A man has been jailed for killing a dog (The Argus, May 30) and the circumstances remind me of the writings of French existentialist philosopher Albert Camus.

Camus' view of the law was that you could be convicted of a crime on the basis of not adhering to the conventions or hypocrisies that society imposes on people. To not display the right emotion or to be from the wrong class, so you are not viewed as the same or worthy of consideration, is enough to be convicted.

If this man lived in Dyke Road Avenue instead of Moulsecoomb his "crime" of killing a vicious dog would have been overlooked and the authorities would have been more sympathetic and willing to understand the reasons. True, it was wrong to kill the dog in the way he did but he was probably in an emotional state. He felt it was his responsibility to do something.

I think this man's worst "crime" was to live in Moulsecoomb on benefits and to be one of society's losers.

He probably doesn't even know this is why he was convicted.

The Argus put a great deal of effort into freeing Omar Deghayes but this was an international cause célèbre with a great deal of kudos attached.

Where is the kudos in campaigning to free an out of work decorator from Moulsecoomb? This is an injustice.

Our overflowing prisons - and money - should be used to accommodate more serious criminals.

  • P Grant, King's Road, Brighton