Justice for companion animals
An opinion piece in today's Albany Democrat-Herald (Or.) is full of
recommendations on how to reform a "tangle of laws that are
well-intended but mired in a grim reality that seldom results in
justice for pet owners." The starting point is somewhat technical for
an op-ed piece--what is the difference between intent requirements
among cruelty offenses? What separates an act done "cruelly" from one
done "maliciously"? Adverbs can be a problem in both excusing painful
acts (when the statute only covers "unjustifiable" acts) and in
providing a grounds for challenge that a statute is unconstitutionally
vague.
The editorial's solution to the cruelty problem: greater funding,
mandatory spay/neuter, greater licensing of breeders and trappers. It
also proposes a greater role for people who keep companion animals:
Finally, grieving pet owners should be given the chance to address
those convicted of animal cruelty, in court. Amanda Rhoads, who
adopted Fiona [a companion cat killed by a neighbor with a bow and
arrow] as a kitten, should have the chance to tell her cat's killer
what it's like to lose her pet to someone else's cruel act.
Oregon law appears to broadly allow the victim or next of kin to
participate in the sentencing phase of a trial. Would that statute
allow someone who kept a companion animal to make a statement during
sentencing? A Tennessee court recently allowed a victim statement
submitted by a local humane society in a case against kennel
No comments:
Post a Comment