BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
0
1
AB 2012 (Lieu) 2
As Amended April 28, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Penal Code
MK:mc
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
HISTORY
Source: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
Los Angeles Society for Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
State Humane Association of California
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Amador County Animal Control; California District
Attorneys Association; Central California Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Haven Humane
Society; Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office;
Marin Humane Society; SPCA for Monterey County; San
Diego Human Society and SPCA
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 69 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageB
SHOULD THE POSSIBLE JAIL PENALTY FOR OVERLOADING, TORTURING,
TORMENTING, ET CETERA, AN ANIMAL BE INCREASED FROM UP TO SIX
MONTHS TO UP TO ONE YEAR?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to conform the misdemeanor penalty
for overloading, torturing, tormenting, et cetera, an animal to
other subdivisions within the same section thus allowing for up
to one year in jail for the misdemeanor portion of the existing
wobbler.
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; or,
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 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
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
(More)
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageC
in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not
exceeding $5,000, or by both. (Penal Code 597.5(b).)
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 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, 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
or trains any bird or other animal with the intent that 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 every 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
(More)
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageD
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
597(a).)
Existing law provides that every person who maliciously and
intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures any mammal, bird,
reptile, amphibian, or fish 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 597(c).)
Existing law states that every 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
six months 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 597(b).)
This bill makes the potential jail time for overloading,
overworking, et cetera, up to one year.
This bill reorganizes Penal Code Section 597 so penalties are
listed in one subsection.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
(More)
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageE
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
(More)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageG
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
In the California Penal Code, both animal cruelty and animal
neglect are wobblers. Both offenses have potential felony
charges; however the penalty for animal cruelty as a
misdemeanor is up to one year in county jail and/or an
associated fine (up to $20,000). While the fine for animal
neglect is the same, the penalty for a misdemeanor offense is
only punishable by a maximum of 6 months in jail. Although
animal neglect causes prolonged agony and pain to the animals
involved, the penalty is not in proportion to the sentence for
a single act of animal cruelty.
Animal abuse is a serious concern, and the awareness for this
disturbing crime is growing. Although there is a particular
focus on protecting animal welfare, there is also a disparity
in current law surrounding this issue.
Animal abuse is separated into two main categories: animal
cruelty and animal neglect. Animal cruelty generally refers to
a single act of harm on an animal, while animal neglect is
defined as an act that causes extended or prolonged suffering.
While animal neglect can be considered a horribly egregious
offense inflicting extensive distress to an animal, the
associated penalty for the crime is inconsistent with that of
animal cruelty.
Cases of animal neglect are prevalent, and it occurs when one
deprives an animal of basic needs, including shelter,
nutrition, and medical care. In a study of 1,400 animal
cruelty cases conducted by the Humane Society of the United
States, 41 percent of the cases involved animal neglect. This
AB 2012 (Lieu)
PageH
overwhelming number reiterates the importance of protecting
animals from neglect as well as cruelty.
Whether animals are tortured or starved, too often the end
result in either case is death. In cases of neglect, the
abuse is more prolonged and the neglected animal ends up
slowly decaying and suffering due to starvation, dehydration,
and/or disease.
2. Penalty for Animal Torture
Existing law provides that the penalty for overworking,
overloading, torturing, et cetera, an animal is a wobbler with a
penalty of up to six months in jail or 16 months, 2 or 3 years
in prison and a fine up to $20,000. The penalties, within the
same section, for intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing
or abusing an animal is a wobbler with a penalty of up to one
year in jail or 16 months, 2 or 3 years in prison and a fine up
to $20,000. This bill conforms the penalties for torturing an
animal by making the penalty for all types of torture within
Penal Code Section 597 the same penalty of up to one year in
county jail or imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, 2 or
3 years and a fine of up to $20,000. This bill also makes
technical changes within Penal Code 597.
***************