WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO STOP ANIMAL ABUSE?
By Karen Brown
This past year, in southern Florida, more than 20 horses have been stolen and
brutally butchered for meat to sell on the black market. In Texas, two A&M
students beat and stabbed a yearling filly in her own pasture after drinking too
much at a party. A Fannett, TX man tied the family horse behind his pick-up to
“exercise” it. The horse fell and was dragged. He died the following day. A
Kerrville, TX woman strangled, then stabbed her dog 31 times in a fit of anger.
These types of blatant animal abuse cases can be found across the United
States. There are thousands more that are never reported or resolved. Though
suspects are nearly always identified, the vast majority of cases are closed with
no charges filed. Frequently, when the suspect is convicted, the penalties do little
to interrupt their lives and nothing to remediate the damage.
According to Pet-Abuse.com, a pet advocacy website and database, only 8.5%
of abuse cases in Texas from January 2007 to December 2009 ended with a
conviction. Of the twenty random cases reviewed by this writer, only one
sentence contained penalties anywhere close to the maximum allowable by law.
In a case labeled by the animal control official in charge as “the worst case of
animal abuse in the history of Texas”, the sentence defies comprehension. After
seizing over 100 starved and dying animals, the sheriff charged the perpetrator
with 60 counts of animal cruelty. As Class A misdemeanors, each count carried a
potential one year of prison and a $4,000 fine. In the end, the perpetrator
received a six-month jail term and a $2,000 fine. Criminal cases are jury trials;
sentencing is also sometimes determined by the jury.
The animal abuse law of Texas provides for substantial penalties for
misdemeanor and felonious acts of abuse. Section 42.09 of the Texas Penal
Code prohibits the intentional cruel treatment of animals. Misdemeanors
penalties are as much as 6 months jail time and/or a fine up to $2,000. Felonies
come with up to 2 years in jail and/or a fine up to $10,000.
While the penalties are significant, the difficulty lies within the legal system. In
many cases it is difficult to substantiate the intent of the perpetrator. Since Texas
law is specific in its verbiage—outlawing cruelty—any case without sufficient
evidence of intent to harm will likely not be prosecuted.
Additionally, cases that go to court are subject to the whims and emotions of the
jury. In regard to the Fannett horse, the case was tried twice; both trials resulted
in hung juries. The prosecuting attorney, while contemplating the success of a
third trial, was presented with a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of
“attempted cruelty to an animal” by the accused.
The man drove his truck 25 mph with the horse tied behind. A blood trail of 1.9
miles clearly showed that the horse had lost his footing and was dragged. Simple
math proves that the man drove for at least 4.5 minutes after the horse fell. It is
inconceivable that anyone can believe the driver didn’t realize what was
happening. Yet, two juries could not agree that the defendant “intended” to harm
the animal, therefore, they would not convict. After his guilty plea this man
received $1,000 fine and 100 hours of community service supervised by the
Humane Society.
Few abuse cases are ever resolved with any benefit to the animals; indeed, the
vast majority of seized animals have to be euthanized or die due to
insurmountable damage. However, one case ended with a more creative
sentence. Two college boys beat and stabbed a mare in her own pasture; they
were so drunk they didn’t even remember what they had done. Police found the
tools of their abuse covered with blood and hair. Felony charges of animal cruelty
were made along with criminal intent charges.
The main perpetrator received nine months jail time, five years probation, had to
pay the horse's owner $10,000 in restitution, purchase a full-page newspaper ad
apologizing to the owner, undergo psychological evaluation and alcohol
treatment if directed, perform 250 hours of community service and not own or live
with any pets during his probation. While this sentence falls short of the
maximum allowed by law, it certainly made an effort to rehabilitate the criminal
and protect other animals from him.
One difficulty in prosecuting animal abuse cases is the subjective criteria used
and the extreme conditions which must be apparent before any legal action will
be taken. One of the most common acts of abuse is starvation. In most cases,
the animal(s) is near death before the authorities are willing to take action.
Property rights are strong in Texas; animals are private property. For this reason,
the general public is often reluctant to report abuse and officials are reluctant to
investigate it. The law must walk a fine line when in a position to judge whether to
confiscate abused animals (property) or leave the scene with nothing more than
a warning to the abuser to improve his stewardship.
While jail time and hefty fines can be life changing; it leaves the core problem of
abuse untouched. Animal abuse stems from two sources: abject ignorance or
sadistic defects of the human psyche; both tend to perceive animals as biological
machines. Any punishment that does nothing to remediate these contributing
factors does an injustice to the animals who have suffered.
It should be noted that animal abuse is frequently a precursor to human abuse.
Of the 235 cases of reported animal abuse in the past three years in Texas, 50 of
those cases were linked with child or elderly abuse.
As long as there are adherents to the outdated Cartesian World View that
animals are robotic automatons, there will be atrocities visited upon the animal
kingdom. As long as there are people who believe that the life of an animal is
irrelevant or that animals feel no pain, animal abusers will be relatively safe from
receiving their due.
Once convicted, animal abusers should receive the stiffest criminal penalties
allowed by law combined with psychological review, be forbidden to own or live
with animals, and be required to pay substantial penance to the animal owner.
Lastly, they should be given as much community service--working directly with
animals--as needed to teach the perpetrator that animals are sentient beings that
deserve the same respect and dignity as humans.