BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2281
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2008
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 2281 (Nava) - As Introduced: February 21, 2008
SUMMARY : Makes it a felony punishable by 16 months, 2 or 3
years in the state prison for any person convicted of being
knowingly present as a spectator at any place, building, or
tenement where preparations are being made for an exhibition of
the fighting of dogs with the intent to be present at that
exhibition.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that any person that does any of the following is
guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in a
state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years; by a fine not to
exceed $50,000; or by both such fine and imprisonment:
a) Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the
intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of
fighting with another dog.
b) For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with
another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
c) Permits any of the above acts to be done on any premises
under his or her control, or aid or abets that act. [Penal
Code Section 597.5(a).]
2)States that any person that is knowingly present, as a
spectator, at any place, building, or tenement where
preparations are being made for an exhibition of the fighting
of dogs, with the intent to be present at those preparations,
or is knowingly present at the exhibition, fighting or
injuring with the intent to be present at the exhibition,
fighting, or injuring is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months; or by
a fine not exceeding $1,000; or by both. [Penal Code Section
597.5(b).]
AB 2281
Page 2
3)Provides that any person who causes any animal, not including
a dog, to fight with another animal, or permits the same to be
done on any property under his or her control, or aids or
abets the fighting of any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to one year in the county jail; a by a fine
not to exceed $5,000; or both. [Penal Code Section 597b(a).]
4)Provides that any person who causes a cock to fight with
another cock, or permits the same to be done on any property
under his or her control, and any person who aid or abets the
fighting of any cock or is present as a spectator is guilty of
a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed one year; by a fine not to exceed $5,000; or by
both. [Penal Code Section 597b(b).]
5)Provides that any person who is knowingly present as a
spectator at any place, building, or tenement for an
exhibition of animal fighting, or who is knowingly present at
that exhibition, or is knowingly present where preparations
are being made for the exhibition, fighting, or injuring of an
animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment
in a county jail not to exceed six months; by a fine not
exceeding $1,000; or by both. (Penal Code Section 597c.)
6)Provides that any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains
any bird or other animal with the intent that that it be used
an exhibition of fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed
one year; by a fine not to exceed $5,000; or by both. (Penal
Code Section 597j.)
7)Provides that any person who maliciously and intentionally
maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal or
maliciously and intentionally kills an animal is guilty of
either a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in
a county jail for up to one year and/or by a fine up to
$20,000; or by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, 2
or 3 years and/or a fine up to $20,000. [Penal Code Section
597(a).]
8)Provides that any person who overdrives, overloads, overworks,
tortures, torments, deprives of drink, cruelly beats, or
mutilates an animal is guilty of either a misdemeanor or
felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to
AB 2281
Page 3
one year and/or by a fine up to $20,000; or by imprisonment in
state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years and/or a fine up to
$20,000. [Penal Code Section 597(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "According to
the Humane Society of the United States, dog fighting is a
'sadistic 'contest' in which two dogs - specifically bred,
conditioned and trained to fight - are placed in a pit
(generally a small arena enclosed by plywood walls) to fight
each other for the spectators' entertainment and gambling.
Fights average nearly an hour in length and often last more
than two hours. Dogfights end when one of the dogs will not
or cannot continue. Unfortunately, dogs used in fights often
die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion or infection
hours or even days after the event.
"Spectators provide much of the profits associated with dog
fighting. The money generated by admission fees and gambling
helps keep this 'sport' alive. Because dogfights are illegal
and therefore not widely publicized, spectators do not merely
'happen upon a fight' - they seek it out.
"It is estimated that 40,000 people are involved in this blood
sport resulting in injury or death to nearly 250,000 dogs
annually. Law enforcement projects that at least 100,000
additional persons participate in 'street level' dogfights.
In fact, there have already been two vicious dog fighting
cases prosecuted in 2008 in California alone - one in Los
Angeles and one in Fresno - involving over 30 dogs between
them.
"Dogfights come hand-in-hand with a host of other concerns.
Illegal gambling is the norm at fights. Firearms and other
weapons are typically found at events, due to the large amount
of cash present. Illegal drugs are often sold and used at
dogfights. And, perhaps most disturbingly, young children are
sometimes present at events which can promote insensitivity to
animal suffering, enthusiasm for violence and a lack of
respect for the law. A study by the Chicago Police of
incidents between 2001 and 2004 found that in 362 dog fighting
cases, 59% of dog owners had gang affiliations and 66% had
AB 2281
Page 4
been arrested at least twice before.
"With the introduction of AB 2281, I hope that by making
spectatorship at dogfights in California a felony, this
illegal activity and its detrimental effects on animals will
be dramatically reduced or eliminated."
2)Penalty Increase : Under existing law, any person who is
knowingly present as a spectator at any place where dogs are
fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six
months in a county jail; by a fine not to exceed $1,000; or by
both a fine and imprisonment. [Penal Code Section 597.5(b).]
Also, any person who keeps or trains a dog with the intent
that the dog be engaged in an exhibition of fighting, or
causes a dog to fight another dog, is guilty of a felony,
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months,
2 or 3 years in the state prison; by a fine not exceeding
$50,000; or by both a fine and imprisonment. [Penal Code
Section 597.5(a).] This bill increases the penalty for being
a spectator at a dog fight from a maximum of six months in a
county jail to 16 months, 2 or 3 years in the state prison.
Should the penalty for being a spectator at a dog fight be the
same as the penalty for those who keep, train, and actually
fight dogs? Why is the existing six-month county jail penalty
inadequate for being convicted of being a spectator at a dog
fight? It should also be noted that the penalty for being a
spectator at other animal fights, including cock fighting, is
a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in the county
jail; by a fine not to exceed $1,000; or by both. (Penal Code
Section 597c.) As a result, this bill creates an
inconsistency between the penalties for being a spectator at a
dog fight and being a spectator at a cock fight. Should the
Legislature create inconsistent penalties for what is
essentially the same conduct - being a spectator at these very
similar events?
3)"Three Strikes" Implications : It has been argued that
contiguous states around California have made being a
spectator at a dog fight a felony. However, these states do
not have a draconian "Three Strikes" law as does California.
Under California's Three Strikes law, if this bill were
enacted a person convicted of this newly created felony of
being a spectator at dog fight and has two prior "serious" or
"violent" prior convictions could be sentenced to a term of
25-years-to-life in the state prison.
AB 2281
Page 5
4)Prison Overcrowding and a Court-Ordered Population Cap :
Concerns for overcrowding arise because of the increase in the
prison term when the offense is already punishable by a
substantial prison term. As California's prison crisis
worsens, close attention should be paid to legislation that
increases prison overcrowding. The California Policy Research
Center (CPRC) recently issued a report on the status of
California's prisons. The report stated, "California has the
largest prison population of any state in the nation, with
more than 171,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons, and the state's
annual correctional spending, including jails and probation,
amounts to $8.92 billion. Despite the high cost of
corrections, fewer California prisoners participate in
relevant treatment programs than comparable states, and its
inmate-to-officer ratio is considerably higher. While the
nation's prisons average one correctional officer to every 4.5
inmates, the average California officer is responsible for 6.5
inmates. Although officer salaries are higher than average,
their ranks are spread dangerously thin and there is a severe
vacancy rate." [Petersilia, "Understanding California
Corrections", California Policy Research Center, (May 2006).]
California's prison population will likely exceed 180,000 by
2010.
According to the Little Hoover Commission, "Lawsuits filed in
three federal courts alleging that the current level of
overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ask that
the courts appoint a panel of federal judges to manage
California's prison population. United States District Judge
Lawrence Karlton, the first judge to hear the motion, gave the
State until June 2007 to show progress in solving the
overpopulation crisis. Judge Karlton clearly would prefer not
to manage California's prison population. At a December 2006
hearing, Judge Karlton told lawyers representing the
Schwarzenegger administration that he is not inclined 'to
spend forever running the state prison system.' However, he
also warned the attorneys, 'You tell your client June 4 may be
the end of the line. It may really be the end of the line.'
"Despite the rhetoric, 30 years of 'tough on crime' politics has
not made the state safer. Quite the opposite: today
thousands of hardened, violent criminals are released without
regard to the danger they present to an unsuspecting public.
Years of political posturing have taken a good idea -
AB 2281
Page 6
determinate sentencing - and warped it beyond recognition with
a series of laws passed with no thought to their cumulative
impact. And these laws stripped away incentives for offenders
to change or improve themselves while incarcerated.
"Inmates, who are willing to improve their education, learn a
job skill or kick a drug habit find that programs are few and
far between, a result of budget choices and overcrowding.
Consequently, offenders are released into California
communities with the criminal tendencies and addictions that
first led to their incarceration. They are ill-prepared to do
more than commit new crimes and create new victims." [Little
Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections
Crisis: Time is Running Out", pg. 1, 2 (2007).]
In light of the escalating overcrowding situation in
California's state prison system, should the Legislature make
it a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for
a person convicted for being a spectator at a dog fight?
5)Argument in Support : According to the Humane Society of the
United States (the sponsor of this bill), "Participating in
dog fighting and possessing dogs with the intent to fight them
are already felonies in California, but lower spectator
penalties for dog fighting create a loophole that makes it
more difficult for law enforcement officials to effectively
prosecute dog fighters. Typically, organized dog fights occur
with several matches held one after the other. When police
raid a dog fight it is extremely difficult to differentiate
between spectators and participants who were going to fight
their dog in the next match. This creates a loophole allowing
many dog fighters to avoid prosecution, or be subject to
minimal penalties."
6)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice (CACJ), "CACJ opposes the amendments to
Penal Code Section 597.5 because we believe that there is no
sound policy basis to punish someone in the spectator status
equally with the organizers and perpetrators of the crime of
dog fighting. The organizers and persons engaging in raising
dogs for dog fights are already punishable on the felony
level. The crime of being a spectator is also already
punished, and is punished on a level commensurate with the
individual's involvement, as a misdemeanor. To increase
punishment to allow state prison sentences for this activity
AB 2281
Page 7
without any basis to show this would either deter or prevent
illegal activity, we believe would be a senseless escalation
of penalty."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
California Animal Control Directors Association
California Association of Zoos and Aquariums
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Concerned People for Animals, Inc.
East Bay SPCA
Peace Officer Research Association of California
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs, Inc.
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
San Francisco SPCA
Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744