Lesser charge eyed to deter animal cruelty in Massachusetts

BOSTON (SHNS) - Though it may seem counterintuitive, Suffolk County's district attorney said Thursday, prosecutors believe creating an avenue to charge people with less serious crimes for animal cruelty would actually do more to deter it.

In Massachusetts, it's a felony to commit an act of animal cruelty, Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden said at an advocacy event at the State House coordinated by MSPCA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rescue League of Boston and Humane World for Animals. They're lobbying for a bill this session (S 1277 / H 1934) that would allow for misdemeanor charges or the non-criminal seizure of animals for those offenses as well.

"That might sound counterintuitive. Why are you going to actually have a lesser penalty or a less serious charge?" Hayden said. "Well, the reason being is because there's just a need to be flexible when it comes to how you charge these cases and how you potentially resolve them. And the reality is, not every single case of animal cruelty amounts to a felony."

Erin Aiello, assistant district attorney for the Northwestern DA's office and a law enforcement trainer with the Humane Society, told the story of an elderly woman in her district who had dementia, and wasn't taking care of the animals on her farm.

"She had horses, she had cows, and unfortunately she was just forgetting to feed her animals. There was no criminal intent. When the MSPCA investigator went to the property to try to reach out, to try to offer services to see what was going on, her grandchildren prohibited them from taking any further steps," she said. "Unfortunately, it had to come to my desk where I had to review a search warrant and potentially look at whether there should be charges."

Aiello said they did not charge her, though they did seize the animals when the search warrant was completed. With the bill, however, she said the MSCPA would have been able to seize the animals without having to go through a search warrant and explore criminal charges first.

A misdemeanor animal cruelty charge may apply for a person who has ongoing mental health issues and no prior record of cruelty, Hayden said.

"Oftentimes now, people are very reluctant to resolve a case because it involves a felony conviction. Having a felony conviction on your record is far more significant than a misdemeanor offense, and so we get these cases that just languish in court," Hayden said. "People are far less likely to admit wrongdoing even though they know they did it, even though they know they should be held accountable."

In addition to the bill seeking to expand the ways to remove an animal from a home without going through a felony legal process, the DAs and animal rights groups are backing a bill to enforce a so-called possession ban.

This bill (S 1207 / H 1914) would prohibit a person convicted of certain animal cruelty crimes — such as torture, sexual abuse, and dogfighting — from possessing, adopting or fostering an animal for a period of time determined in court. Courts would have the discretion to consider each case individually, to extend a mandatory possession ban longer than the minimum five-year period as they see fit, and consider appeals.

Current Massachusetts law prohibits formerly convicted abusers from working with animals, and prohibits certain types of control over animals after an animal sexual abuse conviction. However, the law does not uniformly address ownership.

The bill doesn't create or alter jail time — a violation of a court-ordered possession ban would only trigger a forfeiture of the animal. It was previously reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, but didn't make it to the floor of either chamber for a vote.

"This bill would complement Massachusetts' strong cruelty code by providing an additional tool to help prevent cruelty in our communities," says a bill summary from advocates. "In fact, the legislatively-created Animal Cruelty Task Force recommended in its 2016 report that the legislature consider such a provision."