cruelty and other criminality, including crimes of violence against humans, and that the crime against Justice was a crime of VIOLENCE. Hopefully one day soon our Criminal Code will also reflect this fact instead of viewing animals as property.