BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2281
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 2281 (Nava) - As Amended: April 15, 2008
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill increases the penalty, from a misdemeanor, punishable
by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine of up to
$1,000, to a wobbler, punishable by up to one year in county
jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000, or 16 months, 2, or 3 years
in state prison, for being present as a spectator at a dogfight,
as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant annual GF costs, potentially in excess of $1
million, for increased state prison commitments. Should two
dozen spectators, out of the alleged thousands of spectators,
be committed to state prison, annual costs would exceed $1
million.
2)This bill, by creating a new felony, would also create
additional - and costly - third strike exposure, triggering a
life term for persons with two prior violent or serious
felonies, or a double term for a person with one prior serious
or violent felony. If one person per year received a third
strike as a result of a felony conviction under this bill, the
annual cost in 10 years would exceed $400,000.
3)Significant nonreimbursable local law enforcement and
incarceration costs for increased county jail commitments.
COMMENT
1)Rationale . The author contends that dog fighting is a sadistic
sport and that increasing the penalties for spectatorship will
AB 2281
Page 2
deter attendance and thus incidence.
The Humane Society of the United States contends that tens of
thousands of people are involved in dog fighting and that
punishing spectatorship as a misdemeanor creates "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."
2)Concerns .
a) Should the penalty for being a spectator at a dogfight
be the same as the penalty for actually training and
fighting the dogs ? Is the current six-month county jail
penalty inadequate? Should the penalty for spectatorship at
a dogfight be greater than the penalty for spectatorship at
a cockfight (six months and/or a fine of up to $1,000)?
b) This bill would make spectatorship at a dogfight a third
strike .
c) Given current fiscal conditions and prison overcrowding,
increasing the prison population for this offense may be
problematic . The state is in the throes of a 2008-09 budget
deficit that may exceed $15 billion. Current prison
overcrowding is under review by federal courts. Plaintiffs
are requesting emergency inmate releases, perhaps on a
scale of tens of thousands of inmates. The governor is
proposing no state prison time for short-term inmates (less
than 20 months to serve) and summary parole release. The
federal prison receiver is ordering the state to spend an
additional $7 billion for inmate health care facilities in
addition to the current $6 billion prison construction
program.
3)Opposition . According to CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice
(CACJ), "?. 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
AB 2281
Page 3
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 without any basis to show this
would either deter or prevent illegal activity, we believe
would be a senseless escalation of penalty."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081