There has been a lot of chatter on the internets this week (already) about animal cruelty -- and the people who participate in it -- and the need to increase the punishment on animal abusers.
And while I think most of the talk is good....the more we talk about solutions to dealing with abusers, the sooner we can end the problem.
Some of the conversation involves a proposed law in California that would create a registery for convicted animal abusers. The law is essentially designed to mirror the laws for sex offenders and allow people to know if people in their neighborhoods have a known track record of abuse. The idea would be to track these people because they often move to other juristictions where people are not aware of their past problems.
This certainly seems like a valid idea...and one that I'm not opposed to. In just one recent case, a Kansas man was charged (he's awaiting trial) on 70 counts of animal cruelty relating to a hoarding bust in Kay County, Oklahoma. The man had a track-record of abuse in the state of Kansas, and had been forbidden from owning dogs in Kansas, but the track record did not follow him to Oklahoma...where more than 100 dogs were found on his property. Two of his former dogs died this past week due to illnesses even under the expert care of the folks at Bad Rap.
Even though the bill seems unlikely to pass because the funding mechanism for the registry is supposed to come from an increased tax on pet food...which too many people oppose, the idea for the bill seems sound -- because certainly habitual abusers cannot be tolerated.
While some have looked at this new bill as an opportunity to talk about the need to strengthen animal cruelty laws, I'm not sure that is the answer either. Animal cruelty is already a felony in every state.
The problem appears to be that judges around the country are not issuing particularly strong sentences for major, purposeful abuse cases....and the number of instances of people getting off for pretty major offenses seems to be growing.
Last week, the Pet Connection folks noted that Fabian Henderson, the man convicted of throwing Oreo off the top of a 6 story building, leading to a couple of broken legs, a broken rib and a dog that was broken enough that it led to her eventual death, got 6 months of probation and a treatment program that will help him to find a job.
Meanwhile, also last week, Bobby Loggins got 30 days in jail in Iowa for punching his 5 month old puppy in the face 30 times -- killing it. Thirty days? For punching a dog in the face?! The judge ruled that because the dog was his own, and not a fancy show dog, that he got off on a light sentence. The particulars of the abuse are pretty gruesome, you can follow the link -- but the case brings Loggins' track record to 26 cases of driving violations, drugs, and now animal torture.
*Strangely, the head of Sioux City Animal Control Cindy Rarrat said that the judge did an "excellent job". Even more ironic, is that according to Sioux City law, someone could get the same penalty as Loggins got for merely owning a 'pit bull' and treating it well.
It seems that maybe more important than pushing for better laws, would be putting pressure on judges to apply harsher sentences to people who are violent and cruely abuse offenders. It is one thing for someone to get put up for abuse because they cannot afford food and a dog is a little malnourished, it is quite another to throw a dog off a 6 story building or literally punch its face in.
It seems its past time to put some pressure on our judges to be sure that violent abusers are punished with more than a slap on the wrist.
A lot of folks don't seem to realize some of their judges are elected officials, just like their city council and Mayor.
It takes involved local citizens to get the ball rolling.
Posted by: KC KS Kills Dogs | February 23, 2010 at 02:37 PM
We've been trying to get this started in KC - but we have to have people to do the research on these judges.
I think the registry in CA is a complete misuse of resources. You could do a background check on someone and get their criminal history. The only way this would work is if it were a national registry anyway. The OK guy did this because local authorities ignored the problem when they were first notified - the registry wouldn't have helped.
And they want to burden pet owners even further in this economy? Do they have any proof this will even work? Why not a murder registry? A domestic abuse registry? Where will these end?
Posted by: MichelleD | February 23, 2010 at 03:54 PM
We've been trying to get this started in KC - but we have to have people to do the research on these judges. - in regards to what KCK Kills said.
Posted by: MichelleD | February 23, 2010 at 03:55 PM
This is just painful to read. I have a Common Pleas judge in my family, and a girlfriend from long ago I still stay in touch with is a Federal District judge. Both are conservative strict constructionists who do their best to bury offenders as deeply as the circumstances of the cases before them and the sentencing guidelines they must work with allow. My guess is both would be embarrassed by a bleeding heart hack like this clown in Sioux City.
The first post says it all about how to deal with this problem. As always, it's up to us as active, informed citizens to clear our local benches of this kind of grotesque ignorance and malfeasance. Because the next time this judge gives a sociopath like this a slap on the wrist, it might be for child abuse.
Posted by: Ted | February 23, 2010 at 05:53 PM
Judges aren't always elected, which makes it that much harder. I believe in the case of Oreo the judge is appointed.
Posted by: Jim | February 23, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Agreed. Good post.
Posted by: PoochesForPeace | February 23, 2010 at 06:17 PM
Animal cruelty laws, as well intentioned as they may (or may not) be, will never be good enough because the primary victims/witnesses - the animals themselves - don't have a voice. Also most of the animal cruelty laws up here in Canada require that there be proof of intent to cause cruelty. That means that if someone takes a hammer to the back of all his puppies' heads, that's not cruelty because according to the perp, the pups died instantly (or rather quickly anyway). Or, if someone drops a kitten from a 5th floor balcony then runs it over with his car, that's not cruelty either because, well, who the h!ll knows why except the judge who let the guy off. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090411/animal_cruelty_090411/20090411?hub=Canada)
The other problem with animal cruelty laws, at least here, is that if charges are pursued, it means the animal involved, if it's still alive, is put into an animal control facility and kept there as evidence until after all the legal proceedings are over - that could be literally years. Often, animal cruelty officers will drop charges if the owner just agrees to give up the animal so it can be rehomed.
Not that these laws can't be made better but to make them better for the animals is going to take some critical thinking and a lot of political will.
Posted by: Fred | February 23, 2010 at 07:53 PM
To extend Fred's post, another problem in Canada is that judges are appointed by governments rather than being elected by the general population (as I understand many in the U.S. are). Judges don't seem to get that cruelty to animals is only a first step or part of a person's violent behaviour.
I dunno...animal cruelty brings out the closet vigilante in me.
Posted by: Social Mange | February 23, 2010 at 07:59 PM
Animal cruelty is not a felony in South Dakota. :( only specifically dog (not 'animal' or bird, must be dog) fighting, and beastiality are felony here. all types of other torture / cruelty / neglect are misdemeanor. Possibly after this session it will be a felony to kill an on duty Police Dog but that is still in play.... Any type of improved welfare laws are heavily opposed here.
Posted by: Jeni | February 23, 2010 at 08:29 PM
Good post. I agree about the judges. I'd love to see someone in the community put up a billboard with that Iowa judge's face and name next to a picture of the dead, abused dog and the length of sentence the criminal received. The "not a fancy show dog" comment just makes me sick.
Posted by: MDog | February 24, 2010 at 04:47 PM
Mdog: That judge's comment made my stomach churn too. A billboard would be a good idea. Billboards are relatively cheap in Sioux City...maybe we should take up a collection...
Jeni -- thanks for the correction on South Dakota -- yes, there are still four states that don't have state felony laws for animal cruelty -- and good luck on your fight in SD!
SM/Fred -- It sounds like The States are well ahead of the Canadians when it comes to animal cruelty laws.
Posted by: Brent | February 24, 2010 at 04:53 PM
Brent,
That's a great idea.
Thanks!
Posted by: MDog | February 24, 2010 at 05:20 PM
Well, bad news. It looks like Judge Gary E. Wenell, the jerk judge who made the "not a fancy show dog" comment is appointed:
http://www.iowacourts.gov/District_Courts/District_Three/Judges_and_Magistrates/
So, it doesn't look like a billboard campaign (which I was thinking would be timed just before election) would do any good.
Another comment this craptastic judge made was, apparently, something like "We have to remember that the victim was not a person." You mean like the *person* who just fed a defenseless puppy "bowl after bowl" of beer and then beat him to death when he peed on the floor?
I can't believe that creep gets paid with tax dollars to sit and dole out "sentences" like the 30 days that violent p.o.s. murderer got. We could save a lot of money by buying a bag of fortune cookies, having each criminal pick one and that's their sentence.
Any ideas on how to hod a p.o.s. judge like that accountable when his cushy job has been secure since he was appointed in 1989? I believe all of Sioux City already knows what he did, as does half the rest of the country.
Posted by: MDog | February 25, 2010 at 08:22 AM
Great work MDog. I don't think all is lost...don't have time to do more research now but it looks like contacting the govenor on this one is a path to take.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Judicial_selection_in_Iowa
Each district commission has eleven members, including a chair, who is the most senior district court judge in the district, five members elected by lawyers, and five members appointed by the governor. Each commissioner, except the chair, serves a six-year term.
**I don't know if this applies here or who votes in the elections**
Retention Elections
After one year in office, and then at regular intervals, judges stand in retention elections. [2]
Posted by: MichelleD | February 25, 2010 at 09:44 AM
Ah, thanks Michelle. I will do more research then. I appreciate you looking that up.
Posted by: MDog | February 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM