On Wednesday, Aug. 22, a special session of the Utah State Legislature was held to discuss two very different topics — school district splits and animal torture.
I have to admit, I didn’t think that, even if a special session were convened, an animal torture bill (i.e. Henry’s Law) would be discussed. I was wrong, and pleasantly surprised. Henry’s law and the school district splits were both discussed in the Legislature’s special session.
As a vegetarian and animal lover, I am used to witnessing the majority of society’s indifference to the plight and suffering of animals. While it is my belief that all life is of inherent equal worth and should be treated as such, I respect others’ alternative views and choices. I do not eat meat, wear animal-derived or tested products or even kill bugs, but I can understand that others do not see animals as I see them. What I cannot and do not respect, though, is someone who would intentionally torture another vulnerable living thing or turn a blind eye to someone who did.
Henry’s Law derives its name from Henry, a black Chihuahua-mix dog who was tortured by his owner’s now ex-husband, who poked his eye out with a leaf-blower and then baked him in an oven for a few minutes.
Among other things, Henry’s Law sought to clarify definitions of key terms used within the bill, such as “torture,” and increase the penalty for animal torture from a class A misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.
Utah is one of only nine states in the nation with no felony-level penalties for the most egregious acts of intentional animal cruelty, such as burning, poisoning or torturing. A Utah class A misdemeanor conviction for animal torture can mean up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. By comparison, in Oregon, the same degree of aggravated animal cruelty is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Utah’s current animal-cruelty laws are incomprehensive and not as effective as they could be. Both Utah’s current laws and the proposed versions of Henry’s Law allow for the exemption of farm animals.
For one, farm animals should be protected under animal-cruelty laws. While many people eat animals by choice, some farmers go too far by torturing the farm animals before they are slaughtered for their meat. A few weeks ago, you might have heard that two farmers were videotaped tying a rope to a bull and dragging it with a van for quite some distance. I say you “might have heard” because the story received limited press coverage — a mere 127 words in a Salt Lake Tribune article, for example.
Because there are exemptions for some kinds of animal cruelty to livestock in Utah’s current laws, the farmers who severely injured the bull were charged with class B misdemeanors rather than the class A misdemeanors they would have been convicted of had they injured a non-farm animal in the same way.
You might be thinking to yourself, “I’m not a vegetarian or a member of PETA. They’re just animals. Why should I care about Henry’s Law?”
Because animal abusers aren’t always just abusing animals.
A great biblical scholar, St. Francis of Assisi, once said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of pity and compassion, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”
St. Francis was right. In one 20-year longitudinal study, 70 percent of animal abusers were found to have committed other crimes. A recent local example would be Destiny Norton’s killer, who was found to have a history of torturing animals before he brutally sexually assaulted and murdered Destiny.
When I served as an intern to two members of the Utah House of Representatives last General Session, I was able to hear floor debate for and against Henry’s Law. The debate I heard included arguments that many victims of domestic abuse refuse to leave abusive situations because their abuser threatens to harm their pet. The majority of the debate on Henry’s Law was in favor of its passage. That fits popular opinion in Utah, according to one Dan Jones & Associates poll this year that found about 74 percent of people in favor of passing Henry’s Law and toughening animal-cruelty penalties.
In the 2007 General Session, Henry’s Law did pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but failed to become law because of last-minute political antics by bill opponents. It is unfortunate — but common — that many good bills such as Henry’s Law die this way each Legislative session.
Wednesday’s special session did not result in final passage of Henry’s Law. However, the special session did give the animal abuse issue the consideration, discussion time and forum it deserves. Now all that is needed is action. A conference committee has been assigned to reach a compromise on two different versions of Henry’s Law. Hopefully in the 2008 General Session the Legislature will put partisan politics aside for the good and representation of their constituents and pass Henry’s Law to protect other animals, and subsequently people, from abuse in the future.
