Time to Get Tough on Animal Cruelty?

[Human_Action]

Found the criminal deprivation of property statute. Relevant part:

Criminal deprivation of property. (a) Criminal deprivation of property is obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property, with intent to deprive the owner of the temporary use thereof, without the owner’s consent but not with the intent of depriving the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such owner’s property.
(b) Criminal deprivation of property that is a motor vehicle, as defined in K.S.A. 8-1437, and amendments thereto:

  (1)   Upon a first or second conviction is a class A nonperson misdemeanor. 

So, still a class A misdemeanor, but if you’re looking at a year from criminal deprivation of property, a year for wanton endangerment, and 90 days for criminal mischief, that’s pretty close to 3 years.

[Little_Nemo]

I’ve made this suggestion before. People convicted of animal cruelty crimes should be required to go on a public registry just like sex offenders.

*It wouldn’t overburden the legal system like prolonged imprisonment would.
*I believe people who were cruel to one animal are more likely to be a repeat offender. And statistics show that people who commit crimes against animals often go on to commit crimes against people. So there’s a valid public interest.
*The public shame that would arise from the exposure of their crimes might act as a deterrent.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Little_Nemo

I’ve made this suggestion before. People convicted of animal cruelty crimes should be required to go on a public registry just like sex offenders.

Could work.

Hate to see people who swallow goldfish lumped in with horse sodomists though. So I hope some more discretion could be used in classifying folks.

[Zeriel]

@Human_Action

To be criminal mischief in the second degree, the value would have be more than $500 but less than $2000. The average dog is less than $500, I assume.

Really depends on A) whether it’s purebred (there is a bulldog breeder I’m friends with who routinely gets upwards of two grand per puppy) and B) whether the unique nature of the animal-as-companion figures into the assessed value. I’d LOVE to see case law either way on that latter bit.

I didn’t consider whether it would also be theft, I am not a lawyer, as must be obvious.

Nor am I, it just seems to me that you have to have some legal way of acknowledging all aspects of the crime as presented:

1. took a piece of personal property from another person and destroyed it
2. inflicted intentional and gratuitous injury to an animal
3. performed a violent act in the course of an argument
4. performed a reckless action with the potential to cause serious harm to uninvolved bystanders.

This isn’t a really good case for discussing “animal cruelty” because that’s at best a quarter of what is wrong with the action discussed, IMHO.

[Little_Nemo]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

Could work.

Hate to see people who swallow goldfish lumped in with horse sodomists though. So I hope some more discretion could be used in classifying folks.

Yes, there’d have to be some context applied. But the same is true of the sex offender registries. Guys who prey on children shouldn’t be lumped in with high school seniors that have a girlfriend a year younger than they are.

[Sevencl]

Some people don’t believe in animal rights. I love cute animals, but I wouldn’t want to impose a law on people who don’t, just to appease my irrational emotional attachment. They don’t believe there’s anything wrong with hurting a dog any more than I believe there’s anything wrong with squashing a spider, so I can’t really argue that they’re wrong.

So yeah, in the OP the only real crimes I see are destroying someone’s property (does sentimental value matter, btw?), and potentially causing a traffic accident. Since traffic accidents can kill (or worse), I agree a severe punishment was needed, but animal cruelty shouldn’t figure into it.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sevencl

Some people don’t believe in animal rights. I love cute animals, but I wouldn’t want to impose a law on people who don’t, just to appease my irrational emotional attachment. They don’t believe there’s anything wrong with hurting a dog any more than I believe there’s anything wrong with squashing a spider, so I can’t really argue that they’re wrong.

That’s nonsense. We have as good evidence that a dog suffers as we do that other people feel suffering; so someone could use your same argument to testify everything from rape to torture by saying “Hey, it’s just your opinion that they feel suffering!”

[Sevencl]

@Der_Trihs

That’s nonsense. We have as good evidence that a dog suffers as we do that other people feel suffering; so someone could use your same argument to testify everything from rape to torture by saying “Hey, it’s just your opinion that they feel suffering!”

I didn’t say dogs don’t suffer. Just that not everyone feels that it matters if they suffer or not, and that it’s one thing I don’t think one group should be able to impose on another about.

[Human_Action]

@Little Nemo

I’ve made this suggestion before. People convicted of animal cruelty crimes should be required to go on a public registry just like sex offenders.

*It wouldn’t overburden the legal system like prolonged imprisonment would.
*I believe people who were cruel to one animal are more likely to be a repeat offender. And statistics show that people who commit crimes against animals often go on to commit crimes against people. So there’s a valid public interest.
*The public shame that would arise from the exposure of their crimes might act as a deterrent.

That’s rather severe, you’re talking about a punishment that never ends, after all. I don’t personally feel this punishment fits the crime.

@Zeriel

Really depends on A) whether it’s purebred (there is a bulldog breeder I’m friends with who routinely gets upwards of two grand per puppy) and B) whether the unique nature of the animal-as-companion figures into the assessed value. I’d LOVE to see case law either way on that latter bit.

Turns out it was a bichon frise. No idea what they are worth.

@Zeriel

Nor am I, it just seems to me that you have to have some legal way of acknowledging all aspects of the crime as presented:

1. took a piece of personal property from another person and destroyed it
2. inflicted intentional and gratuitous injury to an animal
3. performed a violent act in the course of an argument
4. performed a reckless action with the potential to cause serious harm to uninvolved bystanders.

This isn’t a really good case for discussing “animal cruelty” because that’s at best a quarter of what is wrong with the action discussed, IMHO.

Did some Googling of terms I never thought I’d be Googling, and I found an article on the incident.

Courtroom observers erupted in applause Friday as a judge sentenced a man to three years in prison for tossing a woman’s small dog into oncoming traffic in a bout of road rage last year.

Three years was the maximum sentence Andrew Burnett, 27, could receive after his conviction last month on animal cruelty charges.

Sounds like he was convicted solely on animal cruelty charges. If so, that’s absurd. He should have been charged with the crimes you’ve outlined; as noted, what he did isn’t even animal cruelty in Kentucky, rightly so. It was criminal, on other grounds.

@Sevencl

I didn’t say dogs don’t suffer. Just that not everyone feels that it matters if they suffer or not, and that it’s one thing I don’t think one group should be able to impose on another about.

Well said, it’s not really an issue of suffering, but whether animals are a special class of property with rights that transcend those of their owner.

[Zeriel]

[QUOTE=Human Action;15882576Turns out it was a [bichon frise.]
(Bichon Frisé - Wikipedia) No idea what they are worth.
[/quote]

Papered purebreds anywhere from $750 to $1850 after a brief google, so no small change.

Sounds like he was convicted solely on animal cruelty charges. If so, that’s absurd. He should have been charged with the crimes you’ve outlined; as noted, what he did isn’t even animal cruelty in Kentucky, rightly so. It was criminal, on other grounds.

Agreed, 100%.

Well said, it’s not really an issue of suffering, but whether animals are a special class of property with rights that transcend those of their owner.

This is the question, isn’t it. Pure legal and courtroom precedence would argue that’s the case, just given the existence of animal cruelty statutes in most places.

[Human_Action]

@Zeriel

Papered purebreds anywhere from $750 to $1850 after a brief google, so no small change.

In that case, he’d have gotten up to three years in Kentucky on the far more logical basis of 1-12 months each for wanton endangerment, criminal deprivation of property, and criminal mischief in the second degree.

@Zeriel

This is the question, isn’t it. Pure legal and courtroom precedence would argue that’s the case, just given the existence of animal cruelty statutes in most places.

Agreed, though the criminal penalties should be kept reasonable.

[KarlGrenze]

I’m not sure I have time at work today to look into published reviews, but last time I did this (last time this topic or something like that came up), I did find some articles mentioning that:

• Many who abused or mistreated animals were themselves victims of child abuse.

• Many who abuse and mistreat animals are also more likely to abuse other humans (kids, peers, partners).

In light of that, I have no problem with many cases of animal abuse being criminalized. Discussing the type of penalty is debatable, yes, because I think that many of those may need something different than jail time.

KG, who sees animal abuse/negligence cases as part of her work.

[Little_Nemo]

@KarlGrenze

KG, who sees animal abuse/negligence cases as part of her work.

Going off topic, but KarlGrenze is a woman’s username?

Okay, you’ve joined Nurse Carmen in the club of posters whose names have caused me gender confusion.

[Zeriel]

@KarlGrenze

I think that many of those may need something different than jail time.

I think I agree with this, too.

[Buck_Godot]

@gracer

There was a news item recently on the subject of animal cruelty and they did show some crazy things, with people mutilating animals in ways that are clearly very sick. That’s quite different to someone beating the dog or kicking a cat.

One of the officers recounted the story of capturing someone who had been torturing animals in horrific ways. When she arrested him he thanked her because he had been progressing to larger and larger animals and he wasn’t sure how much longer animals would enough for him :eek: Made the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

They also said that about 90% of these absolute sickos get away with it, because they don’t do forensic investigations for animals. If it is an indication that someone might eventually move on to humans it might be worth devoting the resources to tracking them down.

This seems to me to be more in the realm of mental health reform being needed rather than criminal prosecution.

ETA: or what the last two on topic posters said :smack:

[gracer]

@Buck_Godot

This seems to me to be more in the realm of mental health reform being needed rather than criminal prosecution.

ETA: or what the last two on topic posters said :smack:

I think that might also be said for the criminal justice system in a larger sense.

But it might certainly be useful if we could get a clear indication of what forms of animal torture are indications of a larger problem. Perhaps there is clear information in this? I don’t know. I have the vague, general idea that sometimes kids who like to torture small animals eventually move on to humans. This idea is based largely on Law & Order

Anyway, in the programme I saw that was the motivation for devoting more resources to tracking down people who had been cruel to animals. As that was in the Netherlands, someone convicted would (hopefully) end up with a “TBS” sentence, that is to say: therapy until they are deemed safe.

That way it seems a sound deal to me.

[Human_Action]

@gracer

I think that might also be said for the criminal justice system in a larger sense.

But it might certainly be useful if we could get a clear indication of what forms of animal torture are indications of a larger problem. Perhaps there is clear information in this? I don’t know. I have the vague, general idea that sometimes kids who like to torture small animals eventually move on to humans. This idea is based largely on Law & Order

Anyway, in the programme I saw that was the motivation for devoting more resources to tracking down people who had been cruel to animals. As that was in the Netherlands, someone convicted would (hopefully) end up with a “TBS” sentence, that is to say: therapy until they are deemed safe.

That way it seems a sound deal to me.

It’s part of the MacDonald Triad, three behaviors that supposedly correlate to murder later in life, though the link has been disputed.

The abstract for the Tallichet-Hensley study “Exploring the Link between Recurrent Acts of Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty and Subsequent Violent Crime” states the following:

Studies demonstrating the potential link between childhood and adolescent acts of animal cruelty and later interpersonal violence toward humans remain ambiguous. Unfortunately, most of the research examining this possible link has failed to investigate repeated acts of animal cruelty or recurrent acts of violence toward humans. Using a sample of 261 inmates surveyed at medium and maximum security prisons in a southem state, this article examines how demographic attributes, childhood and adolescent characteristics, and repeated acts of cruelty toward animals impacted recurrent acts of interpersonal violence during adulthood. Respondents who had more siblings and who had committed repeated acts of animal cruelty were more likely to have engaged in recurrent acts of interpersonal violence, showing a possible link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime.

Bolding mine.

[Maastricht]

@Human_Action

Well said, it’s not really an issue of suffering, but whether animals are a special class of property with rights that transcend those of their owner.

Correct. That is why the Dutch Animal Rights Party in the Netherlands (I’m a member) petitions for animals having the right to freedom from certain kinds of abuse, all on their own. So a right apart from the right of their owner not to have his property abused. Such a legal position is necessary as a start for any legislation.

The Dutch Animal Rights Party, on this topic, feels that such animal abuse gets already enough indignation and outrage from the general public, and that bigger sentences are not the answer.
They feel that this whole discussion detracts from the compleely institutionalized abuse of animals in Industrial Farming. And I think they’re right. Excesses like described in the OP are, fortunately, rare. But what we do to chickens in industrial farming is no less abuse, and that happens to hundreds of millions of chickensevery. fucking. day., for every second of their brief miserable lives.
[

[Human_Action]

@Maastricht

Correct. That is why the Dutch Animal Rights Party in the Netherlands (I’m a member) petitions for animals having the right to freedom from certain kinds of abuse, all on their own. So a right apart from the right of their owner not to have his property abused. Such a legal position is necessary as a start for any legislation.

The Dutch Animal Rights Party, on this topic, feels that such animal abuse gets already enough indignation and outrage from the general public, and that bigger sentences are not the answer.
They feel that this whole discussion detracts from the compleely institutionalized abuse of animals in Industrial Farming. And I think they’re right. Excesses like described in the OP are, fortunately, rare. But what we do to chickens in industrial farming is no less abuse, and that happens to hundreds of millions of chickensevery. fucking. day., for every second of their brief miserable lives.
[

Does the Netherlands have an agricultural exemption to its animal cruelty laws? My state does:

525.130 Cruelty to animals in the second degree; exemptions

1. A person is guilty of cruelty to animals in the second degree when except as authorized by law he intentionally or wantonly:

(a) Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit (including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit), mutilation, beating, torturing any animal other than a dog or cat, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means;

(b) Subjects any animal in his custody to cruel neglect; or

(c) Kills any animal other than a domestic animal killed by poisoning. This paragraph shall not apply to intentional poisoning of a dog or cat.

Intentional poisoning of a dog or cat shall constitute a violation of this section.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the killing of animals:

(a) Pursuant to a license to hunt, fish, or trap;

(b) Incident to the processing as food or for other commercial purposes;

(c) For humane purposes;

(d) For veterinary, agricultural, spaying or neutering, or cosmetic purposes;

(e) For purposes relating to sporting activities, including but not limited to horse racing at organized races and training for organized races, organized horse shows, or other animal shows;

(f) For bona fide animal research activities of institutions of higher education; or a business entity registered with the United States Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act or subject to other federal laws governing animal research;

(g) In defense of self or another person against an aggressive or diseased animal;

(h) In defense of a domestic animal against an aggressive or diseased animal;

(i) For animal or pest control; or

(j) For any other purpose authorized by law.

(3) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training other than training a dog to fight for pleasure or profit, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.

(4) Cruelty to animals in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

[chargerrich]

@Jim_B

I remember there was this story a while back in California. In an incident of road rage, a man takes a woman’s little dog, and throws it into oncoming traffic. No further description was given, but you can image what followed. The public was so outraged, he was given the maximum penalty under California law at the time–three years. Image that. 3 years!

I know some animal welfare activists also argue animal cruelty can lead to other antisocial behavior down the road. 10 to 20 years does seem appropriate to me, at least in cases of extreme cruelty. But surely anything more 3 years would be better.

What do the rest of you think?

:):)

Guess I am going to anger some hard core pet lovers here but 3 years in prison? That is no freaking cake walk.

Do not get me wrong, I have an awesome lab that is indeed part of the family, but she is a dog not a human and three years seems more than appropriate to me.

Twenty years for killing a dog…that to me is borderline insane considering that MANY manslaughter charges end up being far less than twenty years.

As a side note, isn’t what Michael Vick to MANY dogs did FAR worse than this one act of rage? He didn’t get twenty years and is back to making millions in the NFL (which is BS but that is another topic).