Hounded, Cowed, & Badgered

Protective orders for animals in Maine

The New York Times reports on a new law in Maine, "believed to be" the first of its kind, which expands protective orders to include animals. (Hat tip: Animal Ethics.) Such a law was, to our knowledge, first proposed in a student note in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism. For those of you with Westlaw/Lexis, check out Dianna J. Gentry, Including Companion Animals in Protective Orders: Curtailing the Reach of Domestic Violence,Yale J.L. & Feminism 97 (2001).

Readers of HC&B know that we have questioned policies targeting animal abusers which are motivated solely by the possibility of future abuse to humans, e.g., residency and occupation restrictions. This criticism is motivated both by our disapproval of such policies' anthropocentric priorities and by the lack of evidence that animal abuse leads to human abuse. See Mainer Piers Beirne's recent article in Society & Animals for a review of the literature on "progression thesis." The Maine law, however, recognizes the more well-established phenomena of violence against humans occurring in the same households as violence against nonhumans, without asserting any causation between the two, and without minimizing the suffering of animals. (The sound bite from the Maine Governor, however, focuses solely on human survivors of violence.) As the example in the Times article indicates, animals are used by abusive people (mainly men) as to way to hurt other humans. The Maine law has the potential to deter such cruelty in a way that prosecutions after the fact can not.

Update (4/5/06): For all y'all statuteheads out there, the bill is LD 1881, which allows a court to enter "an order concerning the care, custody or control of any companion animal or companion livestock owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household" in addition to the other relief allowed in protective orders under Sec. 4007 of Maine's protective order statute. As far as we are aware, "companion livestock" is a fairly novel legal idea.

Update (9/6/06): Thanks to Anne Jordan, who notes in the comments below that the law signed covers "any animal owned, possessed...." etc. Here's what we think is the final version.

The Link and teacher offender restrictions

A little while ago we speculated (here and here) about the admittedly largely academic question of whether people who were convicted of sexually abusing animals should be listed on sex offender lists. We questioned any rationale for such policies based on the alleged link between people who abuse animals and those who abuse humans. Emphasizing "The Link," we said, makes animal suffering seem only important when humans are, or will be, hurt. We thus note with interest a news item on a teacher in Michigan who may be prevented from teaching due to a recent felony cruelty conviction. (Hat tip: AnimalConcerns.org.) One parent is quoted as saying she has no problem with her child being taught by that teacher, because animal cruelty is "not against children or society in general." Admittedly that's just one quoted opinion, but it shows that the hysteria which often typifies discussions of released felons and also of anything having to do with children has limits.

Animal abusers and sex offender registries II

As discussed here, a Michigan court recently required a man who pled no contest to sexual assault on a sheep to register as a sex offender. A follow-up article in the Detroit Free Press by Jim Schaefer notes two wrinkles in the story. The basis for the order to register as a sex offender was reportedly that such registration would prevent humans from being sexually abused. Putting aside the questionable efficacy of such registries, see here, Schaefer notes "the few studies done on the subject have yielded no consensus on whether there is a link between animal sex abuse and sexual assaults on humans." This might form the basis for a rational-basis challenge. It also should cause advocates of animal rights to question whether emphasizing the link between animal abuse and human abuse is a good strategy. As we're sure others have noted, a focus on "The Link" treats animal abuse as an indicator of abuse to people (who really matter), rather than a wrong in and of itself.

The second item of interest in Schaefer's article is that the prosecutor in the case told him "the law is murky on whether [the defendant] belongs on the sex offender list." A little research shows that the crime of sodomy in Michigan is an old-timey "crime against nature" one, covering both human and nonhuman victims. MCL 750.158. A "listed offense," for the purposes of the Sex Offenders Registration Act includes "[a] violation of ... MCL 750.158, if a victim is an individual less than 18 years of age." MCL 28.722(e)(ii). Sheep, of course, have always been tarred by humans as animals typifying a lack of individuality. Cultural stereotypes aside, we don't think anyone could make a straight-faced argument that the text of the statute, especially given the age requirement, applies to nonhumans.

Animal abusers and sex offender registries

The Battle Creek (MI) Enquirer reports a Michigan man pled no contest in state court to sodomy and, as part of his sentence, was required to register with the state's sexual offender registry (hat tip: How Appealing). Other offenders, whose victims were not children and/or were not convicted of a sex crime, have been somewhat successful in challenging their listing on sexual offender registries by claiming that there is no rational basis for being listed there. [E.g., People v. Johnson, No. 1-04-1292 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006); for 8th Amend. and EP challenges, see Criminal Appeal's sex offender registry posts here --ed.]. The argument by the state's attorney,and seemingly accepted by the court, focused on "The Link," i.e., the link between violence against nonhumans and violence against humans, which was the impetus for the so-called BTK clauses in Kansas's felony cruelty legislation and at least one of the rationales for the recent bestiality legislation in Washington.

Bestiality bill in WA

A bill is being sponsored in the Washington State Senate to ban bestiality.  The spin from the interested parties as to the purpose of the bill is varied, says the Seattle P-I and Times:  1) animals can not consent and no one should be forced to have sex; 2) animals can be hurt or killed during sex with humans; 3) animal abusers become people abusers; 4) people are coming in from states where bestiality is criminalized, making it a "mecca" for animal abusers (!).  Most seem to agree the bill is in reaction to the case of a man who was died while having sex with a horse recently, but the aim of the legislation does not appear to be public health.

Update (3/3/06): The bill has passed both houses and is going to the governor.

Felony cruelty law proposed in KS

Legislators in Kansas have been talking about adding a felony provision to the state's anti-cruelty laws since the high profile death of a dog in 1997. Two bills will be debated tomorrow which would strengthen state law, although one would only allow a felony charge on for a repeat offender.  Both bills provide for either psychological counseling or a psychological evaluation.  Mike Hendriks sees these provisions as "BTK clauses," inspired by information made available after the arrest of the BTK serial killer, who abused animals as a child.

Felony cruelty bill in UT

Amy Seigel reports that the Utah Legislature is considering a law that would take that state into the 1990s and criminalize some cruel acts as felonies.  The bill's sponsor has repeatedely stated that the law is not in fact about protecting animals and has instead focused on the link between violence against nonhumans and violence against humans.  Seigel takes the state legislature to task for using more precise language in the animal cruelty bill than in hate crime legislation. 

Students of animal cruelty laws know that vague language in animal-cruelty statues is more the norm, with ancient formulations requiring "unjustifable" harm or a "malicious" intent.  Indeed HB 61 uses such subjective words as "neccessary," "adequate," and "appropriate."  Somewhat subjective words do not in themselves worry us.  Courts routinely interpret language which has not been closely defined by the legislature.  While there may be valid worry about void-for-vagueness challenges or predictability, most cruelty prosecutions are on such horrid facts that we would like to believe (too much faith in humans?) that animal abusers who are prosecuted will be convicted.  The main problem is inadequate enforcement and weak penalties [and, duh, huge statutory exclusions for animals in agriculture, zoos, and medical research--ed.].  Bringing felony cruelty prosectuions to Utah would be a way to work on one of those problems.  C'mon Utah, join the rest of the country.