Many believe that state animal cruelty laws are not tough enough and that states ought to implement an “eye for an eye” approach. Others believe such approaches would be no more effective for crimes against animals than for crimes against people. In New York, laws are evolving but what’s going on elsewhere?
Similar to New York, Oklahoma has defined certain acts of cruelty as felonies — as, for example in a recent case in which a women shot and skinned a puppy.
The Mayor of Sioux City, Iowa, recently agreed to impose steeper penalties for animal abuse. The city is currently drafting an ordinance that will prohibit anyone with prior convictions of animal abuse from owning animals in Sioux City.
Furthermore, 25 states attorneys general have joined the Florida Attorney General and the Humane Society in filing a brief in support of a federal law that bans “crush” videos and other depictions of animal cruelty (others have also filed briefs — see here).
That is not to say all is good. In Connecticut, “it would take a minor miracle to take a dog from its owner” even when the owner is suspected of running an illegal backyard kennel. According to the Connecticut Animal Cruelty Statute, as long as a dog has food, water and ventilation, the statute has been satisfied regardless of the conditions. Similarly, a Pennsylvania man who ran a puppy mill was nevertheless allowed to keep 25 puppies “as pets,” even after a finding of poor conditions and neglect. And then, 4 states, including Mississippi, do not have any felony animal abuse statute at all.
h/t: Stephen Iannacone