BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
4
2
AB 242 (Nava)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Hearing date: July 2, 2009
Penal Code
MK:mc
DOG FIGHTING
HISTORY
Source: The Humane Society of the United States
Prior Legislation: AB 2281 (Nava) - 2008, held in Assembly
Appropriations
Support: California Federation for Animal Legislation; Action
for Animals; Born Free USA; Humane Society Veterinary
Medical Association; United Animal Nations; California
Animal Control Directors Association; California Animal
Association; City of West Hollywood; The PAW Project;
The Marin Humane Society; California Peace Officers'
Association; California Police Chiefs Association;
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals; Paw PAC; City of Long Beach; California
District Attorneys Association; a number of individuals
Opposition:The Animal Council; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; California Responsible Pet Owners
Coalition/CaRPOC
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE MISDEMEANOR PENALTY FOR BEING A SPECTATOR AT A DOG FIGHT
BE INCREASED TO A ONE YEAR MISDMEANOR WITH A $5,000 FINE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the penalty for being a
spectator at a dog fight.
Existing law 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 or
by a fine not to exceed $5,000; or both. (Penal Code
597b(a).)
Existing law 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 aids 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, or by a fine not to exceed
$5,000, or by both. (Penal Code 597b(b).)
Existing law 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, or by a fine not
exceeding $1,000, or by both. (Penal Code 597c.)
Existing law provides that any person who owns, possesses, keeps
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageC
or trains any bird or other animal with the intent that it be
used in 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
597j.)
Existing law 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, or by a fine
up to $20,000, or by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months,
2 or 3 years, or by a fine up to $20,000. (Penal Code
597(a).)
Existing law 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
one year and by a fine up to $20,000, or by imprisonment in
state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years and by a fine up to
$20,000. (Penal Code 597(b).)
Existing law 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, or
by a fine not to exceed $50,000, or by both such fine and
imprisonment:
Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the
intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of
fighting with another dog.
For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with
another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
Permits any of the above acts to be done on any
premises. (Penal Code 597.5(a).)
Existing law 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
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageD
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 597.5(b).)
This bill instead provides that the penalty for being a
spectator at a dog fight is up to one year in county jail and/or
a fine up to $5,000.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageE
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageF
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
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
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageG
dogfights are illegal and therefore not widely
publicized, spectators do not merely "happen upon a
fight" - they seek it out.
Dog fighting is also on the rise. According to
Pet-Abuse.com, a Website that attempts to keep track of
dog fighting citations, the number of police cases for
this activity for the past three years are as follows:
2005: 129 cases
2006: 127 cases
2007: 167 cases
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 been arrested at least
twice before.
With the introduction of AB 242, 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.
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageH
California Penal Code Section 597.5 (a) establishes that
it is a felony for someone to:
a) own, possess, keep or train any dog to fight with
another dog;
b) for amusement or gain, cause any dog to fight with
another dog; or
c) permit any of the above acts to be conducted on any
premises under his or her charge or control.
However, in California, it is currently only a
misdemeanor for someone to attend a dogfight (Penal Code
597.5 (b)).
Under federal law, it is a felony to organize a dogfight
or participate in interstate commerce or activities
related to animal fighting. Each offense - one per dog
- is punishable by up to a $250,000 fine and a
three-year jail term.
(More)
Dog fighting is now a felony in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands prohibit being a spectator at a
dogfight. In fact, all of California's neighboring
states now consider dogfight spectatorship a felony (a
similar measure was signed into law in Oregon earlier
this month) - effectively making California a
"misdemeanor island" for this violation.
Assembly Bill 242 was initially introduced to rectify
this situation by elevating spectatorship at a dogfight
in California from a misdemeanor to a felony. Over the
course of the Legislative Session, however, it has been
amended to simply enhance the penalties associated with
the spectatorship misdemeanor.
2. Increased Penalty for Being a Spectator
Under existing law any person who 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 that exhibition or at any other fighting or
injuring with the intent to be present at the exhibition,
fighting, or injuring, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail up to 6 months and/or a fine of
up to $1,000 plus penalty assessments. Existing penalty
assessments are approximately 270 percent of the base fine so
the actual fine would be up to $3,700. This bill increases the
penalty to up to one year in county jail and/or a fine up to
$5,000 plus penalty assessments for a total fine of $18,500.
Supporters of this bill argue that California has weak penalties
for spectators since other states have felony penalties for
being a spectator at a dog fight. Specifically, the Humane
Society Veterinary Medical Association states:
(More)
AB 242 (Nava)
PageJ
Dog fighting is a brutal and inhumane activity. Pitted
against each other in battles that can rage for hours,
the animals suffer severe injuries, often dying of blood
loss, shock, dehydration, or infection hours, or even
days later. Dog fights also pose a substantial public
safety risk, since fighting animals is known to be
associated with other criminal activities such as
gambling, weapons possession, narcotics trafficking, and
various violent crimes.
Participating in dog fighting and possessing dogs with
the intent to fight them are already felonies in
California, and all 50 states consider dog fighting a
felony offense. However, California's dog-fighting laws
rank 42nd in severity nationwide, due in part to weak
spectator penalties that make it difficult to prosecute
all persons involved. When police raid a dog fight, it
is extremely difficult to distinguish the spectators
from those participants waiting to fight their dogs.
Thus, many animals fighters manage to avoid prosecution,
or receive minimal penalties. Furthermore, because
states contiguous to California do have more stringent
felony spectator provisions, dog-fight operators are
incentivized to conduct their bloody business within our
states.
Opponents argue that the existing penalties are appropriate for
spectators who have a different level of culpability than
participants.
SHOULD THE PENALTY FOR BEING A SPECTATOR AT A DOGFIGHT BE
INCREASED TO UP TO ONE YEAR IN JAIL AND UP TO A $5,000 FINE?
.***************