Unfortunate failure of HB12-1087 (Animal Abuse Registry)

I supported the short-lived HB12-1087 which would have established a registry for animal abuse offenders in Colorado akin to existing sex offender registries.

The principal counter-arguments that prevailed and killed the bill were that child abusers and drunk drivers are not subjected to such public scrutiny and that alienating people convicted of animal abuse from society might promote more extreme criminal actions.

Cost was not an issue, or at least not a major one, because the registry would be a partnership with a nonprofit agency responsible for cost and maintenance. It is also worth noting that people would only be on the registry for five years and would then be removed by default.

The (aforementioned) major argument against the registry seemed to be that it was an overreaction because what we think are more major offenses  (e.g. child abuse and drunk driving) are not so harshly treated. My response is: that means we should also raise the stakes for punishing child abusers and not shy away from our other public safety obligations in the meantime. 

A registry of those convicted of child abuse is a good idea; it not existing is a poor reason to leave animals more vulnerable too. Why wouldn’t we want to know who in our community might not be safe around children? As to drunk driving, we already suspend driving privileges and deliver appropriate but severe punishments. Knowing where a drunk driver lives is not going to make our roads safer but knowing where child and animal abusers live will make our neighborhoods safer.

As an owner of two dogs, one of which was an abused rescue, I do admit that I am biased... but consider this all you pet owners: earlier this year a neighbor of a dog-owner was arrested for feeding poisoned meatballs to two dogs on the other side of his fence. Click here for that full story. The offender had prior animal abuse history and may well have been on such a registry if one existed. That information being public would have served as a deterrent for the offender and possibly saved not only the lives of two harmless animals but also the time of local police and the unfair loss of the dog-owners.

Public safety and crime prevention are priorities for me. Animal abuse is a crime, preventing it and appropriately punishing those who are convicted of it is a responsible approach to law enforcement policy. We cannot say, “We must raise punishments for more severe crimes before we raise them for what we think are lesser offenses.”

To close I would say this: given the other issues we face in terms of growing our economy, fixing education, making college affordable, and solving our energy problems I would not go into the General Assembly leading on this issue before we work on things affecting humans every day. However, I will always vote for making Colorado the safest place to live, work, and play.

I applaud Rep. Labuda for making an effort and raising the debate. 

Anyone who does not want to punish criminal behavior should be reminded that no one forces people to commit crimes. If they choose to kill someone’s dog or repeatedly kick a cat as hard as they can… I have no problem letting the world know about it.