Companion Animal Care Articles from All-Creatures.org

Stand by Me - Desmond's Law

Nathan J. Winograd
January 2024

Connecticut legislators passed “Desmond’s Law,” allowing courts to appoint attorneys as advocates to represent the best interests of animals in cruelty cases. In addition to the state prosecutor, the perpetrator’s defense attorney, and the enforcement agency (animal control or police officer). The animal advocates are an official party to the case. They can do investigative work prosecutors often don’t have time for, such as interviewing veterinarians and other witnesses. They also make arguments, write briefs and make recommendations to the judge.

Desmond was surrendered to a Connecticut shelter by a woman in an abusive relationship. Her violent former boyfriend tracked down the dog and adopted him. Desmond was subsequently found dead after being starved, beaten, and strangled. The boyfriend pleaded guilty but spent no time in jail. Instead, after four months in a diversion program, the state expunged his record. He’s not alone. “Cats and dogs in Connecticut have been scalded with hot liquid, kicked to death, left shivering outside in the bitter cold, and killed as revenge following romantic break-ups.” The perpetrators remained unpunished.

In response, Connecticut legislators passed “Desmond’s Law,” allowing courts to appoint attorneys as advocates to represent the best interests of animals in cruelty cases. In addition to the state prosecutor, the perpetrator’s defense attorney, and the enforcement agency (animal control or police officer).

The animal advocates are an official party to the case. They can do investigative work prosecutors often don’t have time for, such as interviewing veterinarians and other witnesses. They also make arguments, write briefs and make recommendations to the judge.

Affording such commonsense protections for those who cannot speak for themselves, as we do for at-risk children, reflects increasing concern for the welfare of animals. A national survey revealed that 96% of Americans — almost every person surveyed — said we have a moral duty to care for animals and should have strong laws to do so. But not everyone wants to ensure that animals have special advocates appointed for their protection, with opposition coming from a seemingly unlikely source: the National Animal Control Association (NACA). NACA opposes Desmond’s Law and is working to prevent other states from following Connecticut’s lead. If NACA had its way, the miscarriage of justice against Desmond — and the other animals like him — would continue.

NACA — a trade union that represents the interests of “kill pounds” — claims these laws prevent animals from being quickly “moved through the system,” a euphemism for dismissing cases, pleading them out for little punishment, and either returning the animal victims to their abuser or killing them, as happens now. To prevent this, an attorney advocate would give voice to animals who currently lack one, especially when there is a conflict between the interests of ACOs and those of the animals. The starkest conflict is the interest in the animal’s life (ACOs kill animals; animals want to live).

NACA also claims that having an attorney in court arguing for the animal’s best interest “marginalizes” animal control officers (ACOs). As a society, we provide courtroom attorneys to argue for the best interest of children, and no one suggests that it somehow devalues or marginalizes child protective services (and they don’t kill the victims, as ACOs do).

Finally, NACA claims there is no evidence these laws work, but that is not true. Before Connecticut passed such a law, 80% of cruelty cases were dismissed or not prosecuted. The rate of actual conviction was even worse. Of the 3,723 reported cruelty cases before passage, only 19 resulted in a conviction — ˝ of 1%. That means 99.5% of people charged with cruelty faced little to no legal consequences.

Not anymore. “Both advocates and activists report stiffer penalties since the law’s enactment.” A Harvard Law Review article further found that it has led to “voluntary forfeiture of animals, restitution for rescue organizations, agreements to avoid future contact with animals, and agreements to seek counseling.”

In addition to laws banning people from having custody of animals following a cruelty conviction (like in California and Tennessee), we need similar laws in other states. And we need it not just in cruelty cases but in divorce (like in Alaska and California) and other disputes where an animal’s best interests might conflict with those of the people around them.

Some courts are already moving in that direction. In a recent lawsuit involving a dispute over custody of a cat, a New York Court ruled that “it is time to declare that a pet should no longer be considered ‘personal property’ like a table or car.” The court’s recognition is a significant legal victory for animals and a vital step towards eventual recognition of legal personhood and the rights and protections we afford to children and other at-risk groups.

....

Please read the ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.

---

Return to Companion Animal Care
Read more at Litigation Articles