January 19, 2012
"First, a sex offender registry. Next, an animal abuser registry?"
The title of this post is the headline of this article from the Los Angeles Times, which gets started this way:
Animal abusers, take heed. Efforts to establish online registries for animal abusers, like the ones for sex offenders, are gaining support, with legislation pending or soon-to-be-introduced in at least five states.
Among the efforts is one from Florida state Sen. Mike Fasano, who has proposed Dexter’s law, named after a kitten that was beaten to death in his state. His proposal would require convicted animal abusers to register with authorities. Their names, home addresses and photographs would be posted online, and they would be required to pay $50 a year to maintain the registry.
Registries also have been proposed in Maryland, Colorado, Arizona and New York. Stephan K. Otto, director of legislative affairs for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, expects similar proposals in more states.
Suffolk County on Long Island in 2010 moved to create a registry, and has since been followed by two other New York counties. No names appear on the Suffolk County registry yet, because it was only recently set up. Convicted abusers will appear on the registry for five years. Those failing to register are subject to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
January 19, 2012 at 08:18 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "First, a sex offender registry. Next, an animal abuser registry?":
I propose a registry of lawyers proposing registries. Shun them, exclude them, evict them, boycott them. Failure to register should result in a $1000 fine for the first offense. For the second offense, kneecap them.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 19, 2012 8:29:54 PM
In the Ignorant's Attempt at a more perfect society, we will have another case where the cure is worse than the disease.
Another example is Megan's Law and the POS AWA. How the Justice Department (SMART - Just Plain Dumb Office) could issue the regulations based on the law is appalling to me.
How much worse does it have to get, before we get better?
Posted by: albeed | Jan 19, 2012 10:44:36 PM
My Hen worked so hard to lay an egg and I immediately grabbed it for breakfast.
If I had only poached it and not scrambled it, I would not be facing prosecution.
Posted by: albeed | Jan 19, 2012 10:51:56 PM
"Among the efforts is one from Florida state Sen. Mike Fasano, who has proposed Dexter’s law"
I like it when a legislator proposes a law named after a person or, in this case, a pet. That way I immediately know it's a bad law and that I should oppose it.
Posted by: C.E. | Jan 20, 2012 12:20:45 AM
yep what next residence restrictions. Can't live within 3,000ft of a zoo or pet store?
or working restrictions can no longer work even as a volunteer to pet anamals
what what RETARDS we have in this country! we are what 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and THIS is what our so-called GOVT LEADERS spend their time on!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 20, 2012 12:33:58 AM
I do not often agree with C.E., but in this instance he's nailed it. The sentimentalization of law is virtually always a bad idea.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 20, 2012 2:57:41 AM
Less than wise.
Posted by: JAG | Jan 20, 2012 6:47:38 AM
1) No evidence of any benefit from these registries except for government worker make work; 2) most abusers are known to the victim, they are inside the house already; 3) it is unlawful to even criticize the sex offender whose address one knows, "Any person who uses the information contained herein to threaten, intimidate, or harass the registrant or their family, or who otherwise misuses this information, may be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability." 4) in my lawyer neighborhood zip code there are 2 sex offenders who work there and go home at night, in other areas, 100's of sex offenders, so they are herded into poor people's neighborhood, as toxic waste dumping is.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 20, 2012 9:26:59 AM
Virginia has a dangerous dog registry where they record the names, addresses, and photos of dogs who bite people. I guess if they are going to record dangerous dogs, they can also record dangerous owners.
Or we could just register everyone - there could be the prostitute registry, the drug dealer registry, the illegal firearm sales registry, the drunk registry, the speeding driver registry, the thief registry, the animal abuser registry, the animal owner registry, and of course the smallest registry, the "haven't been caught violating any of the thousands of laws we have yet" registry.
Posted by: virginia | Jan 20, 2012 9:44:56 AM
For crying out loud, our law enforcement agencies are going to become so bogged down with paperwork tracking the registrations of dog-kickers and 20-years-ago statutory rapists that there won't be anyone to actually investigate and solve murders, rapes, robberies, etc... the cynicism and/or short-sightedness of these laws is astounding
Posted by: reader | Jan 20, 2012 10:43:17 AM
I think the detractors of this law are mistaken. It is absolutely brilliant!
Don't get me wrong, the law itself is a terrible idea, and C.E. got it right: laws which are named after people, pets, etc. are terrible ideas and easy to spot/avoid. I disagree not with idiocy of this law, but the quiet brilliance of it.
Here is what I mean: detractors of the sex offender registries, AWA, and SORNA have wondered why sex offenders are singled out for these public shaming laws. Why not have murder registries? (see Illinois)
Better yet, since drunk drivers are statistically much more dangerous to children, why not a DUI/DWI registry? (see attempts in Maine)
The public doesn't care how bad things get for sex offenders, because the public perception is that all sex offenders are child rapists and icky pervs (hi Virginia). Lawmakers don't care how bad things get for sex offenders because each new, harsher law they pass is quick and easy "tough on crime" credit.
It is only when the fervor for these registries spills out to other categories like drunk driving and animal abuse that awareness is raised on the issue. Some judge somewhere finds a public registry of animal abusers punitive and unconstitutionally violates ex post facto provisions (or my personal favorite, bills of attainder) and all of a sudden, the sex offender registry is collaterally eliminated.
So what happens? Either these new registries stay in place because the judiciary doesn't want to contradict itself in AWA/SORNA rulings, or the new registries are abolished and take SORNA registries with it.
For those that oppose sex offender registries, this is a clear win/win. (1) Awareness is raised about how misguided registries can be, and (2) attaching other laws to the same legal principle as SORNA ties their legal fate together. An animal abuser registry, IMHO, is much more likely to be struck down as unconstitutional than the far-more-popular sex registries.
Therefore, I will soundly support these registries all around the country!
Posted by: Eric | Jan 20, 2012 10:48:34 AM
The wisdom and intelligence level of this law (which is severely low) is about equal to extent of rodsmith's vocabulary.
Posted by: concerned frequent reader | Jan 20, 2012 11:19:46 AM
May I point out that basing approval/disapproval of a law on whether it is "named" after someone is a logical fallacy? (so is the gratuitous ad hominem of the post above mine)
Now, I know I will hear that I am being being too "literal" but it sure seems the direction the thread it is going. A law named after someone/something can be good or bad. Whether it is named in such a fashion or not is completely irrelevant. An animal registry law is a bad idea because it is a bad idea, not because it was named after a kitten.
A bunch of lawyers should be able to see that...
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 20, 2012 11:31:42 AM
Then why name it after a person (or a pet)?
California has a child abuse registry, a drug addict registry, a gang registry, an arson registry and probably more in addition to the sex offender registry. They just aren't public yet. But when the trains start rolling everyone will be easy to find.
Posted by: Just to piss off Bill | Jan 20, 2012 12:18:02 PM
"May I point out that basing approval/disapproval of a law on whether it is 'named' after someone is a logical fallacy?...A law named after someone/something can be good or bad. Whether it is named in such a fashion or not is completely irrelevant."
Absolutely correct. As a matter of experience, however, it seems to me that many such laws are poorly thought through. As you say, there is no reason in principle that this need be the case.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 20, 2012 1:48:00 PM
that was so funny CFR that i forgot to laugh!
i'm just surprised you finaly managed to finish counting your toes and came back!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 20, 2012 2:41:23 PM
I know that you (and probably even most of our liberal buddies) are aware of that.
My point is that most of these people would have no problem with the "Muffy Johnson Act" if it was a breakfast/lunch/dinner school meal program that usurped the parental duty to feed their kids. Or, if an innocent was ever executed, they would jump right on board with the Act to abolish the death penalty. Most of them also likely support the "Brady Bill" and a dozen others that are named after people but are an homage to big government. Could you imagine CE making a statement that the Brady Bill should be repealed because it MUST be a bad idea as it is named after a person?
To put it bluntly, they are like lirnyky playing the hurdy gurdy for an audience(each other).
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 20, 2012 3:27:45 PM
A point of clarification. Above I wrote "Or, if an innocent was ever executed, they would jump right on board with the Act to abolish the death penalty."
It was supposed to read "Insert Name Here" Act to abolish the death penalty.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 20, 2012 3:32:58 PM
Just so. Indeed, they have already named the new statute. It's called the "Roger Keith Coleman Was Executed By Barbarians Act."
This is because Coleman was shown beyond any doubt, by DNA evidence, to have been innoc.......
He was shown to have been WHAT? After all that huckstering we did for him? And all those years of bellowing?
Oh.....well.......never mind then.
But they're still barbarians, I tell you.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 20, 2012 4:35:42 PM
I am so sorry, but my hen didn't lay an egg today. I was so hungry, I just had to eat it/her/whatever.
Posted by: albeed | Jan 20, 2012 5:07:48 PM
C.E.: "I like it when a legislator proposes a law named after a person or, in this case, a pet. That way I immediately know it's a bad law and that I should oppose it."
me: that's only because you have not heard about my exciting proposal of Erika's Law which has the goal of making everything better including but not limited to providing jobs, improving education, protecting children from icky pervs, providing for sunshine and flowers, promoting cute puppies and kittens, and most importantly of all providing for free chocolate, wine, and spa visits for feminist attorneys. How can you oppose a law with such an adorable name and admirable goal? :)
eric: "The public doesn't care how bad things get for sex offenders, because the public perception is that all sex offenders are child rapists and icky pervs (hi Virginia)."
me: hello back and thanks for using icky pervs in the correct context. I am hopeful that icky pervs become a term of art in the legal field and I know that it has truly arrived when I see it used in a court decision.
eric" Some judge somewhere finds a public registry of animal abusers punitive and unconstitutionally violates ex post facto provisions (or my personal favorite, bills of attainder) and all of a sudden, the sex offender registry is collaterally eliminated."
me: I do not think that will happen because registries have been repeatedly found to be civil in nature. What is more likely to happen is what happened in Virginia when they tried to expand the civil sanction beyond icky pervs to drivers by having extra civil penalities for DUI and reckless driving charges. The courts repeatedly upheld the law as being civil regulations and not punishment, but they were so unpopular that they got repealed within a year.
eric: "An animal abuser registry, IMHO, is much more likely to be struck down as unconstitutional than the far-more-popular sex registries."
me: I can see how there is an argument that tehre is less public safety incidence, but nothing which can be rationally connected to public safety as a registry will ever be struck down because the police powers of the states are very strong. Without the public safety justifications, the puppy and kitten abuser registries might be cut down, but I doubt it becuse the registiries are going to be held to also be non=punitive and civil in nature. Do you have any reasoning besides hope that they will be?
Posted by: virginia | Jan 20, 2012 5:47:06 PM
sorry erika but i WILL CALL you on this statement!
"me: I do not think that will happen because registries have been repeatedly found to be civil in nature."
THIS IS A LIE!
what happens is when someone takes the illegal registry to court. The retard on the bench instead of reading the case and making a DECSION ON THE MERITS! simply state's the "THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAYS THE REGISTRY IS LEGAL"
Never mind that WHAT THEY SAID WAS LEGAL is DIRECTLY VIOLATED BY EVERY ONE OF THESE LAWS!
don't take my word for it!
READ IT FOR YOUR SELF! i DARE YOU!
and the relegant part!
" The fact that sex offender registration and notification statutes are of fairly recent origin suggests that the Act was not meant as a punitive measure, or, at least, that it did not involve a traditional means of punishing. Respondents’ argument that the Act, particularly its notification provisions, resembles shaming punishments of the colonial period is unpersuasive. In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. The fact that Alaska posts offender information on the Internet does not alter this conclusion. Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U.S., at 104. Moreover, its obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which the Court has held to be nonpunitive. See, e.g., ibid. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."
NOTICE ESPECIALY THE LAST PART!
" the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."
shall we take them in order!
hmm no substantial occupation or housing disadvantes?
let's see telling people they CANNOT work or LIVE within 2,000ft sounds like a hell of a disadvantage.
hmm The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person.
in FACT and in LAW they are now required to show up and be REBOOKED anywhere from once year minimum to every week! and in a lot of cased FORCED TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILAGE!
next The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees,
HMM see above sorry once any court ordered probation has ended FORCING them to show up at the local sheriff's office at REGULARLY SCHEDULED TIMES is in FACT and in LAW an assbackward way of applying an ILLEGAL LIFETIME PAROLE/PROBATION
the only thing that has changed from the one did they LEGALLY while under a LEGAL COURT ORDER is WHERE THEY REPORT and HOW OFTEN!
and now the REAL KILLER!
offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."
considering the 10,000 or so laws now on the books in this courntry telling them not only WHERE they can LIVE or work but in some areas even WHERE THEY CAN WALK!
well good luck with saying it's legal with a straight face!
sorry i think it's TREASON and grounds for summary execution FOR ANYONE involved in supporting it!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 20, 2012 8:31:10 PM
Erika (wet behind the ears):
The registry is NOT CIVIL. Look at Kennedy's excuses to make it civil. Everyone of his points has now been overturned in many legilslatures, both state and federal.
How do you spell fascism?
Posted by: albeed | Jan 21, 2012 12:17:07 AM
You are 100% correct. However, due to the way federal judicial appointments are made (or not made), in this country means we will all be dead before the constitution is again realized as the absolute law of the land. (Living, breathing document - my butt).
Posted by: albeed | Jan 21, 2012 11:19:13 PM
albeed: "Everyone of his points has now been overturned in many legilslatures, both state and federal."
me yet still largely upheld in courts :)
albeed: "How do you spell fascism?"
me: as Bill Otis is sure to tell you, I spell it "R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N" ;)
(that was a joke, everybody, lighten up) :)
Posted by: virginia | Jan 22, 2012 8:15:29 AM
On a positive note, requiring convicted animal abusers to register with authorities should at least augment the worsening and rampant cases of animal abuse. The glaring question would be how strict the implementation would be considering that child abuse registry, drug addict registry, sex offender registry and the likes sometimes don't serve its purpose well.
Posted by: Carrie | Jan 30, 2012 4:18:41 AM