Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2002 02:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 489 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Number 1540 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 489, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals." Number 1502 SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of Representative Chenault, sponsor, that HB 489 increases the penalties for animal cruelty. It staggers the penalties for a first and second serious offense. Generally speaking, she noted, when there is an offense, an animal control officer becomes involved, adding that several such officers are available to testify. Number 1474 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 489, version 22-LS1580\O, Luckhaupt, 4/18/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. MS. WRIGHT referred to Section 2 of Version O, and explained that a first-time offense would be charged as a misdemeanor, and a second-time offense would be charged as a class C felony. She noted that some discretionary penalties have been added as well. She read from Version O: ... the court may (1) require a defendant convicted of cruelty to animals to participate in psychological counseling and treatment at the defendant's expense, as the court determines to be appropriate; (2) prohibit a defendant from owning or possessing an animal for a period of not more than five years. MS. WRIGHT offered her belief that [paragraphs] (1) and (2) can be enforced through probationary orders/conditions from a judge. She explained that HB 489 is event-driven: In Sterling, in November, we [had] a lady from Texas who has repeatedly - and this is her third offense - taken too many dogs. And when I went out to her property, I came upon a Bouvier that the only part of that dog that wasn't frozen to the ground, that could move, was its eyes. It was the most pathetic thing I think I've ever seen. The [Alaska SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)] rescued those animals at a cost that they've had to absorb to the tune of between [$40,000 and $50,000], and to the best of my knowledge ... most of those dogs ... have found homes.... We're here to address the situation that animal cruelty needs to be [a] serious violation of the law. It is a precursor to child abuse and domestic violence. It's been pointed out that some of the penalties for both of those two things aren't as serious as what we're asking for in the bill today. I wasn't aware of that until after we introduced the bill, and the time was gone to introduce more legislation for child abuse. Next year I promise that my boss will work on child abuse [legislation]. And with that, I understand that [Representative James] may have an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that her proposed amendment is applicable to Version O of HB 489. Number 1313 ETHEL CHRISTENSEN, Director, Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), testified via teleconference in support of HB 489. She said that she is in support of strengthening the laws pertaining to this issue. She recounted that the Alaska SPCA was involved in a 1981 case in which a woman - Charlotte Fitzhugh (ph) - had over 40 dogs tied up on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land at "mile 101 Glen Highway". The Alaska SPCA rescued those dogs, although some did have to be destroyed. Ms. Christensen relayed that this same individual later created similar circumstances in the Fairbanks area, and over 100 dogs had to be destroyed at that location in 1995 because they were so emaciated. Ms. Christensen stressed that this individual, as well as others such as the woman in the Sterling case - Carolyn Boughton - repeatedly create these conditions. She indicated that whatever can be done to stop this behavior would be very much appreciated because the Alaska SPCA cannot continue to absorb the financial burden of such large rescue operations. Number 1200 SHANNA ANDERSON; Animal Control Officer; Manager, Valdez Animal Shelter; City of Valdez, testified via teleconference. She mentioned that she has been the manager of the animal shelter for almost 13 years and is president of the Alaska Animal Control Association. She said: As [professionals] in the animal-welfare field, one of our most important jobs is to protect the companion animals in our community. Anyone who has worked in this area for any length of time has experienced firsthand acts of incredible cruelty and neglect to animals (indisc.). In many cases, neglect is ignorance on the part of the animal's owner, and can be corrected with education on proper animal care. When there are repeated offenses, and when the animal's life is in immediate danger, then that neglect becomes much more serious, and that is when animal neglect becomes cruelty. Even in a small community like Valdez, I placed 17 animals last year in protective custody. Intentional cruelty or abuse can encompass behaviors that range from knowingly depriving an animal of food to torturing an animal. There is strong evidence of the correlation between animal abuse and other acts of violence. A child who abuses animals often comes from a home where they or another family member is being abused. Most serial killers and mass murderers begin their acts of violence as children by torturing and killing animals. In cases of domestic violence, pets may be used as [a] method to control a victim; abuse of a pet may be a warning to the victim such as, "You are next." The threat of harming the pets, or actual animal abuse, may be used as a method of keeping the victim from reporting to authorities the domestic or sexual abuse they're experiencing. Many abused victims hesitate to leave a violent situation for fear of what the perpetrator may do to the pets they leave behind. Acts of animal cruelty should never be taken lightly; they are signs that the perpetrator may be involved in other violent crimes. (Indisc.) acts of animal cruelty are a threat to our communities. MS. ANDERSON concluded: As professionals, people in animal law enforcement will use the law, such as the one being proposed, only as a last resort. Educating and working with the pet owners is always a first step. And sometimes much more is needed to protect an animal and any future animals that person may acquire. I ask that you take animal cruelty [seriously] and help to strengthen the existing laws. I also ask that you help make it mandatory to report animal cruelty to proper authorities. Many acts of cruelty are committed behind closed doors and in backyards, areas that I do not have access [to]; I rely heavily on the reports of neighbors, relatives, veterinarians, and service people to make me aware of possible abuse cases. With mandatory reporting in effect, those who would be afraid or feel uncomfortable to come forward would be able to do so. Thank you. Number 1020 BILL GODEK, Chief Animal Control Officer, City of Kenai, testified via teleconference in support of HB 489. He simply offered that it is really important to consider making repeat offenses a felony and to allow the courts to order psychological counseling and prohibit the offender from owning animals for a period of up to five years. Number 0979 BRETT REID, Animal Control Assistant, City of Kenai, testified via teleconference. He said he concurred with previous testimony. He opined that the most useful aspect of HB 489 is the provision that allows the courts to order psychological counseling. He said that in passive cruelty cases, he considers this to be a form of mental illness known as "animal collecting," which, he added, seems to be plaguing his community. He noted that there has been some discussion in his area about making a change to one of the domestic violence laws; he pointed out, however, that animal abuse laws are much older than child abuse laws. He indicated that it is not unusual for individuals with abusive tendencies to first exhibit this behavior towards animals. He encouraged members to support the proposed changes [encompassed in HB 489] to the existing statute. Number 0925 SUE CARTER testified via teleconference in support of HB 489. She said: Unfortunately, Alaska now holds the distinction of having the highest rate of abuse in the nation, not only relative to people, but animals as well. This is simply not tolerable to many of us who expect and wish to enjoy a certain level of quality of life here in Alaska. Animal abuse appears to be increasingly on the rise, and some of the worst cases in recent times [have] occurred here on the Kenai Peninsula. It appears there will be no charges in the recent Sterling rescue; the [Alaska] State Troopers advised me that these persons most likely will be repeat offenders due to the lack of effective animal cruelty laws that provide appropriate punishment and perhaps determent. We should note that the state dogsled racing association had made great strides in providing a healthier and safer environment for their dogs. And so that leaves the rest of us to work - to expect responsible and appropriate requirements for shelter, food, and care for all domestic animals in Alaska. The first step, in my opinion, is to make stronger animal cruelty laws and let those individuals who cannot live within these structures know their actions won't be tolerated by the Alaska legal system.... I do thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in favor of HB 489. I've been a resident ... of Alaska since 1966 and it appears that things are getting worse rather than better, so I know you'll help us, and I wish you all well in this legislative session. Number 0789 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that the DOL is in opposition to HB 489. She elaborated: I have to oppose both the substantive law change and the penalty change. In terms of the substantive law change, the change to subsection (a)(2), I really don't think this helps us prosecute animal cruelty cases. It adds language that doesn't have a definition, and it's hard to articulate what is the minimal standard of care for an animal. And it also adds language that is not only unclear, but will require us to have expert testimony by including "humane veterinary care".... Terms like "minimal standard of care" and "humane veterinary care" are really difficult for prosecutors to deal with. We would have to have a veterinarian ... testify in terms of what is humane veterinary care in our case in chief. This doesn't help us, and I think the sponsor wants to help us prosecute animal cruelty cases. And I don't think these changes do so. The second issue I'd like to address is the felony. And we oppose it just on a proportionality argument. It was in this very room in the late '70s that the criminal-code revisors discussed this issue, ... and it was finally decided not to have the felony-level cruelty-to-animals crime in our state. And I know things have changed; we try and maintain some semblance of proportionality for ... the seriousness of offenses - what penalty they will be. And we're not always perfect, and we don't always ... [agree] on what is proportional. But in this state, a domestic violence crime is [a class] A misdemeanor - [as] ... is the second [offense] ... - and it's hard for me to support a cruelty to animals provision that makes that crime a [class] C felony, under those circumstances. Number 0651 MS. CARPENETI continued: I did have a suggestion, however; ... and this is something I discussed today with Dwayne McConnell, who is our district attorney for the Kenai Peninsula. As a matter of fact, just for a correction, I think [in] the Sterling case there have been charges filed; there's eight or nine counts in that case that have been charged. I don't think the defendant has been found yet or served with the charges, but there have been charges filed. I would just suggest for your consideration the possibility of saying in the statute that harm to each individual animal can be an individual charge against a defendant. Generally this is true. I know in one of the Kenai cases, [however], the judge combined 40 to 50 charges into one charge; I think he was incorrect because statute does say "an animal", although the title says "Cruelty to animals". But it might be useful to make it clear that each animal that is mistreated should be the object of a separate misdemeanor charge, and maybe have some provision for sentencing that for every animal that's mistreated there should be some consecutive jail time.... That's a possibility for you to consider - I don't know whether that is of interest to you - but we do think that it is simply not good public policy to make cruelty to animals a felony, when serious crimes to people are not. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the Alaska Farm Bureau (AFB) also opposes HB 489; thus the DOL is not alone in its opposition. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how many class A misdemeanor convictions have taken the full penalty of the law. He remarked that if the current penalties haven't been fully applied, he would be reluctant to increase those penalties. MS. CARPENETI said that she would research the issue and provide the committee with that information. She said that in one of the cases from the Kenai area, a woman had horses, dogs, birds, and cats, and had sort of just turned her house over to all of them. This woman, who also had a drug problem, was sentenced to three to six years on the underlying case, although drug charges were also involved. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she, too, is concerned about increasing penalties to the felony level. She mentioned that her proposed amendment might make some of the farmers a little happier. Number 0402 CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner - Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC), explained that when she compiles fiscal notes for legislation, she usually consults with the DOL to try to determine "what is the practice and how many convictions there have been regarding the legislation." After acknowledging that in some years there may be significantly more convictions than in other years, she relayed that the DOL reported to her that during the year 2000, there were eight people who were convicted of cruelty to animals, with that being the most serious charge. In other words, there may have been other convictions with more serious charges involved, but only eight wherein the most serious charge was cruelty to animals, and for those, the average sentence was about ten days. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many of those individuals were repeat offenders. MS. BROWER said she did not know the answer to that question. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested making a first offense lower than a class A misdemeanor, and then having a second offense be a class A misdemeanor. He asked whether that would alleviate concerns regarding proportionality. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would object to such a change. "A first offense just means that it's the first time you got somebody; [a] first offense could be a pretty heinous act of cruelty," he noted. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he did not disagree, but indicated concern that there have only been eight convictions with only ten days in jail. "That's like a slap on the hand," he added. Number 0212 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there is a wide degree of what constitutes cruelty to animals, and although he has not looked at those eight cases, he said his hunch would be that a number of them were probably in lieu of other charges. He recounted that he'd had a case wherein a person had hung a dog for a while, and had had another case wherein a person had tried to dispatch a number of puppies with a hammer and with a 22- caliber firearm and was unsuccessful with much of the litter. He said that those were "high misdemeanors." MS. CARPENETI said that although Chair Rokeberg's suggestion would address some of the proportionality concerns, she would have to agree with Representative Berkowitz that "it doesn't hurt to have this possibility here and have a class A misdemeanor - it seems to have been working - and leave the particular sentences to the judge." CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he is not sure it has been working, or else HB 489 would not be before them. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he is hearing that there are two problems. The first is the "problems of proof with the existing statute." The second is the [propensity] to consolidate multiple cases into a single count, which, he added, might not always be appropriate. MS. CARPENETI recalled that in the case of the woman with the drug problem, "we argued against the ... decision to consolidate it into one charge; we wanted them to be charged in separate counts so that the judge ... [would have] the opportunity to impose a sentence for each one, which is what he or she should do." Hence her suggestion that the statute specify that each instance in which an animal is abused be a separate case and subject to some kind of consecutive sentence. She indicated that she is not aware that there are problems with the current statute, nor has Mr. McConnell informed her of any specific problems with it. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that over the past few years, others have tried to alter the existing statute, among them Representative Ben Grussendorf. Representative Berkowitz again mentioned "proof problems." CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the statute regarding cruelty to animals was recently changed. MS. CARPENETI added that that change occurred in 1998, and entailed the addition of AS 11.61.140(a)(2), which pertains to treating an animal with criminal negligence. TAPE 02-52, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is envisioning having to bring into the more remote communities an expert witness who could testify what the minimal standard of care is or what humane veterinary care is, pointing out that according to his experiences in the criminal system - as both prosecutor and defense attorney - those cases fell through the cracks because they became prohibitively expensive to prosecute. "You are not going to fly experts out to Sand Point to work on a case ...; the more striped down the language is, the better a case you can make for a prosecution," he added. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, at the request of Chair Rokeberg, turned to her proposed amendment, hereafter called Amendment 1, which read: Page 1, line 8, following "care": Insert ", that conforms to accepted animal husbandry practices" Page 1, following line 11: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 11.61.140(b) is amended to read: (b) It is a defense to a prosecution under (1) (a)(1) [OR (2)] of this section that the conduct of the defendant (A) [(1)] conformed to accepted veterinary or animal husbandry practice; (B) [(2)] was part of scientific research governed by accepted standards; (C) [(3)] was necessarily incident to lawful hunting or trapping activities; or (D) [(4)] conformed to professionally accepted training and disciplinary methods; or (2) (a)(2) of this section that the conduct of the defendant (A) conformed to accepted veterinary practice; (B) was part of scientific research governed by accepted standards; (C) was necessarily incident to lawful hunting or trapping activities; or (D) conformed to professionally accepted training and disciplinary methods." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Number 0077 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said Amendment 1 ensures that HB 489 did not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, and addresses the conduct of the defendant. She mentioned that the agricultural community has concerns anytime there is talk about altering the cruelty to animal statutes; they don't want to "get caught in the trap." MS. BROWER mentioned that some people don't think that dog mushing practices are humane, and asked whether Amendment 1 would give protection to dog mushing practices. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, in response, read portions of lines 9-16 of Amendment 1. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked where dog mushing fits in. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she thought it had been included. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the language in subsection (b) of [Amendment 1] is already in statute, noting that he is a little confused as to what [Amendment 1] adds. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said: "It puts the identification of the accepted animal husbandry practices up where it is part of the charge as opposed to part of the defense." MS. CARPENETI said she has to express concern "about that: ... I think that this bill will make it harder for us to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, animal cruelty." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that according to her understanding, that's absolutely true. She indicated that she wanted to ensure that it be determined in the beginning that individuals are guilty of "this" before they have to defend themselves. She said that "this puts the burden on the prosecution, as opposed to the defense." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that as practical matter, when a crime is being charged, if there is a defense that the prosecutor is able to perceive, he/she cannot ethically proceed; "one of the ethical requirements before you can charge is that you have to believe that you can get beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you have a reason to think that one of the defenses is applicable, you can't get beyond a reasonable doubt." MS. CARPENETI added: "And I will note that these are defenses, so the state has to disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a [conviction]." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that regardless of whether Amendment 1 gets adopted, she wanted to ensure that people engaged in valid activities don't get challenged. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that Amendment 1 appears to take HB 489 in a completely different direction. Number 0442 MARIE RILEY, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that she has done considerable research on animal cruelty legislation. She pointed out that even before a case gets to the stage of prosecution, the responding animal control officer and [Alaska] State Trooper have already determined the severity of the situation. She said that she is referring to situations of animal cruelty such that it endangers or kills animals; intentionally causes pain, suffering, or death; and could include neglecting to provide food, water, or shelter. In all instances, the animal suffers, and in some cases, clearly the perpetrator means to cause harm. MS. RILEY said that the types of animal cruelty that HB 489 is attempting to address are not simply situations in which someone forgot to feed the dog. She mentioned that when animal control officers respond to complaints, they don't just go out once; they go out and make every effort to educate the owner so that he/she can take care of the problem. She reiterated that HB 489 is intended to address severe cases of animal cruelty - blatant animal cruelty. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked about the "criminal negligence" standard referred to in Section 1(a)(2). MS. CARPENETI explained that criminal negligence is the lowest standard of culpable mental state, and that this language was added to the current statute in 1998. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that it made prosecution easier. Prior to that language addition, he noted, the statute only said, "knowingly inflicts severe physical pain or prolonged suffering on an animal", which is very difficult to show. He pointed out that one can't ask the animal, "Did that hurt you for a long period of time?" He asked the sponsor's staff whether they'd had a chance to see how the "model penal code" addresses animal cruelty. Number 0633 MS. WRIGHT replied: There's a couple of things. First of all, we have a state veterinarian that takes care of these issues, that goes in and determines some of these cruelty-to- animals [issues]. Thirty-three other states have provisions for penalties; Alaska is sadly lagging in their penalty for felonies. The model law is written by the "humane society of America," and we are far behind that. The models that we used are from Nebraska, Michigan, Washington, Iowa - everywhere; ... we've looked at every state. Basically, there are thirty-three states that have provisions for felony punishments in their animal cruelty law. As far as the case ... in Sterling, I talked to Mr. Wolfe from the Kenai prosecutor's office, [and] there have been ... nine charges ... filed. Ms. Boughton, the perpetrator in this crime, has been in court three times since she was charged, and we have failed to serve her with a summons to appear on animal cruelty. When I call the District Attorneys office, it's almost like, "Oh God, another call about animal cruelty; what about kids?" And that's not what we're here to address. I'm really sorry kids get abused; I don't like it, ... but the fact of the matter is, is that we need to address animal cruelty in Alaska. We are behind model law in any size, shape, or form. MS. WRIGHT mentioned that she has provided the committee with copies of the information gathered by Legislative Legal and Research Services, as well as a "partial petition" from "hundreds of people" that really want to see this legislation [adopted]. She indicated that the perpetrator in the Sterling case, having created similar situations two prior times, is currently looking for another piece of property upon which to create the same conditions. Ms. Wright relayed that about a month ago, there was a man who drug his dog behind his truck for eight or ten miles, and the dog had to be destroyed; this man has been charged and served, but Ms. Boughton, who had between 40 and 60 dogs, has not been served even though she has appeared in court twice. Number 0818 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that passage of HB 489 will not affect the charging decision in the Sterling case. He said that in order to correct the failure to charge, he would need to know whether there is some obvious reason why "they're" unable to pursue that case. MS. WRIGHT indicated her belief that there isn't an incentive to pursue the case. "We had to encourage prosecution of this case," she explained; law enforcement agreed to take the dogs and turn them over to the Alaska SPCA, but wanted to keep the case quiet. Members of the Kenai community, however, wouldn't stand for it. "This was a serious matter, ... these animals were locked in a bus with no food, no water; they were laying in feces - frozen feces," she stated, and both she and the trooper were physically ill after seeing the conditions. "And she's going to do it again," warned Ms. Wright. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked why the sponsor didn't take the tack of establishing an aggravated offense that could be charged as a felony - for example, aggravated animal cruelty - rather than addressing a second offense as is done in HB 489. MS. WRIGHT said: "We weren't advised that we could do that." CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this is what Maine and Minnesota did. MS. WRIGHT said: "Our [Legislative Legal and Research Services] didn't like those terms; the only options that we were given were the class A misdemeanor and then the [class] C felony." REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Ms. Wright to comment on Amendment 1. MS. WRIGHT opined that it is a fine amendment and helps define what the qualities of care are. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that a class A misdemeanor can carry a $5,000 fine. He asked whether there is any data regarding how the class A misdemeanor fine has been applied. MS. WRIGHT said she did not have that data on hand, adding that the animal cruelty laws in Alaska are very difficult to prosecute. She noted that in the previously mentioned "horse case," she knew the woman and knew that numerous complaints had been made, but [law enforcement] did nothing until the situation was so bad that there were animals laying dead in piles. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that before he would be willing to increase the penalties, he would like some kind of proof that the current penalties are being applied but are still not sufficient to deter the behavior. Number 1073 MS. WRIGHT said: One of the most important features of this bill is recognizing that there is a problem, and ordering psychological counseling. Every ... mass murderer that we've done research on, including Robert Hansen from Anchorage, was guilty of animal cruelty as a child; Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of animal cruelty as a child. I think what our Department of Law needs to do is be a little bit more aggressive in prosecuting some of these cases. There were no charges filed at first in Ms. Boughton's case until [there was] outcry from the community. ... I had difficulty even getting through to someone to confirm the charges, and then trying to find out why she hadn't been served yet when I know where she's at - I have given them the address. Why hasn't she been served? I don't know. There's no aggressive [prosecution]. What's really frightening to me is that she now has the care of a child, and if we're not going to stop animal cruelty, what is she going to do with that child? REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he has concerns about making something a felony when the state isn't even bothering to prosecute at the misdemeanor level and make use of the those penalties. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented: We have crushed the [Alaska State] Troopers' budget, we have crushed the prosecutor's budget, we have crushed the court budget, and ... the problem is [that] when folks are looking at what [you're] going to prosecute - are you going to go after domestic violence and major felony assault, or are you going to do an animal cruelty case - it's very tough to make that decision, but you're going to go for [cases involving] people. And that's the situation that they're in; those offices are so overloaded down there. And so you want to know about cutting the budget? This is one of the consequences of cutting the budget: ... these kind of cases don't get the attention they deserve. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked for input regarding what the committee should do to address the issues raised by HB 489. Number 1257 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that first the goal of the legislation ought to be determined: "Is it to punish these people that are doing this? Is it to save the animals? Is it [to] stop it from happening again?... There's all those different kind of approaches as to how you deal with it." She said that Representative Berkowitz is right; "every time we put another law on the book, it costs us more money," as does putting more people in prison. There is a cost associated with everything, she noted, and people have to be willing to pay the cost associated with a desired goal. She suggested that there ought to be a better description of what the crime is; to just list certain activities as being acceptable and then going after "whatever is leftover" is not a good solution. She also mentioned that even if HB 489 becomes law, if no one is prosecuted, then it is questionable whether anything has really been gained. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, referring to page 2 [paragraphs (1) and (2)], said it seems to him that a court ought to be able to take those actions currently. He asked Ms. Carpeneti if that is accurate. MS. CARPENETI opined that the court could do so, but noted that it doesn't hurt to "say it again, under these circumstances," nor would it hurt to say that each animal can be "a separate charge" requiring some consecutive time in jail for every animal that is abused. She offered that this last suggestion is a way of accomplishing the sponsor's goals without having to go to a felony. She indicated that merely combining many instances of abuse into one charge, as the judge did in one of the Kenai cases, is problematic. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ proposed: Deleting "provide the minimal standard of" on lines 7 and 8 - ... the new language ... [in paragraph] (2), because I think that makes it more difficult to prosecute the cases. I understand the intent, but I think the practical consequences are adverse to the intent. In fact, I would just ... eliminate the changes in [paragraph] (2). I understand the intent, but [you've] got to go in and prove each one of these elements, and that compounds the case. For the sake of moving this thing along ... to [the House Finance Committee], I would remove the felony provision ... [for] now. I would then ... [move] the elements ... [found at the] top of ... page 2; I think [they] more properly belong in Title 12 - I don't know what the appropriate section is there, but Title 12 is the sentencing section. I would raise those amendments, suggest those amendments - conceptually - and then I'd be willing to move the bill. Number 1396 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH suggested putting Representative Berkowitz's conceptual amendments into a committee substitute (CS), which the committee could then review before moving out. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the committee wanted to include Ms. Carpeneti's suggestion regarding multiple charges. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that he would like that included. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked weather the CS should also include Section 3, which addresses the duty to report. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that he would like to see that provision included as well. [HB 489 was held over for the purpose of developing a committee substitute (CS).]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|