Senate Bill #2127 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and heads to the floor of the Senate. Opponents of the bill have spun much bad information. Read the bill for yourself, its only six pages. It doesn't affect livestock, requires an element of malice, and has a list of specific exemptions that cover most of the objections raised by opponents who clearly have not read the bill. Former MS-FACT President Tiffany Frautschi submitted the editorial posted below to JJ.
Mississippi Senate Bill 2127 (SB2127) will create a felony statute for the malicious and aggravated torture or abuse of dogs and cats. This bill is a moderate but effective resolution to an issue that has been debated in the Mississippi Legislature for over a decade. It contains well-written exemptions for legitimate and incidental acts, while addressing clearly unjustifiable, deliberate and malicious acts of cruelty. This bill has the full support of the Mississippi Psychiatric Association, law enforcement, child protection groups, along with others who understand and are concerned about the relationship between abuse of animals and abuse of vulnerable adults and children. This legislation will provide the law enforcement community with a tool to identify emerging violent offenders. In addition to the felony statute, the bill provides the opportunity for the court to order psychiatric evaluation and treatment for the abuser, restitution to the animal owner and restitution to the investigating law enforcement agency. For youthful offenders in particular, psychiatric treatment is our last opportunity to stop the destructive behavior of malicious animal abuse before it escalates to violence against people.
All of that said, there are still those who ask “What if?” What if I hit a dog with my car while driving down the street? What if I find a dying animal on the side of the road and kill it to put it out of its misery? What if a dog is chasing, tormenting, or attacking my livestock? What if I feel threatened by a dog and take action to protect myself? What if I dock my dog’s tail or crop its ears? The answer to all of these “what ifs” is the same. They were all covered in the exemptions within SB2127. In order to be charged with a felony, you must, with malice, torture, maim, or commit aggravated cruelty against a dog or cat. This is largely a matter of common sense. After all, Mississippi has a misdemeanor cruelty law in place for dogs and cats, but I have yet to see someone charged or convicted of accidentally hitting a dog with his or her car.
Here are the “what ifs” that I don’t hear. What if someone decides to light their dog on fire because they are angry that she came home after being dumped in the country when she was no longer wanted? What if someone decides to kill your dogs to exact revenge on you? What if someone shoots your pet, on your property, because he wants to test out his new gun and see if he can hit your dog from his yard, and then he brags about it in front of his foster children? What if someone purposely kills your guide dog? What if someone decides to brutally torture and kill his dog in order to practice and gain confidence to commit a crime against a human being? What if your estranged boyfriend decides to cut off your cat’s feet and make a keychain out of them or breaks into your home and decapitates your dog in order to “get back at you”? What if someone breaks into a local animal shelter and beats five dogs to death with a hammer? What if your neighbor beats your puppy to death with a shovel in front of your child? What if someone steals your dog and you later find her, bound at the legs with a coat hanger, bloody, mangled, tortured, and dead?
Sadly, these aren’t just “what ifs.” They are actual animal cruelty cases in Mississippi over the last few years. Would they all be felonies? Maybe, or maybe not. A prosecutor and judge would need to determine that based on the merits of the case. The point is that those prosecutors and judges should have, in the most egregious cases of aggravated torture, the option of a felony charge.
Having a felony conviction for the most heinous acts of torture isn’t just about putting someone in jail for a longer period of time. It is about ensuring that these people have a felony record so that they cannot get a job working in a school, nursing home, hospital, or anywhere else that would include contact with children or vulnerable adults. It is about making sure that violent offenders do not possess guns. It is about a parent’s right to protect his or her child from a violent offender who could work in their child’s school because the offender didn’t get a felony conviction, even after committing an egregious act of violence. It is, quite simply, about ensuring community safety. A first offense felony for animal abuse is a law enforcement and mental health issue. If our jails are full, sentence these violent offenders to house arrest with ankle monitoring devices, but don’t turn them loose, without a felony record that a potential employer can look up, to work with those who may not have a voice of their own – our children, vulnerable adults, and our pets, These offenders need psychological evaluations, and often, counseling, and SB2127 will provide that option.
The people of Mississippi want the aggravated maiming and torture of dogs and cats to be prosecuted fully in order to protect people from the violent individuals who perpetrate these crimes. Mississippi’s existing animal cruelty laws related to dogs and cats are inadequate to protect people and pets. The time to act is TODAY! Please contact your State Senator and Representative and tell them to support a first offense felony law for the aggravated torture of dogs and cats in Mississippi.
Tiffany Frautschi
www.ms-fact.org
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Former MS-FACT President Tiffany Frautschi: Pass SB# 2127
What If
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
well said. Please everyone, get involved and help get this law passed. Thx, JJ, for putting this out there.
Curious about the activities of the anti-SB2127 crowd. What are they saying, and to whom? Any legislators willing to actually own up to their opposition?
The opposition in the legislature boils down to one man - Greg Ward, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. A similar bill passed the Senate last year with only one dissenting vote, but Ward refused to let it out of his committee in the House. Rumor has it that he's firmly in the pocket of the Farm Bureau, which traditionally opposes any type of animal cruelty law for fear of putting the rules on a slippery slope that will eventually lead to the demise of rural America. Ward either needs to let this bill out for an up or down vote on the floor of the House, or the animal rights people need to find an opponent for him and get him out of there. Bill Billingsley
Oh, now this is a criminal profiling bill. The psychiatrists and cops like this bill. Wonderful. Those are two groups that can be given blind trust, don't you agree?
Kingfish, why don't you link to the actual bill so those of us who don't like to be spoon-fed can read it for ourselves. It seems spoon-feeding is okay if you are spoon-feeding the "right" information.
I wonder if these people have taken a stand?
http://www.marryyourpet.com/
God knows I love my 3 rescue doggies (9 – 90lbs) and would not ever kick a single one of them out of whatever spot they choose in the bed each night.
That said, these animal protection efforts do make me think about how environmental protection laws began as good efforts to stop people from actually polluting our air, lakes, stream and rivers. Everybody, liberal and conservative, could get on board such protections.
Unfortunately, the regulations did not stop with just stopping real pollution…they have now grown to regulations that prohibit people from going on to certain public properties, to prohibiting access of properties via horse back, bicycles, motorcycles and other ways means that many people have enjoyed for prior years. These regulations have also turned into incredible hammers that come near crippling efforts of companies/people to construct a new subdivision, road, building, power plant, industrial plant or the like.
What’s my point? Well, the good intentions/purposes of early environmental regulations have been used as the pry bar for more extreme groups to affect exactly the types of burdensome environmental regulations that we have today. Who would have ever thought that the EPA would be given the authority to “regulate” (control) the release of “CO2” into the atmosphere? CO2, you know, the gas that each and every one of us release multiple times per day...(could a future tax or other requirement on our existence be in our future?) So, is it really that far fetched to envision that once these reasonable regulations on animal cruelty are put into place---with the support of liberals and conservatives alike--- there could very well be efforts(successful?) by more extreme factions in the future to promote the rights of animals to a level that is higher than what it is now?
Is it really that far-fetched to imagine that it will be proposed that animals be granted, for example, representation by a guardian ad litem. Perhaps each chicken farm would be subjected to oversight by a “animal rights representative” that would inspect and tell the chicken farmers what they can and can not do with their chickens. Every slaughter house would similarly be subjected to oversight by a animal rights representative to make sure the cows are not treated cruelly. Is this really that far-fetched? How far could it go from there?
The proposed dog and cat cruelty legislation makes sense to me, but having witnessed what has taken place with the environmental regulations over the past 25 years,--and how the radical left has hijacked such efforts--- I can easily see this legislation being used as the spring/pry board for more intrusive BIG government interference/regulations/controls over how people interact with their animals.
Just a thought.
And a good thought 10:41.
The US has too many laws as it is. There is no wonder why it has so many people behind bars.
The state should enact laws mandating it and local governments do what they can to control the domestic animal populations before this legislation is entertained. They do all they can to control the wild animal populations. Have some wild dogs or cats come about, and you are about on your own. Try to handle it yourself and risk being reported by PETA or something similar, and facing a felony charge.
Mississippi is backwards on this one, too.
I'm sure you made similar arguments against child abuse laws. lets not ban child abuse or make it a felony because some leftist radical group will come along and start reporting parents who spank or discipline their children.
Or better yet, domestic violence laws: we don't want some group that hates men taking a little argument that might have some alcohol involved and turning it into a felony. We have too many laws already. I can see it now. You could make a similar argument against almost every criminal statute on the books.
I heard someone recently make the same argument against Delbert's push for tougher securities laws. Never mind all the financial fraud reported on this website, can't have gummint interfering or getting out of control.
Fortunately, I see a difference between the rights of humans and the rights of animals.
Sadly, more people in this state would like to see dogs and cats have rights than immigrants that cross an open border. They would rather animals have rights than people of different religions.
Hopefully the puppet legislature will appease them for their votes.
You are a liar.
Last time I checked, I can get the death penalty for torturing an illegal immigrant to death as I can for any other person. I can get many moons in jail for aggravated assault.
However, if a Luke Woodham practices his craft by burning animals to death in order to desensitize himself to butchering say 30 of your illegal immigrants to death and it could have been prevented by throwing him in jail for a year or so or keeping him under house arrest for same period of time, the law shouldn't be passed because you falsely claim animals would have more rights than illegal immigrants.
10:26 --
1) Here's the address to the bill: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2011/pdf/history/SB/SB2127.xml
2) Mr. Ward, you really should know how to access legislation on your own.
Kingfish, I did not mean to hit a nerve. I was only throwing out some thoughts I had.
Your response tends to suggest that my thought process is really not too far-fetched. I am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.
Child (people)abuse/ domestic(people) violence = Animal protection? Really? That sounds far fetched. Did I misunderstand the the point?
RE: Too many laws - actually my concern would be laws that have the potential to provide the basis for more stifling restrictions which would be quietly implemented over time.
Thanks for the response.
Sections 4 and 5 of bill:
SECTION 4. The following shall be codified as Section 97-41-31, Mississippi Code of 1972:
97-41-31. For purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "Maim" means to injure so severely as to cause lasting damage.
(b) "Mutilate" means to seriously wound, injure, maim or disfigure an animal by irreparably damaging the body parts of the animal or to render useless any part of the body of the animal.
(c) "Torment" means the infliction of extreme pain or agony.
(d) "Torture" means the infliction of inhumane treatment or gross physical abuse to a dog or cat meant to cause the dog or cat intense or prolonged pain or serious physical injury, or thereby causing death to the dog or cat, with the intent of increasing or prolonging the pain of the dog or cat.
SECTION 5. Section 97-41-1, Mississippi Code of 1972, which deals with cruelty to animals, Section 97-41-5, Mississippi Code of 1972, which deals with carrying a creature in a cruel manner, Section 97-41-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, which deals with confining animals without food or water, Section 97-41-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, which deals with failure to provide sustenance to animals, and Section 97-41-16, Mississippi Code of 1972, which deals with malicious or mischievous injury to cats and dogs, are repealed.
SECTION 6. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2011.
Any bill that can equally piss off the nutjob wings of both the far right (10:26, 10:27) AND the far left (11:05) must be damn good legislation.
And 10:41 -- the "slippery slope" argument is an accepted logical fallacy.
"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy."
Your compariosn to clean air legislation isn't logical, either -- to my knowledge, we haven't had a ton of crazy environmental laws passed in Mississippi. You can't compare what the Federal government does with what the Mississippi Legislature will do.
And you also can't claim that the failure of the bill to pass last year is an expression of legislative will or intent -- ONE MAN held it up. That type of pocket veto is disgustingly undemocratic.
If Ward has any balls he'll bring it up for a vote -- if he and Farm Bureau are so sure they are on the side of virtue with this one, put it up for a REAL vote.
You indeed misunderstood the point and put words in my mouth. The point is your argument could be made against almost any criminal law and I used domestic violence and child abuse as examples.
If you were informed, you would know that actually the same argument was used against strengthening those two laws. "Suppose some ole gal...", Remember that one?
Finally, if the slippery slope is to be the foundation upon which ALL argumentation is to be based, let me slide on down with my own pro-2127 argument:
- Failure to pass the bill makes it possible to torture family pets with misdemeanor conviction the only risk.
- Creepy junior high and high school boys all over Mississippi realize they can get their jollies burning the neighbor's cat or cutting the paws off teacher's puppy and not get sent to jail OR a shrink for it.
- The permissability of such activity, along with the networking potential of the internet, creates small bands of animal-tortuing kids, roaming suburban streets, terrorizing pet-loving kids and little old ladies.
- The reputation of the Mississippi Animal Torture Gangs goes international. Liberals flood the state to protest. They decide to move here and register to vote so they can legally fight the Torture Gangs.
- Somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, Bin Ladin hears of the Mississippi Animal Torture Gangs. He likes what he hears and sends recruiters to our fair shores.
- Because the young men of the Torture Gangs have never been taught the value life, and they've never gotten their psychological ills diagnosed and treated, they are easy prey for the Mississippi Al Queda operatives.
- Mississippi becomes the new home for international terrorism, and Osama Bin Ladin is elected governor.
OK, see how dumb that argument is? It's because it ASSUMES NEXT STEPS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO HAPPEN. The same logical fallacy at the heart of the anti-2127 crowd is the basis for my tale of Bin Ladin moving into our Governor's mansion.
Assuming inevitability, or even the risk of inevitability, is a sign that there is no actual, relevant, good argument to use. When you rely on the slope, it's practically the same thing as saying "I just don't have ANYTHING useful to say."
10:41, are you really that ignorant??? 46 other states have laws a lot tougher than what is being proposed here. If you seem to have the answer for this bill, then answer this question: If abusing a domesticated dog or cat hurts meat, corn, and soybean production the first two times it happens(and this is the stated objection of the Farm Bureau), then why does it NOT hurt meat, corn, and soybean production the third time? 48% of rapists, 30% of child molesters, 100% of serial killers, and 100% of sexual homicides are committed by people who admit to starting their criminal careers as animal abusers... and that is just those that will admit to it. 10:41, I don't know about you, but I sure would like to keep these people off the streets, unless, of course, you don't mind them raping your mother, daughter, or sister, or perhaps molesting your children or grandchildren.
Frugal Gal, you are my new best friend. Your slippery slope analogy not only pointed out the fallacy of that argument, it was a captivating piece of literary fiction. Signed, Marlo Kirkpatrick
I suspect those who would vote against this bill "just don't get it." Somehow they cannot see the dire necessity for a bill that protects pets from harmful and sometimes deadly abuse.
Could it be that these folks' pets "got it" when they were growing up or even now? Could that be one reason they are insensitive to this issue?
People who abuse animals come in all stripes and they deserve to wear those stripes- or orange, as it is...
on the ground at GUMMINT kf.
Animals are property. I think issues can be taken care of in the context of property rights. It is morally dangerous to confuse animals and humans.
12:26, first, please actually read my post.
Second, I never said I had the answer.
Third, you seem to be mindlessly willing to over look the concerns I raised. I half-way understand this, because I get pretty emotional about my doggies, too. Nevertheless, whether 46 other states have legislation similar to that that is proposed in Mississippi does nothing to help me believe that the concerns I raised are far fetched or otherwise invalid.
11:30 said “Your comparison to clean air legislation isn't logical, either -- to my knowledge, we haven't had a ton of crazy environmental laws passed in Mississippi”. You can't compare what the Federal government does with what the Mississippi Legislature will do.” ---
My comments were not submitted as Mississippi specific. Your knowledge of, or lack thereof, of crazy environmental laws in Mississippi is irrelevant to my point and certainly does nothing to establish a lack of logic in my use of environmental laws as relevant examples. The environmental laws in this country are a great example of how protecting things we all love can provide a great mechanism for future, further intrusions on our lives and businesses, all in the name of “protecting our environment”.
(SIDE NOTE: most people still think that the “smoke” they see coming out of a power plant is “pollution”…it ain’t. It’s called steam.) (SIDE NOTE 2: anyone know why the founder of GreenPeace resigned? He said it was hijacked by extremists who saw the environmental movement as a way to push their (marxist) political agendas.)
Whether legislation is proposed at the state level or the fed level, the issue is the same. Rest assured, once enough states determine that it is within their domain to legislate concerning the well-being of animals, it will not be long before the inconsistencies between such state laws are addressed at the Fed level by some great minds that want to ride that political football to re-election.
3:07 - Hit the nail on the head.
I'm with Frugal Gal. Saying this law would prevent serial killers (on the one hand) is no diffrent than saying it will lead to DHS caseworkers for chickens (on the other). This law will provide a more appropriate penalty for being a real a-hole, but that's about it. It might make you feel better to lock up someone like this for a little while, but you need to properly fund mental health (for starters) if you want to actually accomplish something.
oaky, 3:12, how about this as an answer to your "slippery slope theory"? If the slippery slope theory were an actual useful theory, we could apply it to literally everything in our daily lives. An example, speed limits for drivng a car. If we used the slippery slope theory, we would all still be driving about at 25 miles per hour. And what about electricity? Somebody might get shocked, so let's stop using it. Or the 40-hour work week? If we start with that, pretty soon people will want vacation time. Or maybe let's not give women the right to vote. Then they might want to be property and business owners. As you can see, the list is endless. If that theory were actually put into use, nothing would ever happen.
3:57, you are talking apples and oranges. Nearly every political idea has some sort of lunatic fringe associated with it -- said fringe's eventual takeover of the issue isn't inevitable.
And YOU are the one who compared federal environmental policy to Mississippi legislation, not me -- makes no sense for you to make the comparison and then when I point out the dissimilarity, you respond "My comments were not submitted as Mississippi specific." The actual TOPIC of this thread IS Mississippi-specific.
If you want to make that comparison legitimate AND educate dumb little me about crazy environmental state laws all at the same time, then PLEASE tell use about the first bill passed that started Mississippi down the Godless path to fringe environmentalism. And please show how the slope ACTUALLY WAS slippery by sharing with us the stages of development those left-wing tree-huggers took us through as they made Mississippi the poster child for extreme environmental protection.
You do that, you have got yourself a comparison that has a LITTLE more merit, but still fails to prove that your fears will necissarily come true in a different area of law.
In fact, the argument you make is a form of yet another logical fallacy (it's Logical Fallacy Day on JJ), called "ad ignorantium." The form you are using makes an argument and then challenges people to disprove something that is functionally impossible to disprove. No one can prove what absolutely will or will not happen in the future, therefore it's a bad argument. It would be like me saying that if you can't prove to me that there won't ever be any alien visitations to plane Earth, then aliens must exist (a simplified example, but you get the drift).
Bad argumentation, my friend.
4:37 and 5:16, I think it is fair to say that this is a highly emotional issue for you both. I'll close here with my hopes that the doggies and cats will be safe in Mississippi.
I can't understand why anyone would want to see a disturbed individual who deliberately tortures or kills and innocent animal go unpunished. Seriously, a misdemeanor charge is absolutely nothing. There will be no jail time, no counseling, no record on criminal background checks, and very likely no fine. Just a year probation at most.
These people need help just like those alcoholics who can't keep from driving drunk. They wlll eventually hurt someone unless they are identified and stopped.
Felony for torturing an animal is no different than felonly DUI, felonly assault, or felony theft. The actions are done with enough deliberation and malice (or negligence) that they deserve stiff punishment that will stay on their criminal record.
That's the problem with politics in America. One complete idiot can stonewall a bill that does a lot of good and has the support of a majority of the citizens.
Good grief!
The arguments against this bill are absurdly illogical and uninformed in the extreme.
I can't believe someone is actually arguing that one shouldn't pass a good law because there are " too many" laws on the books?
I can't believe that anyone is ignorant of what a " livestock exception" legally means when they claim to be involved in agriculture.
Nor can I believe that some are so naive they don't " get" that this is no more than political muscle flexing so Farm Bureau can demonstrate they have hold over their " people" and " ownership" of a few politicians. Farm Bureau members ought to be highly insulted to be believed so gullible and to be used so badly.
12:26, you need to think about what you are saying. While it is true most serial killers abuse animals, they also wet the bed at older ages and like to start fires. But not all people that do those three things turn out serial killers, or even close. Maybe you think we should lock them up anyway, just to be safe. And 100% of those groups have never agreed to anything.
Kingfish, you might be a little more credible if you wouldn't call people liars. You can't infer intent on anyone here. Maybe their facts are wrong or misconstrued, but calling someone a liar from a written post is a bit childish.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This bill is clearly not intended to interfere with agriculture in any way. The exceptions are clearly stated. It simply makes it a felony to torture pets and increases the fine for depriving an animal from food and water. Can't we look at it in that light and stop all the other arguments? BB
8:24 The bill is about the TORTURE of domesticated animals not used for livestock. It has ZERO to do with bedwetting or playing with matches...or farming or hunting either.
While all those who torture animals may not become serial killers, that behavior is a symptom of serious mental illness which should be addressed and the earlier, the better.
If you don't know the difference between setting a cat on fire to see it burn alive and setting your Momma's garden on fire by accident, I can't help you.
By the way, animals have been protected from cruelty in this country LONGER than children. The first child that was protected from abuse in this country was protected because the law was willing to see that child as having the same protections as an animal .
But, I'm sure one blogger will see that as an example of " too many laws". Can't have a good law when we reach...what total exactly?
12:26, perhaps those of us who are in favor of a bill such as this are inadequately proffering our stance in terms you and others can understand. You may think that 46 other states have nothing to do with MS. You could not be more incorrect. Appaerntly, those other 46 other states have chosen to recognize the proven facts og why there is a need for laws that protect animals and people. This is not about animal rights; it is about protecting women, children, and vulnerable adults from people who are known potentials for committing violent crimes against people. There is a reason that law enforcement officials in MS want this law passed. There is a reason that the FBI uses this type of criminal activity to gauge one's propensity to commit violent crimes against people. And I am pretty tired of watching MS being last in everything.
Oh, because the cops want it, give it to them. What happens when local cops want your guns? Don't think that will happen? Look to New Orleans post Katrina. Local cops will jump if the feds say jump. Don't fall for this because some say the cops want it. The National FOP are pro-gun control.
8:46 so you're against it because cops want it and think that is logical because ???? And, you think animal cruelty is related to control?
I'm supporting a bill to require passing a logic course to get out of high school.
Actually I will say he is lying when he claims it gives animals more rights than illegal immigrants. I burn an immigrant, legal or illegal to death, my ass is going to jail for life or I get the shot. I mutilate an immigrant, I get jail for a few years. I chop off an immigrant's arm or leg, I get jail for a long time.
I find it really interesting that this particular subject seems to garner a whole lot of comments, more than the usual subject. However, I still am trying to make sense of the argument of the opposition to these types of laws. Wisconsin passed a law that makes it a felony to threaten harm to a family pet in order to keep an abused woman and family at home with the abuser. And we can't get even a first felony law passed? This makes no sense.
3:07 wrote: "Animals are property. I think issues can be taken care of in the context of property rights. It is morally dangerous to confuse animals and humans."
Pets are property like a lawn chair, bicycle or washing machine??
Wrong! Inanimate objects cannot be on an equal basis with flesh and blood.
Most pets are considered members of one's family. They possess many traits that certain humans lack. It is an insult to them to be confused with some members of the human race.
A felony charge is imperative in cases where they are abused, tortured or killed.
Post a Comment