I find it amazing how you are able to know exactly what was in the mind of a 21-year-old woman. How do you do it? It must be a gift to be able to know exactly what she was thinking and feeling, what her capability of making desicions was like.
Since you chose to write out a thoughtful response rather than slam a "disagree X" without explanation, you deserve an equally thoughtful reply, Obviously we can't know the individual girls thoughts, because none of us have the ability see across the universe into the mind of another person, but as adults when you don't have all the facts, you can arrive at a logical conclusion by application of Logical Reasoning. I won't bore you with definitions as I suspect you are familiar with it.
1. At 21 years of age, you are considered an adult able to share in all the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES of adulthood. The law makes no distinction between the mental capabilities of the individual, unless same individual is mentally impaired. By the article, we know that she was 21 years of age (an adult by legal definition). Two, she was enrolled in college, which implies some level of mental competence. Which leads to Assumption #1 - She was an adult capable of making rational decisions.
2. She obviously didn't walk to the airport from her college. She either took commercial transportation (which would imply financial ability), either on her own or by her parents support, or a friend transported her. She tried to rent a car (which again implies financial ability). She would have learned on check in shortly after arrival, that the hamster was not going to be allowed on board. If a friend did transport her they should not have been that far away and could have returned to help. Based on the fact that she would have had to have some type of financial ability to rent the car, she could have also taken a shuttle from the airport to a motel. That leads to Assumption #2 - She had transportation options.
3. No where in the article does it say that she contacted any humane societies, shelters, or kennels. In the article there is in fact a negative response from PETA, therefore Assumption #3 - She made no attempt to contact a place of shelter for the animal.
4. No where in the article does it say that someone "forced" her to destroy the animal. In fact she is quoted as saying "she thought it would be less cruel to flush it than release it". So Assumption #4 - She made the decision to flush the animal.
I can probably come up a with a few more known facts and assumptions based on those facts, but you get the idea. I think there's enough given facts to deduce logically that
she committed a cruel an inhumane act by her own accord. Going one step further and applying Inductive Reasoning you can see a sufficient pattern or a trend then generalizing and extrapolating the information, to again conclude that
she committed a cruel and inhumane act by her own accord. Finally by Abductive Reasoning you can ascertain from the assumptions and conclusions already arrived at that there is sufficient information to arrive at a conclusion based on probabilities, that
she committed a cruel and inhumane act by her own accord.
So while I can't say 100% for sure what was in the girls mind, I can deduce with great accuracy her actions. Letting this ADULT off with excuses is not something I or any other rational thinking individual should do, she should be ticketed, not let off the hook.