When laws lose their original purpose & we choose to punish instead

Laws are designed as a framework to get everyone in a society to act a certain way. They are important to providing structure to a society -- and to prevent people from creating an undue burden on the rest of society.  But at what point do laws get away from their original purpose, and only become used to punish people that don't abide by them?

And unfortunately, when it comes to animal welfare laws, our form of punishment always leaves the animals paying the price.

Back in 2008, Sioux City, IA passed a ban on 'pit bull' type dogs.  Dogs of this type currently in the city could be licensed and kept with a strict set of guidelines until the animal died - -at which time the owner could only replace the animal with a different type of dog.

So, let's assume for a minute that the city passed this law with the best set of intentions* and passed the law for the sake of improving pubic safety. That by mandating that people license their dogs, they are able to better keep track of the dogs to improve public safety -- and, if the dog is responsible for a bite or attack, can hold the owner accountable for the incident.

That could make sense. So the goal is to get people to license their 'pit bulls' in the short term.

Well, last week, the deadline in Sioux City passed for re-licensing pit bulls. So now, anyone who licensed their pit bulls before, but failed to in year two, will have their 'pit bulls' confiscated by the city and killed. The police are even going door to door looking for the dogs.

Well, one could easily argue that using police resources to look for dogs is a poor use of public resources -- and that rounding up dogs actually makes the city less safe, vs more safe -- especially in a city that has higher than average numbers in virtually all property crimes (although very low in most violent crimes). And if the goal was public safetywas the goal of the law, using police resources on dogs that are not posing safety threats doesn't seem like it meets the intent.

But it goes further than that.

Last night, Gerald Robbins, a Navy Veteran who served 3 tours of duty in Afghanisatan and Iraq, and is now attending college at Morningside College in Sioux City, approached the city council about re-licensing his 'pit bull'. He claims that he had been so busy studying that he forgot to licence his dog and that he doesn't watch TV or read the newspaper (many younger people don't), so he was approaching the council 4 days after the deadline to license his dog after a couple of friends mentioned it to him.

Now, is the goal of the licensing program to ensure that the dogs are licensed?  In which case, the city should take Robbins' money and let him keep his dog. Or is it to punish him (and kill his dog) for missing the deadline?

Sioux City decided it was punishment, and denied his appeal.  It doesn't matter that the man WANTS to abide by the law -- or for that matter that his dog has not reportedly shown any signs of aggression or being an actual threat to society (there's that safety issue again). Nope, it matters only that he missed the deadline by four days, and now, the city says his dog must die. "You're still in violation of the law" said City Attorney Andrew Mai.

*I think one could easily argue that the law was never REALLY about public safety and has always been about punishment. There is no evidence that BSL actually improves public safety. However, a six year old girl was bitten by one of the over 500 'pit bulls' in the city -- and because of it, the city decided that ALL 'pit bull' owners should be punished for the offense. Never mind that 99.8% of them did nothing wrong.

Whatever the law may have been about before (public safety, holding owners accountable if the dog is a probelm), the law is now about punishing someone they wish to punish. And sadly, that often seems like the case.

And this is how it goes with Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances as well. While many well-meaning animal welfare people often push for laws that require people to alter their pets -- the intent of the law ends up getting lost and is replaced by punishment -- and usually, it is the dog that loses.

People push for MSN laws because they want to use them to encourage/force people to alter their pets. They think that by doing so, they can end unintentional litters and keep shelters from filling up. And spay/neuter is a good thing, right?

But what happens when someone violates the law? What if they are new to town and don't realize it's a law (it is still, fortunately, a very uncommon law)? What if they can't afford the surgery? What if for legitimate health reasons they choose to not alter their pet (at least at this time)?

Instead of working with the owner to get them to just alter the pet (the supposed purpose of the ordinance), the law becomes about punishing them for not following the ordinance in the first place -- regardless of the reason. So just like the man who was four days late in licensing his dog, they are  found to be "in violation of the law".  The dog is confiscated and then either becomes part of the shelter system OR take up a kennel in the shelter that a homeless animal would have had access to (vs the animal that actually HAD a home). Either way, shelter killing goes up. Which is exactly what has happened in Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Little Rock.

At what point did we just forget the entire intent of the law, and just decide that punishing (and killing animals) was the final goal?

Sioux City. Let the man keep his dog. In fact, anyone you find that has a dog should get to keep their dog if the dog is well cared for. Rounding up and killing animals that are not causing problems is not improving public safety, it's wasting taxpayer dollars and police resources rounding up and killing people's pets that have not shown themselves to be problems. That's not public safety. That's seeking to punish.

Comments

[EmilyS]

another thumbs up Brent for this great blog. People completely forget what laws are supposed to accomplish

[MichelleD]

Hey all,

Souix City says your opinion is important to them - so be sure and let them know what you think!

http://www.sioux-city.org/custom/comments/index_8411218524.asp

[Steven Phipps]

Great article Brent...Steve Phipps at No Kill Nation

http://www.facebook.com/NOKILLNATION

[Social Mange]

Brilliant post.

[Social Mange]

BTW, don't bother with comments on the Sioux City website or with e-mail. Snail mail or fax; neither of those can be screened for key words and discarded without being read.

[SueAnn Allard]

Once again ignorance is in charge and running rampant in Sioux City. Ignorance is usually followed by fear.
Pitbulls are not born aggressive and mean. They get into the wrong human hands and become aggressive and mean. I am so sick of hearing about the pit bull type dog being responsible for every crime committed.
Maybe pitbulls should be killed because the Son of Sam heard a dog telling him to kill...that dog MUST have been a pitbull.
It is really hard to respect a city council and police dept that base their laws not on fact but on fear.
The people of Sioux Falls should be concerned because pretty soon the city will be pulling teen agers out of homes because they are not licensed and tend to be rowdy and cause trouble.
Oh yes, the police of Sioux City need to get those pit bulls and make sure they are shot and put down but hey..do NOT touch that drug dealer, or child pediophile in their homes because they are protected by the constitution and have rights.
You are sending yourselves back to the Paul Revere days...you will need someone on horseback riding thru Sioux City saying,"the dog killers are comin, the dog killers are comin."
Instead of living in pit bull fear and in pit bull ignorance, maybe the city council should try to EDUCATE themselves about pit bulls and look more at the owners than the dog breed.

[Janeen]

Actually - a key place where I think laws, especially this one, get out of control is when they are created with the intent to prevent crimes instead of to enforce compliance.

[Stephanie]

That is such an upsetting yet good blog. I hate to see animals mistreated and for any reason let alone being four days late on registration. My parents used to be against pit bulls and would tell me what awful dogs they were but I worked on sharing what a great breed they actually are and now both my parents and I are proud pit bull owners. My dog has also changed the mind of my boyfriend and best friend as well. If someone tried to take my dog away I would be furious. I only adoped him six months ago but am so attached to him. What's funny is I am probably more dangerous than he is and if anyone tried to take him from me I would fight to keep him. The whole idea of BSL makes me sad and I hope with the help of individuals such as yourself, by spreading how they are truly misrepresented will help save such a loyal, devoted breed.

[Snowwhitekitty]

I don't see how these laws are Constitution. It is disgusting. Everyone should sue over these laws until it is financially ruining enough for the city. Denver has lost something like $22 million over three lawsuits so far and there are plenty more to go.

[Nichole]

Here's the response I got from the office of the City Manager to my complaint on their website yesterday...and my subsequent response.

Ann Marie Skaggs

Good Morning,

Understandably this is a very difficult situation in regard to the pitbull owner who spoke at Monday's meeting. Please keep in mind however that this ban was enacted amidst tremendous publicity in 2009. When the deadline approached for licensing last year and many pitbulls were still not yet licensed, an extension was granted of 30 days. Letters were then sent out for 2010 renewal and when many pitbull owners again did not comply (all dogs must be registered annually), the Sioux City Police Department called every pitbull owner and a 30 day extension was once again granted. I am not sure how much more the City was expected to do. At some point, surely these dog owners must accept personal responsibility, especially when they have publicly acknowledged receipt of the letter as this citizen did at Monday's meeting.

Ann Marie Skaggs
Office of the City Manager
City of Sioux City, Iowa
------------------------------
Hello Ms. Skaggs,

While I obviously disagree with the law in general, my point was that the enforcement of the law seems a bit drastic. I absolutely agree that the owners have to accept responsibility. However, confiscating and potentially euthanizing a dog because the owner failed to license them? Why not cite the owner and give them an opportunity to comply? Seems like a win-win to everyone involved. I concur that your efforts at educating the public about the requirements were thorough, I just feel that sending the police to look for unregistered pit bulls who present no public safety threat is a bit strange. Don't Sioux City police have actual crime to fight?

Sincerely,
Nichole Heilbron

[Brent]

Nichole, thanks for writing and thanks for the smart response.

Clearly, the punishment here does not fit the crime.

It is the law that people must license their vehicles every year. But sometimes, people do it late because they forget. Or it's a hassle.

If they treated this like they are the dogs, the punishment would be to take the car from them and destroy it. Does anyone think that's a logical solution? Nope, the assess a small fee and move along. I don't understand why being four days late in licensing your dog serves as a punishment of death to the dog.

[Lynn Orbison]

Brent, can I repost this blog post on my facebook page? How do I do that?
Thank you for a clear review of the subject, and thanks to those whose comments enhance it!

[Brent]

Lynn, you may absolutely repost. Thanks for asking. The easiest way is to post as a link and then comment on it (so if you paste the link into your "status" area it will automatically make it a link and give you the opportunity to comment). I think you can probably paste in its entirety in the "Notes" section...but I'm not 100% sure on that.

[Robin Richter]

I am absolutely astounded - even when I think I can't be ever again - at the sheer stupidity of people. If I lived in that area, I would hide my dogs or move. Good Lord. So much hate for such innocent, sweet animals.

[Caped~PetBull~Crusader]

Unbelieveable! Sounds vaguely familiar to a city headed right down the same road! Have I beat this horse to death enough? Hello Ohio! Wake Up!