BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1395 Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Stone |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 19, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Crimes: Animal Abuse
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 917 (Lieu) - Chapter 131, Stats 2011
AB 2012 (Lieu) - vetoed 2010
AB 1122 (Lieu) - vetoed 2009
Support: Several individuals
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union; California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice; California Public Defenders
Association; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the felony penalty for
animal abuse.
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 a crime. (Penal Code § 597 (a).)
SB 1395 (Stone ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law states that every person having charge or custody
of an animal who overdrives; overloads; overworks; tortures;
torments; deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter;
cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills; or causes or
procures any animal to be so overdriven; overloaded; driven when
overloaded; overworked; tortured; tormented; deprived of
necessary sustenance, drink, shelter; or to be cruelly beaten,
mutilated, or cruelly killed is guilty of a crime for every such
offense. (Penal Code § 597 (b).)
Existing law provides that every person who maliciously and
intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures a mammal, bird,
reptile, amphibian, or fish is guilty of a crime. (Penal Code §
597(c))
Existing law provides that the penalty for the above is a
wobbler punishable as a jail felony punishable by 16 months, 2
or 3 years or by up to one year in county jail and/or by a fine
of not more than $20,000, plus penalty assessments.
This bill changes the felony penalty for the above to a jail
felony for 3, 4 or 6 years and/or a fine of not more than
$40,000 plus penalty assessments. The misdemeanor penalty
remains the same.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
SB 1395 (Stone ) Page
3 of ?
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
SB 1395 (Stone ) Page
4 of ?
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Protecting animals, including our pets, from abuse
should be an important goal in California and across
the nation. It has become such a problem in the U.S.
that the FBI announced in 2014 that for the first time,
they would begin to add cruelty to animals as a
category in the agency's Uniform Crime Report. Whether
it is because of the special bond between pets and
humans, or because there is a need to protect those who
can't speak for themselves, animal cruelty laws are a
very important part of keeping our public safe.
Preventing animal cruelty is more than protecting our
pets. There is a strong link between people who abuse
animals and those who commit other violent crimes.
According to the American Humane Society, in
conjunction with the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, there are some very sobering
statistics. 70% of animal abusers also had records
for other crimes. Domestic violence victims whose
animals were abused saw the animal cruelty as one more
violent episode in a long history of indiscriminate
violence aimed at them and their vulnerability. 71%
of pet-owning women entering women's shelters reported
that their batterer had injured, maimed, killed or
threatened family pets for revenge or to
psychologically control victims. Even more troubling,
abusers may kill, harm, or threaten a child's pets in
order to coerce them into sexual abuse or to force them
to remain silent about abuse.
For whatever the reason, abuse of our furry (or
feathered) friends should carry a very strong penalty.
SB 1395 (Stone ) Page
5 of ?
Luckily, current law already makes animal torture or
abuse a felony, and carries a penalty of 16 months, or
2 or 3 years in county jail, and/or a fine of $20,000.
Senator Stone does not believe that this penalty goes
far enough. SB 1395 would double the fine to $40,000,
and would increase the sentence in county jail to 2, 3,
or 4 years. Passage of this bill will signal that
California will not tolerate those who abuse animals
and deserve a harsher sentence for the crimes they have
committed.
2. Increased Penalty for Animal Abuse
The current penalty for animal abuse is a wobbler with a jail
felony and a fine of up $20,000 plus penalty assessments. This
bill would increase the penalty by increasing the felony portion
of the wobbler to 3, 4 or 6 years in county jail and a fine of
not more than $40,000 plus penalty assessments.
Until budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine. Current penalty assessments
are approximately 310% plus $79 in additional flat assessments.
With penalty assessments the current $20,000 fine in this bill
is actually approximately $82,000. Under this bill the $40,000
fine would actually be approximately $164,000, thus an increase
of $82,000 over the existing fine.
The behavior punished in the section covered by these penalties
ranges from torture to failing to provide an animal with proper
shelter. Is the increase in jail time and fine appropriate for
all these offenses?
-- END -