On-line registry for animal abusers: two plans that could work

People who torture animals are not wired right. Many studies have shown that they are a danger not just to animals but to the people around them. They are sadistic and cowardly. Yet so often their punishment is ridiculously light.

It isn’t that we need more laws. Animal abuse is a felony in every state, and jail times are the laws of the land. The problem is that some judges have their heads up their give ridiculously light sentences for some of the most senseless and sadistic acts perpetrated on innocent animals. 

One recent outrage: An Iowa man, Bobby Loggins, 35, in front of  witnesses fed his five month old Bulldog, Sire, bowl after bowl of beer. Then when the puppy urinated on the carpet he killed Sire by punching him in the face over 30 times.

Although animal torture carries a sentence of up to two years in prison in Iowa, Judge Gary E. Wenell sentenced Loggins to 365 days in jail, but suspended 335 days of the sentence and credited him for time served. So Loggins spends only 30 days in jail.

The most outrageous part of this is Wenell’s justification for the light sentence:

“The dog was his own. It was not some valuable fancy show dog belonging to another. It was not a neighbor boy’s dog, it was not an elderly person’s companion…We do not have a statewide problem with this kind of crime.”

Recently a legislator in California proposed the idea of an on-line registry of animal abusers, similar to the one currently in place for sex offenders, where people can log on to see names and pictures of people in their community who have been convicted of animal abuse.

The registry would help warn pet owners, shelters and rescues in the area of the presence of abusers. It would not only be a deterrent to animal abuse, it would also serve as an early warning of those likely to commit domestic abuse or other violent crimes.

The bill, SB 1277, has little chance of passing because it calls for a new tax on pet food to finance it and people are more than a little hostile toward a new tax at this time.

I am proposing two different ways to finance the registry:

Plan A - An animal rights organization* with over $200 million in assets could underwrite setting up and maintaining a national on-line data base. This would show that the organization is serious about actually protecting the furry dogs and cats they love to use in their fundraisers.

They will probably do this when pigs fly.

Plan B - All persons convicted of animal abuse will have a portion of their salaries garnished to pay for the registry.

Thus the judge, after slapping the abusers across the knuckles with a wet noodle and sending them back to their lives, must add:

“By law I have to inform you that a portion of your salary for the rest of your worthless life will be garnished to pay for maintaining an on-line data base which will display to members of any community which has the misfortune of having you live there, your name, birthday, description, picture and location as a convicted animal abuser, you sick degenerate scum.”

Or words to that effect.

*Humane Society of the United States

Comments

[pam]

I'm afraid if you asked a private org to foot the bill, they'd require the definition of "cruelty toward animals" to include Foster Farms and the rest of the meat industry. Which would open a whole can of (free range) worms.

There's a precedent for your Plan B idea. In CA, people convicted of crimes against humans are ordered to pay a fine, some or all of which goes into the state's Victim Compensation Fund. That fund helps victims of crime pay their hospital bills.

http://www.boc.ca.gov/victims/default.aspx

[southern quebec]

Just reading the judges' decision is bizarre! If the dog was valuable it would have been a bigger crime! Does this give "carte blanche" to morons that abuse animals that come from shelters, because let's face it, if they had "value" they wouldn't be in a shelter. AAAHHH! Stupid people with authority like this idiot judge, make me seriously angry. They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

"We do not have a statewide problem with this type of crime." What does this really mean? The more obscure the crime, the better chance you have of getting off?

[Wendy]

Plan B sounds like a clear winner to me. Although it's too late for restitution to be paid to the animal who most dearly deserves justice, it might prevent others from experiencing the same cruelty.

[Khyra]

We are too sad/angry to even khomment...

[Becky]

Amen. It is really hard to understand how anyone can be mean to animals. I just don't get it.

[jackie]

it's a proven fact that almost all serial killers started out with animal abuse...........

[Karen Friesecke]

I'm totally with you on a national data base of animal abusers. While a state wide registry would be effective, animal abusers or puppy mill operators could just easily pick up and start all over in another state with nobody none the wiser.

[cube]

Making the offenders pay for the national data base sounds fair to me. Good luck on trying to collect any money from these societal dregs.

[Dog ham bones]

Its true dog is killed by people... They don't even think that they are the part of life...

[Guinea pig care]

Animals and pets bring such beauty into the world. What must go through the mind of a man who can bash a pet to death.

[Dennis the Vizsla]

What a piece of s**t this guy is. This really really pisses me off.

[Duke of Earle]

"...Or words to that effect." Nope, I like YOUR words, thanks!

John

[jansfunnyfarm]

Hmmmm. A national data base? Please do. That is such a great idea but guess legislators will undoubtedly never get off their butts and stand up for it.

As to the HSUS helping fund. You're right - when pigs fly!

But Plan B sounds like a winner!

[quality registry collection]

Poor dog, at least he died and taken up into heaven, it may be painful but in the end he was happy.

-Linda