Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/26/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB331 | |
| HB52 | |
| HB323 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 138 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
[Contains brief mention that Version T of HB 138 would act as a
House companion bill to SB 214, and that the provisions of those
two bills along with the provisions of HB 6 might be
incorporated into a single vehicle.]
2:07:40 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 138, Version 26-LS0351\P, Luckhaupt, 4/2/09, which had
been adopted as the work draft on 4/8/09.]
2:07:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 138, Version 26-LS0531\T, Luckhaupt,
2/4/10, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected.
2:08:38 PM
THOMAS REIKER, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Gatto,
explained that Version T would bring HB 138 in line with, and
make it a house companion bill to, SB 214, sponsored by Senator
Wielechowski. He indicated that under Version T, killing an
animal through the use of poison or a decompression chamber, or
knowingly inflicting severe and prolonged physical pain or
suffering would be a class C felony; and, for a first offense
within 10 years, negligently causing the death or severe
physical pain or prolonged suffering of an animal, or killing or
injuring an animal] with the intent to intimidate or terrorize
another person would be class A misdemeanor. He noted that
Version T no longer proposes to establish the crimes of cruelty
to animals in the first degree and cruelty to animals in the
second degree.
2:10:22 PM
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department (JPD), City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ); President, Capital City Chapter -
Juneau, Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA), relayed that
on behalf of the JPD, the CBJ, and the APOA, she would be
speaking in support of the increased penalties for crimes of
cruelty to animals as proposed via HB 138. At 8:56 a.m. this
morning, she recounted, the JPD received a call from a woman
asking for help because her husband verbally abuses her and
physically abuses her dog; the police report stated that the
husband kicks the dog and locks it in the bathroom for days, and
that two days ago, the husband told his wife that he had a
bullet for the dog. The woman was uncooperative with the
investigation, however, because she didn't have any other place
to go where she could also take her dog. Under HB 138, the
officers could have investigated this incident as laying the
groundwork for a felony charge in the future when the
perpetrator's behavior escalated.
LIEUTENANT SELL recounted that she'd once worked a serial
domestic violence (DV) case involving a man who was beating his
wife and terrorizing his children. During one assault on his
family, the man was raging at his wife when his attention was
drawn to the family's pet bird because it was making noise, and
so, wanting to show his family that when he talked, everybody
had to be quiet, he grabbed the bird out if its cage and threw
it against the wall, breaking its wing. At trial, the jury
members were sickened by the man's behavior; even without having
been shown any studies illustrating the link between animal
abuse and DV, the jurors knew intuitively, as would most people,
that a man who would abuse a helpless animal would have no
boundaries preventing him from abusing people. The perpetrator
in this incident, however, didn't receive any significant
consequences for harming the bird, but had HB 138 been in place,
his actions might have warranted more jail time than he did get.
LIEUTENANT SELL pointed out that a lot of studies illustrate the
link between animal abuse and DV and other violent crimes - it's
just a known fact in her line of work - but what sticks in her
mind, she relayed, is a case involving a large angry man who
would use anything within his reach to terrorize his family - a
very small woman and her two young daughters. Equally well-
documented is the link between children and teens involved in
animal abuse and how such people then continue to go on to
commit violence against people, including committing serial
murder. Some cited examples of such people include Jeffrey
Dahmer; Albert DeSalvo - the Boston Strangler; and Dennis Rader
- the BTK killer. A 1999 article in the Boston Globe described
how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - responsible for the
Columbine High School massacre in which twelve students and one
teacher were killed and 21 other students were injured - used to
horrify their classmates with descriptions of how they mutilated
animals, and how the two boys, during the massacre, taunted many
of their victims before they shot them.
LIEUTENANT SELL, in conclusion, proffered that if crimes of
cruelty to animals were taken more seriously, perhaps someone
would have followed up on the animal torture incidents described
by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and maybe the massacre could
have been avoided. In response to a question, she pointed out
that when someone abuses an animal in order to intimidate,
threaten, or terrorize another person - as outlined under AS
11.61.140(a)(5) - it's a form of domestic violence. The animal
being hurt or killed in such situations is not really the
intended target - the animal and the damage inflicted on it are
simply being used to control the perpetrator's family. For
example, a DV perpetrator will kill the family dog in front of
the children in order to keep them in line. The law enforcement
community, she assured the committee, understands the nuances of
pets being used as tools to terrorize people. Again, the intent
of the perpetrators in such situations is much greater than
simply targeting an animal for abuse.
2:16:35 PM
MR. REIKER indicated that Version T maintains existing statutory
proportionality with regard to abusive actions taken against
animals, and abusive actions taken against people, and that the
intent is to stop people from escalating their abusive behavior
then towards other people. In response to questions, he assured
the committee that existing statute provides exemptions for
accepted veterinary practices and animal husbandry practices,
dog mushing and pulling contests, rodeos and stock contests;
that Version T would not be amending those exemptions; and that
someone could still choose to euthanize an ill animal
himself/herself as long as he/she could show, if a complaint is
filed, that the animal was sick and that it didn't suffer while
being euthanized. He relayed that the sponsor worked
extensively with the Alaska Farm Bureau to address its concerns,
and that the Alaska Farm Bureau now supports both HB 138 and SB
214.
MR. REIKER, in response to questions, indicated that the
sponsors of HB 138, SB 214, and HB 6 are considering
incorporating the provisions of all three bills into a single
vehicle. In response to questions regarding an incident that
occurred recently in Houston, Alaska, he indicated that existing
statute addressing the act of coercing someone to commit a crime
would also address those instances wherein someone abuses an
animal at the direction of another person, though the courts
would have to make that determination on a case-by-case basis.
LIEUTENANT SELL, in response to further questions and comments,
noted that officers often put down animals that are injured, but
that if someone is coerced into abusing/killing an animal, then
the culpability would lie with the instigator, and the existing
statutes regarding the crime of contributing to the delinquency
of a minor could be used instead of HB 138 to address situations
in which the instigator is an adult and the person who commits
the crime of cruelty to animals is a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments and a
question, indicated that a forthcoming amendment [which later
became known as Amendment 1, would make certain instances of
animal abuse eligible for an aggravating factor at sentencing].
2:31:35 PM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, Member, Animal Control Advisory Board,
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that the Animal Control
Advisory Board unanimously voted in favor of HB 138. She went
on to remark that there is a very close tie between domestic
violence and sexual abuse of children, and animal abuse. Those
who sexually abuse children will threaten to kill or hurt their
victims' pets in order to ensure their victims' silence, and the
abuse of animals is used as an aid by the perpetrators of
domestic violence and of sexual [abuse of children] to
demonstrate power and control over their human victims, to
punish them, to isolate them, to perpetuate an environment of
fear, to prevent them from leaving, or to coerce them into
coming back. She noted that 71 percent of pet-owning women
entering shelters have reported that their batterers have
injured, maimed, killed, or threatened family pets specifically
for revenge or for psychological control, and that 25 percent of
abused women stay in an abusive situation because of threats to
their animals - whether they are livestock or personal pets.
MS. EPSTEIN relayed that in homes where a spouse is abused, a
child is twice as likely to be abused if there is also animal
abuse occurring. In some states, animal control officers and
those who investigate cases of DV are cross-trained because of
the [known] link between the crimes of DV and animal abuse. She
mentioned that she's heard of cases wherein perpetrators of DV
have been convicted of their assaultive behavior against
animals, though not for their assaultive behavior against their
human victims, because their human victims were finally willing
to testify against them for the animal abuse. Furthermore,
children reluctant to testify about their own abuse will testify
about the abuse of an animal that they feel responsible for.
MS. EPSTEIN, pointing out that healthy animals are regularly put
down simply because they aren't wanted, said she doesn't see how
the bill could be used against anyone who puts down an animal
that is already in "an animal control situation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG declared a potential conflict of
interest in that Ms. Epstein is his wife, and asked to be
excused [from voting].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM and REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected,
thereby requiring Representative Gruenberg to participate [in
any voting that takes place].
2:37:29 PM
SANDY SAMANIEGO, Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety
(DPS), stated that the CDVSA supports the intent of HB 138. She
added that a person can't work at a domestic violence shelter
for very long without hearing stories illustrating that animal
abuse is used to control DV victims.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again noted that a forthcoming
amendment would provide for an aggravating factor at sentencing
for those who have a history of animal abuse and are convicted
of a felony.
2:39:32 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), pointed out that in addition to charging an adult with
the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor if
he/she directs, encourages, or coerces a minor into harming an
animal, the adult could also potentially be charged with the
crime of solicitation or the crime of coercion.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 138.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON removed his objection to the adoption of
Version T as the work draft. There being no further objection,
Version T was before the committee.
2:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 26-LS0351\T.1, Luckhaupt, 2/26/10, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "animals":
Insert "; and relating to aggravating factors at
sentencing involving assaultive behavior and cruelty
to animals;"
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.155(c)(8) is amended to read:
(8) the defendant's prior criminal history
includes conduct involving aggravated assaultive
behavior, [OR] repeated instances of assaultive
behavior, repeated instances of cruelty to animals
proscribed under AS 11.61.140(a)(1) and (3) - (5), or
a combination of assaultive behavior and cruelty to
animals proscribed under AS 11.61.140(a)(1) and (3) -
(5); in this paragraph, "aggravated assaultive
behavior" means assault that is a felony under
AS 11.41, or a similar provision in another
jurisdiction;"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 16, following the first occurrence of
"Act":
Insert ", and to aggravating factors at
sentencing under AS 12.55.155(c)(8) made by sec. 3 of
this Act"
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he supports HB 138 because he views it
as providing an appropriate punishment for all the
damaged/sick/sadistic people who violently abuse animals, and
characterized such behavior as spring training for future
egregious crimes against humans. People like this, he opined,
need more than just a slap on the hand; instead, they need
handcuffs on their wrists. Certain of the egregious acts of
animal cruelty that HB 138 addresses rise to a level that speaks
more about the perpetrator than they do about the victim or
property destroyed. He said that he sees egregious acts of
animal abuse as a "stair-step kind of crime," with the
perpetrators being on the threshold of committing serious crimes
against children and other humans. In conclusion, he
characterized HB 138 as a good bill that he intends to support,
and opined that HB 138 compliments HB 6 - a bill [he introduced]
that addresses the crime of bestiality.
2:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 138, Version 26-LS0531\T, Luckhaupt, 2/4/10, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
138(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
TIANA PETERSON said she respects HB 138, and that she has been
opposed to animal cruelty ever since she can remember, and
indicated that her mother, aunt, and grandmother [work with
animals].
[CSHB 138(JUD) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 hearing request HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB138 Sponsor Statement 2.5.10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB138 version S.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB138 Bill CS v. T.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 05 explanation of changes from original HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 06 HB138-LAW-CRIM-02-12-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 07 HB138 DOC FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 08 HB138 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 09 AS 11 61 140.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 HB323 HJUD Hearing request.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 02 HB323 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 03 HB323 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 04 HB323-ACS-02-03-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 05 HB323-AJC-AJC-2-8-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 01 HB52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 02 HB52 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 03 HB52-CT-FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 04 HB52 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |