Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/08/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB140 | |
| HB194 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB9 | |
| HJR30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 138 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1:58:53 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals." CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 138, Version 26-LS0351, Luckhaupt, 4/2/09, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as the sponsor, pointed out that currently a person could be charged with a felony for destroying a painting of a family pet, but could only be charged with a misdemeanor for destroying the actual pet the painting is of, and opined that this doesn't make any sense to him; HB 138, therefore, is intended to correct this by amending the cruelty to animals statute. 2:02:22 PM SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, relayed on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Gatto, that HB 138 would establish the two separate crimes of cruelty to animals in the first degree and cruelty to animals in the second degree. Under the proposed crime of cruelty to animals in the first degree, knowingly inflicting severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal, [committing the crime of cruelty to animals in the second degree three or more times within 10 years,] killing or injuring an animal by use of a decompression chamber, or intentionally killing or injuring a pet or livestock via poison would be a class C felony, whereas under the proposed crime of cruelty to animals in the second degree, failing - with criminal negligence - to care for an animal and thus causing the death of or severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to an animal, or knowingly killing or injuring an animal with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or terrorize another person would be a class A misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that the proposed crime of cruelty to animals in the first degree pertains to intentional acts, whereas the proposed crime of cruelty to animals in the second degree could in part pertain to unintentional acts. MS. WILSON, in response to a question, pointed out that Section 3 of HB 138 establishes the crime of cruelty to animals in the second degree. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to questions, expressed doubt that anyone would report the accidental death of a family pet. MS. WILSON added that under current law, the definition of the term "animal" [for purposes of Title 11] excludes fish, and that [although it might not ever be reported] under both the bill and current law, even the accidental death of a family pet would constitute a class A misdemeanor. CHAIR RAMRAS asked how proposed AS 1161.142(f)(3) would be enforced; under that provision, the court could "prohibit or limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of animals for up to 10 years. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the enforcement of that provision would fall to others rather than to the legislature. In response to further questions, he offered his understanding that the humane destruction of animals, even via the use of poison, is exempted; the bill's primary intent is to address willful and deliberate acts of animal cruelty. 2:10:15 PM CHAVA LEE, Executive Director, Gastineau Humane Society (GHS), pointed out that slitting open the belly of a guinea pig, nailing one end of its intestines to the ground and then watching it run around in circles is a deliberate act and constitutes animal cruelty; currently, however, there's not much that can be done about such behavior. Accidentally stepping on a cat, for example, and killing it is still just an accident, whereas throwing a bag kittens into a body of water and watching them drown is animal cruelty. She said that although the GHS doesn't get many calls about acts that turn out to be actual cruelty, the GHS does get a lot of calls about acts that turn out be the result of stupidity. With the latter type of calls, staff attempts to educate callers about how to care for their and their children's animals. From her perspective, she remarked, she can see a big difference between stupidity and cruelty: cruelty constitutes a deliberate, obvious, and disgusting act. MS. LEE said that that type of animal cruelty is perpetrated by human beings committing deliberate and painful acts of violence on innocent animals, and it is a known fact that such people often go on to commit similar acts of violence on human beings. She offered her hope that [the legislature] will pass HB 138, surmising that it will put some teeth into the animal cruelty statutes so that such crimes can be prosecuted. She noted that not all reported instances of animal cruelty end up being prosecuted; once such cases are investigated, they are often found to be situations in which people are behaving stupidly rather than intentionally cruelly. CHAIR RAMRAS - noting the existing pressures on law enforcement, the Alaska Court System (ACS), and the Department of Law (DOL) - questioned at what point would pursuing animal cruelty cases begin to encroach on the resources necessary for pursuing cases involving crimes against a person. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that 70 percent of the abused women at shelters say that their abuser first started abusing animals; there is a direct link between those who abuse animals and those who abuse women. "Perhaps a call early on would result in no call later on," he remarked. CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated his concern about putting pressure on the existing criminal justice system. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed a possible conflict of interest in that he and the next testifier are married. 2:17:52 PM KAYLA EPSTEIN, after mentioning that she serves on two animal- related boards, said that she is for HB 138. She then recounted a few instances wherein animals have warned human beings of danger and/or sacrificed themselves on their human's behalf, and then indicated that she was providing the committee with a picture of some Malamutes and of a cat that was burned alive. She said that a few years ago, she learned about a police officer who refused to charge a man for kicking a dog sufficient to break its ribs. How can a police officer charge a man with a misdemeanor for kicking a dog, when burning a cat alive is also only a misdemeanor, she queried. She offered her understanding that [law enforcement] is now being more proactive towards animal cruelty because they now see the relationship between animal cruelty and cruelty towards humans. Animal cruelty is very significant in domestic violence (DV) cases, is often used by abusers to punish their partners and children, and many women won't leave a bad situation for fear of what their abuser will do to their pets or livestock when they leave. MS. EPSTEIN offered her understanding that members' packets include a letter from a friend who's dog was seriously injured when it attempted to protect its owner from an attacker, a man who was well known by the police as a violent man with a criminal record; the officer who investigated her friend's case didn't think he could charge the attacker with anything significant, and so suggested she not pursue charges even for the animal abuse. Referring to a recent case involving a drunken man who'd stabbed several of his neighbor's sled dogs, she raised the question of what would happen if next time this man instead goes into a school yard. 2:23:01 PM DALE BARTLETT, Deputy Manager, Animal Cruelty Issues, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), indicated that he would be speaking in support of HB 138. He acknowledged that under both current law and HB 138, three or more convictions for the crime of cruelty to animals within a 10-year period would be a felony, and that HB 138 provides that certain other types of cruelty to animals crimes would also be a felony. Although Alaska law is in line with most of the rest of the country - with 46 states having felony animal cruelty laws - Alaska is the only state that requires previous convictions in order to charge the person with a felony. MR. BARTLETT - with regard to the link between animal cruelty and violence against people, particularly women - noted that the latest research indicates that those who are capable of horrendous acts of violence against animals are likely to be involved in other violent crimes. For example, the Chicago police department released a study in 2008 illustrating a startling propensity of offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offenses toward human victims. In that study, investigators found that 86 of those arrested for animal cruelty or animal fighting had two or more past arrests; 70 percent had been arrested for felonies - including homicide; 70 percent had been arrested for narcotics crimes - including trafficking crimes; and 65 percent had been arrested for battery crimes. A study conducted in Massachusetts of those arrested for animal cruelty illustrates that 70 percent had been convicted of other crimes within 10 years - either post or prior to their animal cruelty arrest. A Canadian police study illustrates that 70 percent of those arrested for animal cruelty had prior records of violent crimes, including homicide. MR. BARTLETT opined that it's clear from all this research that those capable of atrocious acts of animal cruelty are dangerous to society, and therefore stronger laws are needed in order to properly deal with such people. In the largest study of serial killers ever undertaken, nearly half admitted to committing animal cruelty as adolescents, and over one-third admitted to harming or killing animals as adults. Referring to earlier comments, he opined that if a person is able to slit an animal open and nail its intestines to the floor, then that is indicative of a level of violent criminal behavior that most people are simply not capable of; such an act constitutes a significant crime. On the issue of using limited resources to pursue cruelty to animals crimes instead of property crimes, he said that if someone broke into his garage and stole some property, he would be far less concerned than if that person had broken into his garage and killed his dog. MR. BARTLETT, in conclusion, opined that there really should be a distinction in the law for the willful and malicious killing of an animal. In response to a question, he remarked that theoretically, having a stronger punishment would be a greater deterrent, and that deterrence is not the only goal of the law. He elaborated: I think that ... by classifying something as a felony, it clearly indicates that the legislature believes that this is a serious offense, and that message is taken up by investigators, by prosecutors, and by judges. Often, with animal cruelty cases, one of the biggest ... challenges we face is for ... officers and judges who see rape and murder [cases] on a regular basis to [be convinced] ... that these significant animal cruelty crimes are a part of that same paradigm .... 2:30:05 PM NANCY K. EDLUND said that as families in society become more dispersed, more and more people are viewing their animals as extended family members, and so abuse of these animals, no matter what their species, is a very serious matter to these people. As such a person herself, she said in conclusion, she supports HB 138. 2:30:42 PM LUCINDA EDLUND said it has been difficult to hear examples of severe animal cruelty and then find that they are just misdemeanor crimes. This is really an embarrassment to her as a human being, she remarked, adding that she doesn't know how serious and prolonged abuse of animals cannot be taken seriously; it's outrageous to think that such atrocities are not felonies. In conclusion, she said she supports HB 138, and implores the legislature to adopt HB 138 and show that the abuse of animals is being taken very seriously. 2:32:33 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relayed that the DOL opposes raising the penalty for the crime of cruelty to animals from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony. In 1978, the criminal code revision committee debated this same issue, whether the crime of cruelty to animals ought to be a felony or a misdemeanor, and although the State's first chief prosecutor advocated for it to be a felony, the vote was in strong opposition based on the concept of proportionality, which is also the basis, now, for the DOL's opposition to HB 138, particularly since in Alaska, most domestic violence assaults are resolved only as class A misdemeanors due to a lack of resources. This opposition doesn't mean that the crime of cruelty to animals isn't an important or serious offense, but it is the DOL's position that one year in jail is enough of a penalty for such behavior. MS. CARPENETI noted that last year, when the legislature made a third conviction for such an offense within a 10-year period a class C felony, that was thought to be a pretty reasonable compromise, particularly in terms of proportionality and the way [the DOL] deals with limited resources in the criminal justice system. In conclusion, she said that the DOL opposes raising the penalty for first and second convictions of this crime. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether a history of animal cruelty is an aggravating factor. MS. CARPENETI said it's not a provision of law, but judges do take all evidence of past behavior into consideration. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether another approach might be to simply make a history of animal cruelty an aggravating factor when sentencing someone for a felony-level crime against a person; doing so could perhaps address the issue of escalating behavior. MS. CARPENETI indicated that she would research that point further. In response to another question, she said she would research what sentence the crime of cruelty to animals typically results in, but surmised that most cases don't result in a multi-year sentence, so there might be room for more serious sentences. 2:38:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether the bill could be altered so that the proposed class C felony would only apply to the most egregious behavior. MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that that provision of the bill is already limited to only the most egregious behavior; regardless, the DOL would still argue that the existing penalty of one year in jail is adequate. In response to further questions, she pointed out that current law already prohibits the poisoning of pets or livestock, the torturing of animals, and knowingly killing or injuring an animal with the intention of intimidating, threatening, or terrorizing another person; such behavior is currently a class A misdemeanor, and the bill, in part, is proposing to make some of those behaviors a class C felony. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 138, Version P, would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB138 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 01 HB194 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB140 Amendment A.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| 02 HB138 CS version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB138 version S.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB138 DOC FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 05 HB138 LAW-CRIM-FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 06 HB138 Lettrs of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB194 Bill version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 03 HB194 DOT FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 04 HB194 Backup.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| 05 HB194 Amendment P.3.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HJR 30 version R.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2009 1:00:00 PM |