Of Mice and Men

Animal Torture Bill: Really “All About People?�

By Amy Seigel, 1-30-06

A bill that calls for more severe punishment for the crime of animal torture passed committee last week in Salt Lake City. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, attempts to outline which acts of animal cruelty go beyond neglect to a more heinous level of abuse. Such things as intentional neglect, abandonment and injury, as well as the despicable practice of dogfights are defined as “torture� in the language of the bill, and will now be worthy of a felony rather than misdemeanor charge.

However, Rep. Wyatt wants to make it clear that this is not an animal rights bill—there are special exemptions written into the bill that prevent the law from being applied to those who keep and care for their animals “in accordance with accepted husbandry practices.� This includes zoos, rodeos, aquariums, those who keep animals for agricultural purposes and for use in training hunting dogs and falcons. And while some might believe these exemptions go too far in limiting the bill’s scope, they also offer some protection to people who make a living working with animals.

Furthermore, Wyatt wants to stress that although it appears to be all about being a voice for the voiceless, this bill is not just about animals. In a phone interview last Thursday, Wyatt stressed that “abuse is abuse is abuse,� and went on to note that “there have been numerous studies done that prove how quickly abuse of animals escalates into abuse of people.� While it may seem on the surface like this bill does more to protect vertebrates of the four-legged variety, Wyatt said that underneath, it is “really all about people.�

This human-centric spin to the bill is ironic since I originally contacted Rep. Wyatt to see if he could comment on the apparent discrepancy between the ease with which this animal torture bill is likely to pass, and the constant struggle to get a new hate crimes bill past the Utah legislature. And while I understand Wyatt’s position that it may be doing a disservice to both issues to force a comparison, it still seems strange that the legislators here in Utah are so willing to entertain changes that will increase penalties for crimes against animals while balking at a bill that would make hate crimes against humans a more serious offense. It appears as though there is an odd sort of double standard at work.

Clearly, it isn’t that our state representatives view crimes against animals as far more heinous that crimes against, say, people of different races, colors, disabilities, religions, sexual orientations, national origins, ancestry, ages and genders, but when it takes the omission of all these terms to make a hate crimes bill stand a chance of getting through the legislature, it does make one begin to wonder. And while the above laundry list of groups is the norm for hate crimes bills in other states, it seems that the inclusion of “sexual orientation� has long been a sticking point for getting a similar bill passed in Utah. The 2006 version makes no mention of “sexual orientation� or any other individual group, but instead simply states that hate may be viewed as an “aggravating factor� for a crime based on the victim’s “membership or perceived membership in a group.� Also included in the “aggravating factor� is the extent to which the crime in question “poses harm to the community.�

Unlike the very specifically worded animal torture bill, the hate crimes bill is terrifically vague and appears designed to leave the actual prosecution and sentencing of hate crime offenders up to the discretion of the prosecutor and the judge—something that is already common practice. And while you are likely to run across some groups like Democracy For Utah that will claim that Utah is one of only two states without hate crimes legislation, this simply isn’t true. Utah already has a hate crimes bill on the books. The trouble is that it is too nebulous to be useful. My question is how is this new version any better? If we cannot specifically define what a hate crime is, how can anyone be expected to successfully prosecute someone for committing one?

To really get a sense of the discrepancy, just take a look at actual text of the two bills I’ve been referring to in this article. The Criminal Penalty for Animal Cruelty bill (H.B. 61) is 14 pages long and includes many, many specific definitions of everything from “animal� to “abandon�, while the Criminal Penalty Amendments bill (H.B. 90) is a mere two pages and defines “aggravating factor� in the rather ambiguous terms stated above. Okay, Rep. Wyatt, I understand that it may be belittling the issues at stake to force an analogy here, but if we can be so specific about the treatment of animals, why can’t we do it with people?

If this new hate crime bill passes, as it is likely to do now that it has been thoroughly defanged over the course of six legislative sessions, there will most certainly be great celebration amongst the state’s small but vocal liberal population. And while the bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, might see this as a “positive step forward,� it is likely to be just enough to allow the legislature to feel justified in ignoring subsequent, perhaps more effective, attempts at revamping Utah’s hate crime statutes. And in the end, if “abuse is abuse is abuse,� then why isn’t “hate is hate is hate,� regardless of race, color, disability, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender and (gasp!) sexual orientation?

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.