Stiffer Animal Cruelty Laws
Stiffer Animal Cruelty Laws
The Issue
Background of the problem
The state of Texas has two types of laws protecting animals from cruelty, one being civil laws which says if a person or persons are found guilty of animal cruelty will be ordered by the judge to pay restitution. The second law being criminal says that a person or persons found guilty of animal cruelty might face penalties including fines, jail, or both. If a person under the age 18 is convicted of animal cruelty they will be required to undergo counseling
Animal cruelty applies to domesticated animals, which includes house pets and livestock. According to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) the state of Texas criminal laws only apply to those defined as “domesticated living creature(s) or any wild living creature previously captured,”(SPCA, 2012), However, the civil laws are more broad and there is no difference between domestic and wild animals. Section 42.09 states “Cruelty to Livestock Animals" and 42.09(2) "Cruelty of Non-Livestock Animals" of the Texas Health and Safety Code prohibits a person from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cruelly treating an animal (SPCA, 2012). According to section 42.09 animal cruelty consists of the following: Torturing an animal, failing to provide food, care or shelter, abandoning an animal, transporting or confining an animal in a cruel manner, killing, seriously injuring or poisoning an animal, causing an animal to fight with another, using a live animal as a lure in a dog race, tripping a horse, injuring an animal belonging to another person, or seriously overworking an animal.
On September 1, 2001 House Bill 653 and Senate Bill 1724 went into effect, which took animal cruelty to the next step, making animal cruelty a felony and punishable by a $10,000 fine and up to two years in jail. The law was named “Loco’s Law.” Loco was a puppy whose eyes were intentionally gouged out. Loco’s Law stiffened animal cruelty convictions from being a slap on the wrist, to either a misdemeanor or felony under the Texas law. The Texas Penal Code, section 42.10, prohibits dogfights and cockfighting. A person convicted of either types of fighting will also face two years in jail and/or a $10, 000 fine. (SPCA, 2012)
Although there are laws on animal cruelty, convicting a person and the likelihood of them actually facing two years in jail and/or a $10, 000 fine are slim in the more rural areas and most overlook individuals committing these crimes. In our proposal we would like to petition for the laws actually take place when a person is convicted of animal cruelty.
Statistics on the problem
Most cases of animal cruelty are never reported, and most animal suffering goes unrecognized and unabated ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). Media reports suggest that it is most common in rural and urban areas. Hunt County would be considered a rural area.
There are currently 3 states without felony provisions for cruelty to animals. Those 3 states are Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In the state of Texascruelty convictions that involving depriving an animal of food or water, abandoning an animal, transporting an animal in a cruel manner, injuring someone else’s animal, and overworking an animal, the defendant can be punished with a Class A misdemeanor, which may include a fine up to $4,000, jail time up to a year, or possibly both (Favre, 2002). If the conviction is a third offense involving these actions, the state may punish the defendant with a state jail felony (Favre, 2002). “Under Texas law, a state jail felony may include jail time ranging from 180 days to 2 years and a fine up to $10,000” (Favre, 2002). For cruelty offenses involving the torture, killing, seriously injuring, poisoning, fighting, or tripping of an animal will warrant harsher punishments even if it is the first conviction. A state jail felony may be imposed on the first conviction in cases such as those. “If a defendant is convicted three times under these harsher penalties, he may be subject to a third degree felony sentence, which translates to imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years and a possible fine of up to $10,000” (Favre, 2002). Reported animal cruelty cases, dogs and pit bulls, in particular are the most common victims of animal cruelty. Of 1,880 cruelty cases reported to the media in 2007, 64.5% (1,212) involved dogs, 18% (337) involved cats, and 25% (470) involved other animals ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). Reported abuse against pit bulls appears to be on the rise. In 2000–2001, pit bulls were involved in 13% of reported dog-abuse cases. In 2007, they were involved in 25% of reported dog-abuse cases ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). It is estimated that nearly 1 million animals a year are abused or killed in connection with domestic violence. 71% of domestic violence victims report that their abuser also targeted their animal.
Chart Retrieved from (“Animal abuse crime” 2012)
Impact of problem on those affected
The laws although in place in Hunt County are set up to protect animals from cruelty the laws do not always seem to be enforced. While interviewing a Hunt county resident it was explained, “I think because we live in the ‘country’ people drop puppies on our street all the time and drive away because they know nothing will happen to them” (personal communication, July 1, 2012). During the interview it was discussed that residents who live in the more rural areas of the county do not know who to contact when a puppy is dropped off. When asked what the residents on her street do with the abandoned puppies it was told that some puppies are kept and that it was unknown what happens to the others (personal communication, July 1, 2012). The situation in the county appears to be one of great impact to not only the animals but also the people; it puts stress on residents of the county as well as stress of the animals. It was explained that dogs being dropped off is a very normal occurrence and that there has never been information given to educate residents on what to do if they find puppies’ abandoned (personal communication, July 1, 2012).
When reviewing previous cases of people who had been convicted of animal cruelty it was found that although judges may sometimes sentence a guilty party to a sentence because of animal cruelty there may be conflict within the sentence. An account recorded in a local newspaper explained that one couple had 73 horses and 2 working donkeys removed from their ranch and pled guilty to a plea of jail time a $1,000.00 fine and probation. The probation was said to have been given so the couple would not have access to the animals for as long possible, the contradicting part of the sentence is that although the couple got probation to have restriction of not being able to be around animals they still got to keep their nine dogs and one bird (Keller 2007). With judgments like the one given to the explained couple it is unclear where the punishment begins and ends to those who choose to treat animal cruel.
With unclear judgments and unclear communication about who to call for help when a resident comes upon an animal that has been treated with cruelty it has an impact on the entire community. Residents are being unfair to other members of the community when animals are left for someone else to handle which can put stress on residents who may not be able to afford to take care of the animal. Animals need more advocates in the county so there is less suffering for cruelty to be affected by.
Specific actions that are needed and intended outcomes
Texas animal cruelty laws are more designed towards the criminal, more than the animals. Texas animal cruelty laws are very narrow in their scope, compared to the criminal cruelty statutes of other states. Most state criminal cruelty laws are written to protect “every living dumb creature” or “every living vertebrate, except humans” (SPCA of Texas, 2012) While some states, have laws that exclude certain types of animals from the applicability of cruelty laws, such as fish, crustaceans, or invertebrates, Texas criminal cruelty laws are only apply to any “domesticated living creature or any wild living creature previously captured.” What this means is that criminal cruelty laws protect livestock and animals that are in custody, like everyday household pets, but they do not provide any protection for animals that are considered Wild animals, such as deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, or any other animal over which no one has custody. For the most part, these state laws do not differentiate between wild or domesticated animals, and the protection afforded by these laws would cover both types of animals. Court cases have even not held up cruelty charges for homeless animals, like a homeless cat that had been beaten with a baseball bat.
The main change needs to be the removal, of the “previously captured” clause from this law. This would allow for the prosecution of anyone being cruel to any and all animals. The second change we need is for the prosecutors to petition the courts to impose the maximum fines and penalties on the guilty parties, and for the judges to listen to the prosecutors and impose the requested maximum fines and penalties. By actual enforcement of the laws that are on the books and by making these proposed changes, Texas would have laws with enough teeth to deter any and all potential animal cruelty perpetrators from acting on their urges to be cruel to animals.
References
Animal abuse crime database statistics – U.S. abuse classifications pie chart. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.pet- abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/classifications.php?showstate=TX
Animal cruelty facts and statistics. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/facts/animal_cruelty_facts_statistics..html
E. Bingham, personal communication, July 1, 2012.
Favre, D. (2002). Overview of texas animal cruelty laws. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovustxcruelty.htm
Keller, B. (2007, July 20). Couple pleads guilty to animal cruelty charges. Herald Banner.
Retrieved From http://www.heraldbanner.com
SPCA of Texas. (2012, June 26). Texas animal cruelty laws. Retrieved from
The Issue
Background of the problem
The state of Texas has two types of laws protecting animals from cruelty, one being civil laws which says if a person or persons are found guilty of animal cruelty will be ordered by the judge to pay restitution. The second law being criminal says that a person or persons found guilty of animal cruelty might face penalties including fines, jail, or both. If a person under the age 18 is convicted of animal cruelty they will be required to undergo counseling
Animal cruelty applies to domesticated animals, which includes house pets and livestock. According to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) the state of Texas criminal laws only apply to those defined as “domesticated living creature(s) or any wild living creature previously captured,”(SPCA, 2012), However, the civil laws are more broad and there is no difference between domestic and wild animals. Section 42.09 states “Cruelty to Livestock Animals" and 42.09(2) "Cruelty of Non-Livestock Animals" of the Texas Health and Safety Code prohibits a person from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cruelly treating an animal (SPCA, 2012). According to section 42.09 animal cruelty consists of the following: Torturing an animal, failing to provide food, care or shelter, abandoning an animal, transporting or confining an animal in a cruel manner, killing, seriously injuring or poisoning an animal, causing an animal to fight with another, using a live animal as a lure in a dog race, tripping a horse, injuring an animal belonging to another person, or seriously overworking an animal.
On September 1, 2001 House Bill 653 and Senate Bill 1724 went into effect, which took animal cruelty to the next step, making animal cruelty a felony and punishable by a $10,000 fine and up to two years in jail. The law was named “Loco’s Law.” Loco was a puppy whose eyes were intentionally gouged out. Loco’s Law stiffened animal cruelty convictions from being a slap on the wrist, to either a misdemeanor or felony under the Texas law. The Texas Penal Code, section 42.10, prohibits dogfights and cockfighting. A person convicted of either types of fighting will also face two years in jail and/or a $10, 000 fine. (SPCA, 2012)
Although there are laws on animal cruelty, convicting a person and the likelihood of them actually facing two years in jail and/or a $10, 000 fine are slim in the more rural areas and most overlook individuals committing these crimes. In our proposal we would like to petition for the laws actually take place when a person is convicted of animal cruelty.
Statistics on the problem
Most cases of animal cruelty are never reported, and most animal suffering goes unrecognized and unabated ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). Media reports suggest that it is most common in rural and urban areas. Hunt County would be considered a rural area.
There are currently 3 states without felony provisions for cruelty to animals. Those 3 states are Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In the state of Texascruelty convictions that involving depriving an animal of food or water, abandoning an animal, transporting an animal in a cruel manner, injuring someone else’s animal, and overworking an animal, the defendant can be punished with a Class A misdemeanor, which may include a fine up to $4,000, jail time up to a year, or possibly both (Favre, 2002). If the conviction is a third offense involving these actions, the state may punish the defendant with a state jail felony (Favre, 2002). “Under Texas law, a state jail felony may include jail time ranging from 180 days to 2 years and a fine up to $10,000” (Favre, 2002). For cruelty offenses involving the torture, killing, seriously injuring, poisoning, fighting, or tripping of an animal will warrant harsher punishments even if it is the first conviction. A state jail felony may be imposed on the first conviction in cases such as those. “If a defendant is convicted three times under these harsher penalties, he may be subject to a third degree felony sentence, which translates to imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years and a possible fine of up to $10,000” (Favre, 2002). Reported animal cruelty cases, dogs and pit bulls, in particular are the most common victims of animal cruelty. Of 1,880 cruelty cases reported to the media in 2007, 64.5% (1,212) involved dogs, 18% (337) involved cats, and 25% (470) involved other animals ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). Reported abuse against pit bulls appears to be on the rise. In 2000–2001, pit bulls were involved in 13% of reported dog-abuse cases. In 2007, they were involved in 25% of reported dog-abuse cases ("Animal cruelty facts," 2012). It is estimated that nearly 1 million animals a year are abused or killed in connection with domestic violence. 71% of domestic violence victims report that their abuser also targeted their animal.
Chart Retrieved from (“Animal abuse crime” 2012)
Impact of problem on those affected
The laws although in place in Hunt County are set up to protect animals from cruelty the laws do not always seem to be enforced. While interviewing a Hunt county resident it was explained, “I think because we live in the ‘country’ people drop puppies on our street all the time and drive away because they know nothing will happen to them” (personal communication, July 1, 2012). During the interview it was discussed that residents who live in the more rural areas of the county do not know who to contact when a puppy is dropped off. When asked what the residents on her street do with the abandoned puppies it was told that some puppies are kept and that it was unknown what happens to the others (personal communication, July 1, 2012). The situation in the county appears to be one of great impact to not only the animals but also the people; it puts stress on residents of the county as well as stress of the animals. It was explained that dogs being dropped off is a very normal occurrence and that there has never been information given to educate residents on what to do if they find puppies’ abandoned (personal communication, July 1, 2012).
When reviewing previous cases of people who had been convicted of animal cruelty it was found that although judges may sometimes sentence a guilty party to a sentence because of animal cruelty there may be conflict within the sentence. An account recorded in a local newspaper explained that one couple had 73 horses and 2 working donkeys removed from their ranch and pled guilty to a plea of jail time a $1,000.00 fine and probation. The probation was said to have been given so the couple would not have access to the animals for as long possible, the contradicting part of the sentence is that although the couple got probation to have restriction of not being able to be around animals they still got to keep their nine dogs and one bird (Keller 2007). With judgments like the one given to the explained couple it is unclear where the punishment begins and ends to those who choose to treat animal cruel.
With unclear judgments and unclear communication about who to call for help when a resident comes upon an animal that has been treated with cruelty it has an impact on the entire community. Residents are being unfair to other members of the community when animals are left for someone else to handle which can put stress on residents who may not be able to afford to take care of the animal. Animals need more advocates in the county so there is less suffering for cruelty to be affected by.
Specific actions that are needed and intended outcomes
Texas animal cruelty laws are more designed towards the criminal, more than the animals. Texas animal cruelty laws are very narrow in their scope, compared to the criminal cruelty statutes of other states. Most state criminal cruelty laws are written to protect “every living dumb creature” or “every living vertebrate, except humans” (SPCA of Texas, 2012) While some states, have laws that exclude certain types of animals from the applicability of cruelty laws, such as fish, crustaceans, or invertebrates, Texas criminal cruelty laws are only apply to any “domesticated living creature or any wild living creature previously captured.” What this means is that criminal cruelty laws protect livestock and animals that are in custody, like everyday household pets, but they do not provide any protection for animals that are considered Wild animals, such as deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, or any other animal over which no one has custody. For the most part, these state laws do not differentiate between wild or domesticated animals, and the protection afforded by these laws would cover both types of animals. Court cases have even not held up cruelty charges for homeless animals, like a homeless cat that had been beaten with a baseball bat.
The main change needs to be the removal, of the “previously captured” clause from this law. This would allow for the prosecution of anyone being cruel to any and all animals. The second change we need is for the prosecutors to petition the courts to impose the maximum fines and penalties on the guilty parties, and for the judges to listen to the prosecutors and impose the requested maximum fines and penalties. By actual enforcement of the laws that are on the books and by making these proposed changes, Texas would have laws with enough teeth to deter any and all potential animal cruelty perpetrators from acting on their urges to be cruel to animals.
References
Animal abuse crime database statistics – U.S. abuse classifications pie chart. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.pet- abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/classifications.php?showstate=TX
Animal cruelty facts and statistics. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/facts/animal_cruelty_facts_statistics..html
E. Bingham, personal communication, July 1, 2012.
Favre, D. (2002). Overview of texas animal cruelty laws. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovustxcruelty.htm
Keller, B. (2007, July 20). Couple pleads guilty to animal cruelty charges. Herald Banner.
Retrieved From http://www.heraldbanner.com
SPCA of Texas. (2012, June 26). Texas animal cruelty laws. Retrieved from
Petition Closed
Share this petition
The Decision Makers
Share this petition
Petition created on July 14, 2012