A Difficult Animal Welfare Topic

A news story out of Wisconsin sort of piqued my curiosity, although I’m not delving too far into this one, except to make a few general observations (h/t G):

A Wausau man accused of performing a sex act with a horse has been charged in Marathon County with bestiality.

[Name and age redacted but available almost anywhere else] was charged with sexual gratification with an animal sex organ, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana as a repeat offender and bail jumping, according to court records.

I vaguely remembered hearing somewhere that “bestiality” is not actually a criminal offense in many U.S. jurisdictions, so I set about to try to look that up without actually using Google. Wikipedia is our friend in this regard: “As of 2012, bestiality is illegal in 37 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2012.” As it turns out, bestiality was usually included, expressly or by implication, in state-level “sodomy” or “crimes against nature” laws, which were mostly struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. I do not, let’s be clear, think that this negatively affects the importance or validity of that decision in any way.

By chensiyuan (chensiyuan) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

This is a heavy topic, so here’s a picture of Yosemite Valley to marvel at.

Since I am of the opinion that consent is the most important factor in any sort of sexual activity—i.e. if the participants all give knowing, willing consent, they can pretty much do what they want; and by “all” participants I really do mean all participants, including anyone who can see what you’re doing (it’s fine by me if you like stuff involving clown noses and Cool Whip, but I never agreed to watch you do it in public, so get behind closed doors, or at least high walls, please)—I am generally of the opinion that sexual activities with animals is not permissible. They cannot give consent in any way that we humans can unambiguously understand as consent. Continue reading

Share

Points for Effort, I Guess

Here’s an example of what, to a lawyer, ought to be a patently ridiculous argument, but that also deserves a certain grudging respect for its sheer audacity. This is from a 2009 unpublished decision by the Texas First District Court of Appeals in Houston, Bradley v. Texas:

Appellant, Marcus Andre Bradley, challenges the order of the county court at law denying him the relief that he requested in his application for a writ of habeas corpus. In his sole issue, appellant contends that the State’s prosecution of him for the offense of cruelty to animals, after a justice court had, in a prior proceeding, terminated his ownership of 45 pit bull dogs and ordered him to pay $9,020 to the Houston Humane Society for the boarding and care of the dogs, is barred under the “doctrine[s] of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.”

We affirm the order of the trial court.

It’s mostly the double jeopardy argument that intrigues me. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, but it’s not as simple as it might sound. The government can’t charge you with the same offense if you are acquitted after a trial, or if the case is declared a mistrial after a certain point in the case. That doesn’t apply, though, if one case is criminal and the other isn’t. Continue reading

Share

If It’s in the Will…

A story came out a couple of weeks ago about a recently-deceased woman whose will directs that her dog’s ashes should be mixed with hers and buried with her. The problem, of course, is that her dog is still alive and healthy. Her attorney claims that “the dog has aggression issues that pose a risk to other animals and human handlers,” and that “a veterinarian consulted on the matter recommended that the 105-pound dog be euthanized.” I have no basis for disputing these claims, but it certainly makes the situation simpler than if the dog were both healthy and well-behaved.

Yes, this is blatant emotional manipulation.

The woman lived in Indiana, and the attorney says that he request is not illegal under that state’s law. I’m not sure it would be illegal in Texas, either, but it raises more than a few questions. Euthanasia of pets, a/k/a companion animals, must be performed by a licensed veterinarian or under the supervision of one under most states’ laws (PDF summaries of euthanasia laws are here and here). As far as I know, though, nothing legally obligates a licensed professional to perform euthanasia, especially when the animal is otherwise healthy and not subject to any sort of court order based on aggression. In other words, an executor of a will that requires euthanasia of a pet could be rebuffed by a veterinarian.

This raises the troubling question of whether a person could euthanize a pet, in accordance with someone’s will or for whatever other reason, themselves. I’ll limit myself to Texas’ animal cruelty statute for now, and it seems to leave that possibility open. Section 42.092(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code states that “[a] person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly…in a cruel manner kills…an animal.” The statute defines “cruel manner” as “a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.” Tex. Pen. Code § 42.092(a)(3). The offense is a state jail felony for a first offense, or a third-degree felony for subsequent offenses. The only Texas court decisions that I could find citing that part of the statute involved unambiguously “cruel” treatment of an animal—specifically, setting a bat on fire and beating and stabbing cats to death.

Basically, there is no explicit prohibition under Texas law on a pet owner euthanizing their own pet, provided it is not “cruel.”


On a semi-related note, I learned that it might even be legally permissible under Texas law for a person to kill a dog in a less-than-perfectly-humane manner if it “is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls,” provided the person witnessed the attack. I don’t know how you determine that a dog is “about to attack” with legal certainty.

Share

Dog Abuse, Neglect in Arizona

You’ve probably heard about Green Acre Kennel, the dog-boarding facility in Gilbert, Arizona where at least twenty (the count seems to vary from one news source to another) dead dogs were discovered last weekend. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (yes, that Sheriff Joe) initially called it an “accident,” but has now announced that he will conduct a “thorough investigation.” Here’s a quick guide to the legal issues involved.

Arizona, along with every other state in the U.S., has felony provisions for animal cruelty. Arizona’s law went into effect in 1999, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. A report on the case at The Daily Beast looks at the civil liability angle. In many states, such as Texas, civil liability for causing injury or death to an animal—meaning a pet in this sort of case—is limited to the animal’s fair market value. It does not include other compensatory damages, nor does it includes any sort of noneconomic damages for what is, for many people, the loss of a family member. The Daily Beast‘s article discusses some of the civil claims that may arise under one Arizona lawyer’s take on that state’s laws: Continue reading

Share