You asked which state's animal cruelty law, Washington's or Oregon's, would be the better model for amending Connecticut's law.

SUMMARY

Both states' animal cruelty laws are similar and could be incorporated into existing Connecticut law. They both include participation in education, psychological counseling, or evaluation programs as penalties for convicted animal abusers (see OLR Report 2001-R-0952). Connecticut law provides only for fines and imprisonment as punishment. Imposing psychological evaluation, counseling, or an education program as an alternative to prison or monetary penalties is however, a controversial topic in prevention of cruelty to animal circles.

ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS

Under Connecticut law, any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds, or kills an animal faces a fine of up to $ 5,000, up to five years in prison, or both (CGS § 53-47).

An Oregon or Washington court may order a person convicted of animal cruelty to participate in available animal cruelty prevention or education programs (or both) or to obtain psychological counseling for treatment of mental health disorders that, in the court's judgment, contributed to the crime. The person must pay all costs of participation in these programs (ORS 167. 350, as amended by Ch. 926 of 2001; RCW 16. 52. 200).

AMENDING CONNECTICUT LAW

The legislature could choose to amend the existing law to include language similar to Oregon and Washington. The Legislative Commissioners' Office's attorney for the Environment Committee sees no problem with adopting either state's language. Connecticut's drunk driving law contains precedent for participation in an education program as an additional penalty decided by the court (CGS § 14-227a, (k)). However, a first time offender may choose to pay a $ 50 application fee to the court for attendance in the pretrial alcohol education system, in which case he forgoes trial and his record is sealed to the public (CGS § 54-56a). Notably, this option is not allowed if another person has been seriously injured.

At least two options are possible. Education or counseling could be just for first time animal abuse offenders. Or education or counseling could supplement fines and imprisonment at the court's discretion.

For the Oregon and Washington approach to work, the legislature must first be sure education or counseling programs are available. If they are not available through private agencies, the legislature would have to fund them to make this proposal viable.

DEBATE OVER COUNSELING VERSES PRISON

Imposing psychological evaluation, counseling, or an education program as an alternative to prison or monetary penalties is a hotly debated topic in prevention of cruelty to animal circles.

According to Dr. Stephanie LaFarge, senior director of counseling services with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), some advocates of alternative punishments see prison alone as ignoring indicators often associated with animal abuse (e. g. , possibly harming people as well). They believe future problems might be avoided with counseling or education programs. Their opponents view jail as the proper penalty because they believe counseling alone lessens the convicted abuser's culpability.

Dr. LaFarge noted that counseling is not meant to be a softer approach for offenders. She suggested using the word "intervention" instead of counseling as a way to ensure that the notion of guilt and accountability are not lost. The intent of counseling and prison is the same: to deter future cruelty to animals.

JRH: ro