One of the overarching difficulties with prosecuting animal abusers is that the weight of the crimes never seems to match the frequently light punishments[1]. We routinely see defendants that own multiple animals in distress at the time of arrest receive small fines and short sentences. Part of the difficulty lies in the legal character of companion animals - they are the property of the owner, and as such have no rights to a healthy, happy life. This is disingenuous - there are statutes in every jurisdiction that prohibit abuse and neglect of animals, setting animals apart from other property like toasters and shoes. Yet the final interpretation of human-caused wrongs in cruelty prosecutions is rarely punitive.
As Seattle Animal Watch moves into its second year, we are taking this issue seriously. We will publish a series of short articles that consider different approaches to achieving more justice for animals. We will be looking at different legal definitions of companion animals and the possible consequences to such forward thinking. We will also be looking at religious and philosophical ideas to support expanded protections for our animals. We don’t expect this process to be easy or quick, but living in Seattle means we can at least try out new ideas. We encourage our readers to comment on these ideas as we publish.
[1] There are other reasons, chiefly the limitations posed by the State’s Sentencing Guidelines. That problem is another opportunity for change, and will be dealt with separately.