Something Stinks in Sea Isle

To the Editor: 
Something stinks here, and it is likely not the dead seagull. Edward Frost, of Philadelphia, while perhaps culpable for throwing stones at the offending seagull, is to be stoned in Sea Isle City Municipal Court at the behest of Shore Animal Control (SAC), contractor for animal control services to the city.
It seems Frost declined to accept the offered plea bargain of an admission of guilt to a civil crime and a fine, for dropping of criminal charges against him. He will now face trial for both civil and criminal charges. Here is hoping that he prevails.
Per the article, Frost was initially investigated by Sea Isle City police as a disorderly person. For reasons unknown, the filing of charges against him was relegated to SAC.
Linda Gentille, manager of SAC, gushed her gratitude to Sea Isle police for ensuring prosecution and to the judge for demonstrating intolerance of animal cruelty in a quotation from the article. Seems the charitable donation that Frost offered as a remedy was not sufficient atonement for his alleged crime and Gentille wants his scalp.
So what could possibly stink about that? Well, SAC is a privately held, for-profit entity, controlled by a local businessperson. No doubt, SAC does many wonderful things. Further prosecuting this case is not one of them.
SAC makes dollars providing animal control services to various towns in the county, a service formerly provided by local government, but now contracted out, terms unknown. Trouble is, as a for-profit entity, SAC is conflicted by profit motive. There is gain to be made in continuing prosecution (along with a bit of free and favorable publicity in the press).
No doubt, SAC employees are motivated as animal lovers and advocates. Unfortunately, this emotional bias may cause them to go beyond what is reasonable for the efficient and proper use of the court system and our tax dollars.
As for the stubborn Frost, he must, despite his alleged misdeed, be a man of principle, insisting on his day in court. He is obviously much deeper “out of pocket” than the $250 cost of the plea bargain, considering his time, travel, and legal expenses.
Perhaps he does not want his name further besmirched? I suspect he may see a larger issue here, though, an issue which should arouse angst in all of us … prosecution for profit at the hands of a private enterprise.