Flexible Charges for Animal Cruelty: A New Approach to Deterrence
The debate over animal cruelty laws has been ongoing for years, with proponents arguing that stricter penalties are necessary to protect animals, while others claim that such laws can be overly punitive and lead to more animal cruelty cases. In Massachusetts, the conversation is centered around two bills that aim to provide a more nuanced approach to addressing animal cruelty. Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden and animal welfare organizations believe that reducing the severity of animal cruelty charges can lead to better outcomes for both animals and humans.
Charging Offenders with Less Serious Crimes
Hayden argues that charging offenders with less serious crimes for animal cruelty would actually do more to deter it. He suggests that not every case of animal cruelty amounts to a felony, and that a misdemeanor charge can be an effective tool in resolving these cases. For instance, in a case involving an elderly woman with dementia who was neglecting her animals, the district attorney’s office decided not to charge her with a felony, but instead seized the animals and offered to help her care for them.
Benefits of Misdemeanor Charges
•
- Less reluctance to resolve cases
- More effective in addressing animal cruelty cases
- Allows for a more nuanced approach to addressing animal cruelty
Aiello, the assistant district attorney, explains that a misdemeanor charge can be an effective tool in addressing animal cruelty cases, particularly when there is no prior record of cruelty or the perpetrator has ongoing mental health issues. She notes that a misdemeanor charge can be a more effective deterrent than a felony conviction, as it allows individuals to take responsibility for their actions without the stigma of a felony.
Enforcing a Possession Ban
In addition to the bills seeking to expand the ways to remove an animal from a home without going through a felony process, the DAs and animal rights groups also support a proposal to enforce a so-called possession ban. This ban would prohibit a person convicted of certain animal-cruelty crimes from possessing, adopting or fostering an animal for a period of time determined in court.
Key Provisions of the Possession Ban
•
- Prohibits possession, adoption, or fostering of an animal for a period of time determined in court
- Courts have discretion to extend the ban longer than the minimum five-year period
- Appeals are considered
The current law in Massachusetts prohibits formerly convicted abusers from working with animals, and prohibits certain types of control over animals after an animal sexual-abuse conviction. However, the statute does not uniformly address ownership.
Support and Opposition
The bills have received support from various animal welfare organizations, including the MSPCA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rescue League of Boston, and Humane World for Animals. These organizations argue that the bills would provide an additional tool to help prevent animal cruelty in their communities. However, some critics argue that reducing the severity of animal cruelty charges can lead to more animal cruelty cases. They argue that stronger penalties are necessary to protect animals and hold perpetrators accountable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over animal cruelty laws in Massachusetts highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing this complex issue. By providing for misdemeanor charges and enforcing a possession ban, the state can take a more effective approach to deterring animal cruelty. While there are valid concerns about the potential consequences of reducing the severity of animal cruelty charges, the benefits of this approach far outweigh the risks. Ultimately, the goal of these bills is to protect animals and prevent animal cruelty, and they have the potential to make a real difference in the lives of those affected.
