Category: Animal Cruelty

Update March 5, 2008: In the final hours of the 2008 legislative session, the Utah legislature passed Sen. Allan Christensen’s bill to create felony penalties for torture of a "domestic dog" or "domestic cat". Governor Jon Huntsman is expected to sign the bill.

It is the first time Utah has created a felony penalty for animal cruelty. Utah is no longer one of a handful of states without any felony penalties for animal cruelty. But the new law still leaves Utah with among the weakest animal cruelty laws in the country.  

Torture is defined as "intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner."

The compromise law is an amalgam of a bill, HB 470, by Rep. Sheryl Allen, as amended, and SB 297 offered recently by Sen. Allen Christensen instead of his earlier bill, S.B. 117 which would have weakened further Utah’s animal cruelty laws. 

It appears the felony penalty will not apply to feral cats and dogs. Also, these animals may be considered "wildlife" which may be killed by any lawful means which includes hunting and trapping. 

The compromise law also amends current law by excluding wildlife and many other animals from the definition of "animal". "Livestock" which is specifically defined as horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens,  turkeys and other animals are no longer "animals" but instead are creatures not entitled to any protection as long as they are treated according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.

Whatever that means. It’s also not clear what recourse there will be against abusers of these animals (Yes, they are animals!) if they are not treated according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. Again, whatever that means.

The new compromise also strips requirements for veterinary care from current law and removew animal cruelty as a form of criminal hazing.

This compromise came after a battle of more than a decade during which hundreds of Utah’s citizens tried to make at least animal torture a felony.

A strong veterinary and farm lobby have consistently defeated this effort. In this session they actually moved to weaken the state’s existing animal cruelty law.

S.B. 117

S.B. 117, sponsored by Sen. Allen Christensen, passed the Senate by a vote of 15-14. This bill would have weakened the state law in many respects though it would have made it a felony to torture an animal if the perpetrator had been previously convicted in the past 5 years of  animal torture. See the chart below for details of this bill.

S.B. 102

Henry’s Law, S.B. 102, offered by Sen. Gene Davis, a bill that would have made animal torture a felony, died in committee.  There was no public hearing on the bill. 

The bill, S.B. 102, was called Henry’s Law in honor of the little dog whose owner put his eye out with a leafblower and then shut him in a heated oven, causing serious injuries to the little dog. The owner, Marc Vincent, was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to 6 months in jail and two years probation and was ordered to pay a $500 fine and restitution of about $1000 to his wife, Rhonda Kamper, to cover the dog’s vet bills.

Under S.B. 102 torturing an animal like this would have meant up to 5 years in prison. Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203  

The torture of little Henry was a driving force to pass this bill in the 2007 session, and the bill almost passed. Rhonda Kamper, Henry’s person, has led the charge to pass this bill. When it was defeated in the 2007 session literally minutes before the end of the session in last minute political maneuvering by a representative who is a veterinarian , Kamper called on the Governor to convene a special session to consider the bill. Governor Huntsman did that, but the legislature tabled it.

Polls show most Utahns supported the bill. 

During the last session when Henry’s Law was under consideration, Sen. Christensen was concerned a felony charge for torturing an animal could "potentially ruin" the abuser’s life for what may be a "one time stupid thing".

HB 470

Then a third bill, HB 470 sponsored by Rep. Sheryl Allen, was offered as a sort of compromise.  HB 470 initially created a category for companion animals which were offered more protections. The bill also addressed the problem of animal torture during domestic violence. 

It appeared that there would be a fight between these two bills. 

Compare HB 470 and SB 117 

 

House Bill 470	Senate Bill 117
Removes animal cruelty as a form of hazing under Section 76-5-107.5	Same
No mention of amending Section 76-3-203.3 to include animal cruelty and torture as primary offenses of a hate crime.	Animal cruelty and torture can be primary offenses under the hate crime law,  Section 76-3-203.3.
Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" that are owned or kept according to accepted husbandry standards and are owned or kept by zoos or aquariums, or in USDA licensed circuses or traveling exhibitions temporarily in the state; or are kept or used for training hunting dogs or raptors	Same except adds "customary farming practices: Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" owned or kept according to accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices and are owned or kept by zoos or aquariums, and animals owned, USDA licensed circuses or traveling exhibitions temporarily in the state, or for training hunting dogs or raptors.
Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" kept or used for rodeo purposes if they are kept according to accepted rodeo practices	same
Excludes livestock from the definition of animal if kept according to accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices; livestock is defined to include horses, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and others	same
Excludes wildlife from the definition of animal if hunted, fished, trapped or killed by other lawful means	Excludes wildlife from the definition of animal
Contains a definition for companion animals which are dogs (except those used primarily for herding or protecting livestock) and cats specifically, and also any animal dependent on the owner for care and considered a pet but which cannot include a horse or other livestock, fish or other aquatic animals, wildlife or amphibians.	No definition of companion animal
Contains no definitions of accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices	Lists the following as accepted husbandry or customary farming practices but does not otherwise define these terms:  the lawful slaughter of livestock;  any of the following, when conducted upon livestock in a manner that is in keeping with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices: destruction, culling, or euthanasia; vivisection; castration, gelding, neutering, or spaying; declawing, defanging, dehorning, ear cropping, tail docking, polling, or other alteration; branding; shoeing;  grooming; or any other treatment of livestock that is in keeping with accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices.
"Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" means the following, taking into account the species, age, and physical condition of the animal: (i) appropriate and essential food and water; (ii) veterinary care; and (iii) adequate protection, including appropriate shelter, against extreme weather conditions.	No separate definition
Defines torture to mean intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner. But now many animals like horses are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.	Defines torture to mean, without having a legal privilege to do so, intentionally, knowingly, and with depraved or sadistic intent, inflicting, or causing to be inflicted upon an animal or livestock, severe physical pain or prolonged suffering, regardless of whether the animal or livestock dies. Requires proof of depraved or sadistic intent to establish torture. Protects livestock but not the other animals excluded from the definition of animal unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.
The crime of animal cruelty still includes failure to provide necessary food, care, or shelter, as defined above to include veterinary care and shelter against extreme weather, and also adds water as a requirement of care; abandonment of an animal, injury to an animal, and transporting or confining animals in a cruel manner; and causing animals to fight for amusement or gain.   But now many animals like horses are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.	Failure to provide food, water and shelter taking into account the species, age and physical condition of the animal, and abandonment of an animal, would be called neglect instead of cruelty, if done in a manner not in keeping with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices, and if the act or omission does not constitute torture or cruelty. Seems to include all animals and "creatures", though this is a confusing section.  It’s not clear how these acts or omissions could ever be cruelty because they are no longer listed as cruelty and it would be difficult to establish these acts as torture. The section as written would seem to allow someone to defend this conduct on the basis it was really cruelty and they could not be charged because it is not a crime under the cruelty section. Apparently, the prosecutor must also prove the neglect was not an accepted animal husbandry or customary farming practice, whatever those terms mean. Animal cruelty would also no longer include failing to provide veterinary care, injuring an animal or transporting or confining an animal in a cruel manner; these acts seem to have been  removed as crimes at all. Animal cruelty would include poisoning an animal or causing an animal to be poisoned, causing animals or livestock to fight for amusement, gambling or profit; or causing serious injury to an animal which is a new crime defined as bodily injury that: creates or causes serious permanent disfigurement; creates or causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of bodily member or  organ; creates a substantial risk of death; or  causes death. The animal cruelty provisions only protect livestock in the animal fighting related crimes and otherwise offer no protection to livestock and other animals excepted from the definition of animal unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.
No similar defense	It is a defense to cruelty, neglect and torture if the person reasonably believed, that the conduct was necessary to protect the property of the person from destruction or substantial damage. Does that mean someone could torture the neighbor’s dog for digging up a flower bed or chewing up outdoor furntiure?
Retains crime of aggravated cruelty for torture, poisoning (adds causing to be poisoned as a crime), and killing or causing an animal to be  killed, but these crimes remain misdemeanors except they will be 3rd degree felonies under the following circumstances: – If committed in front of a minor – If committed during an incident or course of conduct of domestic violence – If committed against a companion animal; – If committed by a person previously convicted of one of these crimes of aggravated cruelty; – If committed by a person previously convicted of causing injury or death to a police service animal; – If committed by a person previously convicted of dog fighting; – If committed by a person previously convicted of animal cruelty, torture, poisoning or causing an animal to be poisoned, killing or causing an animal to be killed, or being a spectator at dog-fighting related activities, and who also has another prior conviction for animal cruelty, being a spectator at a dog-fighting related activity, injuring or killing a police dog, or violating similar laws in other states or US territories.   But now many animals are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.	There is no crime of aggravated cruelty: poisoning or causing an animal to be poisoned, or causing serious injury to an animal would be animal cruelty along with causing animals or livestock to fight for amusement, gambling or profit. There is no specific crime of killing an animal or causing an animal to be killed. Torture of an animal or livestock is a misdemeanor no matter how depraved and sadistic except for a second offense within 5 years and then it is a 3rd degree felony. Protects livestock but not many other animals excepted from the definition of animal unless  one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.
Creates enhanced penalties, meaning an increase in class of misdemeanor, for persons convicted of animal cruelty, torture, poisoning or causing an animal to be poisoned, killing or causing an animal to be killed, or being a spectator at dog-fighting related activities, and who has a prior conviction for animal cruelty, being a spectator at a dog-fighting related activity, injuring or killing a police dog, or violating similar laws in other states or US territories. other torture, poisoning or killing of animals	Creates enhanced penalties, meaning an increase in the class of misdemeanor, for those convicted of animal cruelty or neglect or being a spectator at dog-fighting related activities, and who also have previous convictions for these crimes. There can be no enhanced penalties for animal torture.

Then Rep. Allen amended HB 470 to make only torture of a dog and cat a felony. She also removed the enhanced penalties as set forth in the original bill (See the above chart.) Finally, the new HB 470 stripped the requirement of veterinary care for animals.

Sen. Christensen agreed to the amended HB 470 in principle and offered his own version, SB 297 which limited the felony penalty to torture of a domestic dog or domestic cat. 

It is this bill, S.B. 297, that passed.  

 

Update: Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has signed Romeo’s Law, S.B. 58. The bill is now law.

The bill was earlier passed by the Kentucky legislature.  Romeo’s Law, KY S.B. 58 which makes it a Class D felony to torture a dog or cat unless it is a first offense and there is only physical injury that is not serious.

There was one major amendment to the bill that was approved by both the House and Senate. The torture of a dog or cat would still be a misdemeanor on the first offense if the animal sustained physical injury and a Class D felony on second and subsequent offenses. If the animal suffered serious physical injury or death, the abuser could be charged with a Class D felony on the first and subsequent offenses. 

The bill passed both the House and Senate and then each concurred in this amendment in very short order on April 15.

For more on this bill, read Animal Law Coalition’s original report below.

Original report: A man in Pulaski County, Kentucky was caught on videotape cruelly beating his dog, Romeo. Now, Kentucky may pass stronger penalties for animal cruelty. State Senator Tom Buford and Rep. Stan Lee have introduced a bill, KY S.B. 58, that would make it a Class D felony on the first and subsequent offenses to torture a dog or cat. The bill is also called Romeo’s Law.

The crime would be punishable by a sentence of 1-5 years in prison. Currently, torture of a dog or cat is a Class A misdemeanor on the first offense punishable by no more than a year in jail and a Class D felony on the second and subsequent offenses. KRS § 525.135 "Torture" is define as the intentional infliction of or subjection to extreme physical pain or injury, motivated by an intent to increase or prolong the pain of the animal."

Cruelty to animals otherwise is no more than a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to no more than 1 year in jail.  KRS § 525.130 Animal fighting is a Class D felony. KRS § 525.125 punishable by a term in prison of 1-5 years.  

Animal Law Coalition applauds Sen. Buford and Rep. Lee for introducing this bill. It would be a better bill if it also would allow a judge to require a psychiatric evaluation and order recommended treatment for the animal abuser and also ban the convicted abuser from owning, keeping or living with animals.

Studies say animal abusers are likely to commit domestic violence and other violent crimes.

70% of animal abusers were found in one 20 year study to have then committed other crimes, and 44% went on to harm people. (Arluke, A. & Luke, C. 1997).

In another recent study 99% of animal abusers had convictions for other crimes. (Clarke, J. P. 2002). In that same study it was found 100% of people who committed sexual homicide had abused animals. (Clarke, J. P. 2002). That study also revealed 61.5% of animal abusers had assaulted a human as well. (Clarke, J. P. 2002).

63.3% of inmates in one prison study who were in for violent crimes admitted to abusing animals. This doesn’t include the ones who didn’t admit it. (Schiff Louw Ascione, 1999)

Police have found animal abuse is a better predictor of whether someone will commit sexual assault than previous convictions for murder or arson. (Clarke, J. P. 2002).

71% of women in a battered women’s shelter reported their abuser either abused a household pet or threatened to abuse a pet. (Ascione, 1998)

In another study 88% of child abusers also abused the animals in the home. (Ascione)

Animal abuse laws are as much about recognizing the danger to people from animal abusers as these laws are about protecting animals. Help give prosecutors the tools they need to stop animal abusers. The lives of humans as well as animals depend on it.

 

 

Michigan has changed its scheme for punishing animal cruelty and neglect. 

In bills that have now been signed into law by Governor Jennifer Granholm, those convicted of animal cruelty or neglect will for the most part, be charged and sentenced depending on the number of animals they hurt at one time.

Previously under Michigan law, offenders were charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony with increasing penalties on the second, third and subsequent offenses. 

Now, for animal cruelty or neglect involving one animal, an offender will generally be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail, a fine up to $1,000 and up to 200 hours of community service. If the crime involves abuse or neglect of 2 or 3 animals or the death of an animal, the offender will generally be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail, a fine of up to $2,000 and up to 300 hours of community service.  

For animal cruelty or neglect involving between 4 and 10 animals or an offender who has a previous conviction for animal cruelty, then felony charges can be filed with possible imprisonment up to 2 years, fines up to $2,000 and 300 hours of community service.  For someone committing animal cruelty or neglect involving 10 or more animals or who has 2 or more convictions for animal cruelty, the new law provides felony penalties of up to 4 years in prison, a fine up to $5,000 and up to 500 hours of community service.

Sentences can be imposed consecutively on charges even if they arise out of the same incident.  

These changes do not apply to crimes involving the willful or malicious killing, torture, mutilation, maiming, disfigurement or poisoning of animal. These crimes are still treated as felonies on the first and subsequent offense regardless of the number of animals involved.

A judge can also order anyone convicted of any of these crimes to pay for the veterinary and other care and shelter for the animals as well as costs of prosecution. Anyone convicted of these crimes can be ordered to stay away from animals during any probationary period.  

Significantly, persons convicted under the new law can be ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and any recommended treatment.

The law still does not apply to hunting, trapping wildlife control or pest or rodent control, farm animals or animals used for research.  A new exception was added for veterinarians.

Check out Animal Law Coalition’s Laws for a copy of the changes to Michigan’s animal cruelty laws.

Animal cruelty results in little real consequence in these states. 

In Idaho animal cruelty is also a misdemeanor. Idaho Code §25-3502, §25-3504, §25-3505, §25-3510-3511, §25-3518. For a first conviction, a person can be fined no more than $5,000 and jailed for 6 months. § 25-3520A

For a second conviction within 10 years of the first one, a person still cannot be fined more than $7000 and jailed for more than 9 months. And, for any person convicted on a third or subsequent violation, within fifteen (15) years of the first, they can be sentenced to no more than 1 year in jail and a fine of $9000.

It should be noted the punishment for poisoning of animals "shall not exceed three (3) years, or in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, and a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($ 100) or more than five thousand dollars ($ 5000)." §25-3503.

The animals involved may be seized with a bonding requirement and forfeiture hearing to follow upon probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the animal cruelty laws. The animals may eventually be awarded to a humane organization. § 25-3520A-B Note that for other property, under Idaho Code § 18-7001 a person who destroys the property of another, can be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one (1) year or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or both. It does not matter if it was the first or second offense.

Moreover, if a person destroys the property of another that has a value in excess of $1000, he is subject to punishment of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, and may be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The Idaho law provides more protection from damage to a flat screen TV than a dog or cat. Visit this link to contact Idaho legislators and let them know it’s time to make animal cruelty a felony. 

In Mississippi under Miss. Code §§97-41-1, 97-41-2, 97-41-5, 97-41-7, 97-41-9, 97-41-16 animal cruelty is a misdemeanor with fines up to $1000 and 6 months in jail. Miss. Code §99-19-31

In fact, until 2006 cats were not included in §97-41-16, the crime of malicious or mischievous injury to dogs. Now such injury to cats, as well as dogs, is illegal but, again, is only a misdemeanor. §97-41-16, Under Miss. Code §97-41-16, a judge can also order restitution for veterinary bills and the market value of the animal.

Poisoning of animals in Mississippi is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Miss. Code §97-41-17

In Mississippi it is a felony with a possible penalty of $5000 or 5 years in prison or both to kill or injure a public service animal. §97-41-23.

Visit these links to contact Mississippi legislators and let them know it’s time to make animal cruelty a felony.

In North Dakota animal cruelty is a Class A misdemeanor. N.D. Cent. Code, § 36-21.1-11. See N.D. Cent. Code, § 36-21.1-01 et seq. including N.D. Cent. Code, § 36-21.1-02, regarding acts of cruelty and N.D. Cent. Code, § 36-21.1-03, cruelty in transportation. The maximum penalty is a fine of $2000 or one year imprisonment or both. N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-32-01

Visit this link to contact North Dakota legislators and let them know it’s time to make animal cruelty a felony.

In South Dakota, too, it is no more than a misdemeanor to abuse, poison or kill an animal of another or inhumanely treat one’s own animal. S. Dakota Code §40-1-20 (poison animal of another) § 40-1-21 (kill or injure animal of another) §40-1-27 (inhumane treatment). The most punishment an abuser faces is a $2000 fine and one year in jail. §22-6-2. Abuse of a service animal in South Dakota merits no more than thirty days imprisonment in a county jail or five hundred dollars fine, or both. §22-6-2.

Visit this link to contact South Dakota legislators and let them know it’s time to make animal cruelty a felony. 

by Laura Allen for Animal Law Coalition