webmistress
03-27-2006, 12:31 PM
I posted this in my LJ, but I thought it might be of interest to some of you....
While I'm thrilled that this bill is finally getting somewhere, it infuriates me when legislators (or anyone else) says "we can't approve this because it would make the punishment for doing ABC worse than the punishment for XYZ". Why not raise the freaking bar, gentlemen? Change the laws for XYZ - that's your JOB. It is that kind of crippled thought process that leaves us with ineffective laws across the boards.
For example, I have seen lawmakers say "we can't increase the penalty for animal abuse because it would make the punishment worse than it is for child abuse." Why not get off your fat asses and improve the laws against child abuse then?? BOTH should have to suffer because you're too lazy to do your job??
The Kansas House approved tougher laws on animal abusers in a 114-10 vote today. That sends the bill back to the Senate where a slightly different version of the proposal passed unanimously earlier this month.
Rep. Donald Dahl, a Hillsboro Republican, voted against the bill, saying that by passing the law, Kansas would create tougher laws for hurting animals than for performing abortions. Several other lawmakers, many of whom voted in favor of the bill, echoed his remarks.
The proposed law would make it a felony to maliciously hurt or kill an animal. Convicted animal abusers would serve 30 days to a year in prison and be fined a minimum of $500.
The bill also requires a psychological evaluation and anger management classes. Common agricultural practices could continue as normal. Under the law, it would be a misdemeanor to abandon or neglect animals.
When the Senate passed the bill it made second-offense abandonment a felony. That was removed by a House committee. A requirement that abusers register as violent offenders also was cut from the bill.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14169576.htm (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14169576.htm)
Kansas is one of nine states that do not have felony provisions for animal cruelty. To give you a little background on this bill, it came up in 1997 and was shot down, at the time called "Scruffy's Law", after a terrible incident of animal cruelty to a dog named Scruffy (http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15/KS/US/). Scruffy was a 6 pound Yorkshire terrier that had been set on fire and beaten to death with a shovel, while the young men that were committing this crime squealed with glee. I have seen the videotaped footage of what those young men did to Scruffy - yes, they videotaped it, so they could watch it later (their words, not mine.) When asked why they did this horrible thing, one replied "Cuz we was bored."
15 months later on September 11, 1998 the four were sentenced. Marcus Rodriquez, 18, got a sentence of 2 years and 3 months in prison for arson and a year in the county jail for animal cruelty. He got a credit for 3 months for time already served and did not have to serve the additional year after completing a parole program.
Lance Arsenault, 21, was sentenced to one year and 10 months in prison for arson and a year in the county jail for animal cruelty. He too got a credit for 3 months for time already served and would not have to serve the additional year if he completed a parole program.
Richard Golumbski, 20 and Jose Gutierrez, 17, received prison and jail terms but were place on probation for two years and are expected to receive psychiatric treatment.
In August 2005, there was another horrible case of cruelty, this time to a dog named Magnum (http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/5246/KS/US/) - and once again, there were no felony provisions in Kansas, so the public was once again outraged. This time around, the bill is making better progress, and it is now sometimes being called Magnum's Law.
This isn't the first time - and will surely not be the last time - that new laws are created in response to a terrible act. In the animal welfare world, there has been Buster's Law in New York (http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year01/feb6_1_01.htm) and Gucci's Law in Alabama (http://wpmi.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=01F0CDE3-92EF-41DA-9873-EBF3E4440B83).
While these new, stiffer laws provide stronger charges and sentencing in animal cruelty cases, the current problem is that these laws are generally not enforced to their full extent. For that matter, even in other states that don't have fancy names for their animal cruelty statutes, we consistently see a lack of enforcement to the fullest extent of the statutes. What happens quite often is that the abuser initially gets charged with a felony (or a gross misdemeanor) and then plea bargains down to a much lighter sentence than their actions dictate. Having powerful laws isn't enough if they are not being enforced.
While I'm thrilled that this bill is finally getting somewhere, it infuriates me when legislators (or anyone else) says "we can't approve this because it would make the punishment for doing ABC worse than the punishment for XYZ". Why not raise the freaking bar, gentlemen? Change the laws for XYZ - that's your JOB. It is that kind of crippled thought process that leaves us with ineffective laws across the boards.
For example, I have seen lawmakers say "we can't increase the penalty for animal abuse because it would make the punishment worse than it is for child abuse." Why not get off your fat asses and improve the laws against child abuse then?? BOTH should have to suffer because you're too lazy to do your job??
The Kansas House approved tougher laws on animal abusers in a 114-10 vote today. That sends the bill back to the Senate where a slightly different version of the proposal passed unanimously earlier this month.
Rep. Donald Dahl, a Hillsboro Republican, voted against the bill, saying that by passing the law, Kansas would create tougher laws for hurting animals than for performing abortions. Several other lawmakers, many of whom voted in favor of the bill, echoed his remarks.
The proposed law would make it a felony to maliciously hurt or kill an animal. Convicted animal abusers would serve 30 days to a year in prison and be fined a minimum of $500.
The bill also requires a psychological evaluation and anger management classes. Common agricultural practices could continue as normal. Under the law, it would be a misdemeanor to abandon or neglect animals.
When the Senate passed the bill it made second-offense abandonment a felony. That was removed by a House committee. A requirement that abusers register as violent offenders also was cut from the bill.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14169576.htm (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14169576.htm)
Kansas is one of nine states that do not have felony provisions for animal cruelty. To give you a little background on this bill, it came up in 1997 and was shot down, at the time called "Scruffy's Law", after a terrible incident of animal cruelty to a dog named Scruffy (http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15/KS/US/). Scruffy was a 6 pound Yorkshire terrier that had been set on fire and beaten to death with a shovel, while the young men that were committing this crime squealed with glee. I have seen the videotaped footage of what those young men did to Scruffy - yes, they videotaped it, so they could watch it later (their words, not mine.) When asked why they did this horrible thing, one replied "Cuz we was bored."
15 months later on September 11, 1998 the four were sentenced. Marcus Rodriquez, 18, got a sentence of 2 years and 3 months in prison for arson and a year in the county jail for animal cruelty. He got a credit for 3 months for time already served and did not have to serve the additional year after completing a parole program.
Lance Arsenault, 21, was sentenced to one year and 10 months in prison for arson and a year in the county jail for animal cruelty. He too got a credit for 3 months for time already served and would not have to serve the additional year if he completed a parole program.
Richard Golumbski, 20 and Jose Gutierrez, 17, received prison and jail terms but were place on probation for two years and are expected to receive psychiatric treatment.
In August 2005, there was another horrible case of cruelty, this time to a dog named Magnum (http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/5246/KS/US/) - and once again, there were no felony provisions in Kansas, so the public was once again outraged. This time around, the bill is making better progress, and it is now sometimes being called Magnum's Law.
This isn't the first time - and will surely not be the last time - that new laws are created in response to a terrible act. In the animal welfare world, there has been Buster's Law in New York (http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year01/feb6_1_01.htm) and Gucci's Law in Alabama (http://wpmi.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=01F0CDE3-92EF-41DA-9873-EBF3E4440B83).
While these new, stiffer laws provide stronger charges and sentencing in animal cruelty cases, the current problem is that these laws are generally not enforced to their full extent. For that matter, even in other states that don't have fancy names for their animal cruelty statutes, we consistently see a lack of enforcement to the fullest extent of the statutes. What happens quite often is that the abuser initially gets charged with a felony (or a gross misdemeanor) and then plea bargains down to a much lighter sentence than their actions dictate. Having powerful laws isn't enough if they are not being enforced.