For about the fifth time my home state of Utah has failed to pass 'Henry's Law' which would make animal cruelty a felony. Utah is one of only seven states where this crime is still only a misdemeanor, and while I fully support the passing of any law that will deliver a heavier punishment to those who participate in un-sanctified cruelty, there's another issue here. Actually, there are several.
First and foremost is the fact that animal cruelty is almost impossible to prosecute. Did you know that animals cannot be seized from situations without surrender or a warrant? The probability of being prosecuted for animal cruelty tiny. For example, in Massachusetts there were 80,000 complaints of abuse and neglect between 1975 and 1996 but only 268 prosecutions. That's .3%. Of those, only 44% of cases were found guilty and only 5.2% were found not guilty. The rest were dismissed, defaulted, denied, not sought. So out of all those cases, only .14% were ever sentenced or prosecuted. While this may speak to problems with the criminal justice system as a whole, it's well documented that certainty of punishment and not severity is what leads to a decline in crime rates. So even we do make animal cruelty a felony, if people don't think they'll get caught and prosecuted, they probably won't care. Plus, according to Arnold Arluke from Northwestern:
"Criminal justice professionals, including police, district attorneys, judges, and criminologists do not appear to regard animal abuse as a serious or common crime."
That sends a great message. Microwaved your cat? Yeah, just don't do it again, please.
Second is that even under if animal cruelty is prosecuted as a felony, animals still remain property. Some people, like the delightful Charles H., feel like this is okay. As Charles puts it..
"Animals should be treated in a humane and civil manner. BUT, they are and must remain chattel property of the owner. And punishment for mistreating an animal should never exceed the punishment for mistreating a spouse or child or even complete stranger."
Apparently to Charles I should also remain chattel property, or at least be compared to it? No one is asking that the punishment for animal cruelty should exceed that of mistreating another human. If I put my baby in the oven, I hope I get charged with a felony. If that's not how it is, than those laws must change too. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't punish willful acts of cruelty to living beings with more than 7 hours of community service and a $100 fine. He does make a good point though:
"How many persons have been convicted of animal cruelty and sentenced to the maximum penalty under current law, actually served that sentence, and then gone on to re-offend because the penalty was too leniant? How many in the last 15 years?"
Too few have been convicted, have been sentence to the maximum, too few have served and far too many have gone on to re-offend because the message we send is that it doesn't matter. I've had speeding tickets with bigger fines than the majority of people receive for animal cruelty and I still speed.
Thanks for painting such an awesome picture of Utah, Charles. I too am glad we haven't given in to peer pressure and that our beer remains at 3.2% alcohol, that you can't buy wine coolers in grocery stores, and that poking a dog's eye out won't get you jail time. Maybe we should change out state motto to "Utah: You can't buy beer on Sunday, but heck, you can torture an animal instead."
It's actually passed now, but it's only a felony to torture dogs and cats. Because chickens, guinea pigs, and llamas can't feel pain like a little kitty can. As if.
It's moral schizophrenia isn't it, Emily? We sanction, even applaud the torture of a cow while morally and legally criticizing this same torture of a dog. How irrational.
It drives me crazy because through this rule we as a general society actively sanction and even morally JUSTIFY the abuse of animals. Cats and dogs are a good start, but it's no where near good enough.