“Krista", a six-week-old kitten doused with gasoline, set ablaze, and thrown from a moving car in Richmond Hill, Ontario where she was left for dead. By scotttaylor
Sep 09 2007
Pit bulls have developed a reputation as dangerously vicious dogs, best muzzled or confined. But recent events in the US, involving former NFL quarterback Michael Vick and self admitted dog fighting conspirator; indicate it’s their owners who truly deserve to be muzzled and confined. While Vick has effectively been publicly muzzled, apart from acknowledging his responsibility and finding Jesus, no doubt on the advice of his counsel, the extent to which he will find himself confined will be determined at his sentencing scheduled for December.
As a pet owner myself, (two dogs, three cats) this sad and disturbing incident led me to look more closely into our own animal cruelty legislation. While there appears to be a general consensus that Canada’s 115 year old Criminal Code animal cruelty provisions are in dire need of updating, there is considerable debate about how to go about it. One of the primary criticisms of the current Criminal Code provisions is the requirement to prove that the suffering was caused by “wilful” neglect or behaviour. It is difficult, if not virtually impossible to prove an accused’s behaviour was in fact wilful or intentional. But even if the evidentiary hurdles can be overcome and a conviction obtained, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, six months and/or a fine of $2000, are seen as being woefully inadequate.
There are currently two private members Bills which address changes to current Criminal Code legislation, Bill C-373 and Bill S-213. Proponents of Bill S-213, which has passed second reading in the House of Commons, argue that this Bill would substantially increase the sentencing provisions. Supporters of Bill C-373 argue that increased sentencing provisions are not enough; Bill C-373 would also remove animals from the property section of the Criminal Code, and eliminate the requirement to prove the element of “wilful” neglect or behaviour.
Yet while the actual details of just how and why the Criminal Code should be amended are being hotly debated, in reality I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of animal cruelty prosecutions in B.C. are pursued under provincial animal cruelty legislation. In fact according to Marcie Moriarty, general manager, Cruelty Investigations at the BCSPCA (a supporter of Bill C-373), ninety per cent of all animal cruelty convictions in B.C. are handled through B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Moriarty said the provincial legislation is a far more effective tool than the Criminal Code. Unlike the Criminal Code provincial offences are strict liability offences which means it is not a legal requirement to prove someone intended to cause harm or distress. Furthermore, the province also has the authority to impose longer bans, up to lifetime bans, to keep animals away from offenders. Moriarty also said the province has been successful in obtaining an increasing number of restitution orders against offenders, monies intended to reimburse the authorities for caring for rescued animals.
Vick faces a potentially far stiffer jail sentence for his criminal behaviour in the U.S. than he would in Canada, despite an apparent plea bargain of 18 to 24 months negotiated between defence and prosecutors. Not only because his judge has the authority to disregard any such plea deal and impose his own sentence, but because his judge is also a dog owner.
info@underappeal.com.
Under
Appeal
