Not Merciless and Uncommon Punishment

John Fredrick Doll fired a rifle throughout a avenue, gravely injuring a neighbor’s pet cat. Neighbors discovered the injured cat the subsequent morning and it needed to be euthanized. After a bench trial, Doll was convicted of first diploma animal cruelty and discharge of a firearm in a public place. [“A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life ….”] …

Doll was sentenced to 30 days of confinement. As well as, former RCW 16.52.200(4)(b) (2016) completely barred anybody convicted of first diploma animal cruelty “from proudly owning, caring for, or residing with any related animals” to the one harmed within the offense. “Related animal” was outlined as “[f]or a mammal, one other animal that’s in the identical taxonomic order.” This prohibition was included in Doll’s judgment and sentence. The legislature has since amended the statute to offer {that a} conviction for first diploma animal cruelty ends in a lifetime ban on “proudly owning, caring for, possessing, or residing with any animals,” not simply related animals.

On the time of his sentencing, Doll owned a canine. Cats and canine are the identical taxonomic order, Carnivora….

The courtroom concluded, amongst different issues, that this wasn’t merciless and strange punishment, which sounds proper to me:

First diploma animal cruelty is a category C felony. It’s not a “most severe offense” or a “violent offense.” However the nature of the crime requires the intentional infliction of considerable ache, damage, or demise upon an animal by means of a signifies that causes undue struggling or manifests an excessive indifference to life…. [T]he nature of first diploma animal cruelty, particularly in gentle of the details of the current case, the place Doll shot a cat in the dead of night and didn’t verify whether or not it had survived, helps concluding {that a} lifetime prohibition on possession of comparable animals is proportionate to the crime of first diploma animal cruelty….

Doll argues that no different state has a compulsory lifetime ban on animal possession as a punishment for an animal cruelty conviction….

A number of states have some type of obligatory ban on permitting people convicted of animal cruelty to own animals and plenty of extra have permissive bans permitting for trial courtroom discretion. For instance, a defendant convicted of making an attempt to kill a cat or canine in Maine could also be prohibited “from proudly owning, possessing or having on the defendant’s premises an animal for a time frame that the courtroom determines to be affordable, as much as and together with everlasting relinquishment.” Virginia permits lifetime prohibitions on “possession or possession of companion animals” on the discretion of the trial courtroom. In Delaware, an individual convicted of felony animal cruelty “shall be prohibited from proudly owning or possessing any animal for 15 years after mentioned conviction,” aside from the licensed sale of animals or animal merchandise. And Illinois permits courts to impose bans for all animals on each the defendant “and individuals dwelling in the identical family because the convicted one that conspired, aided, or abetted within the illegal act that was the idea of the conviction, or who knew or ought to have identified of the illegal act … for a time frame that the courtroom deems affordable.” …

We now have discovered no different state that imposes a compulsory lifetime ban on possession of animals for individuals convicted of first diploma animal cruelty, though the nationwide pattern has been to scale back trial courtroom discretion and require longer prohibitions on animal possession as a consequence of such convictions. We acknowledge the countervailing pattern towards easing reentry and permitting defendants extra alternatives for rehabilitation, which cuts in opposition to endorsing any lifetime punishment, together with a everlasting prohibition on animal possession. No lifelong punishment permits the total alternative for rehabilitation. However Washington’s statute is comparatively near the nationwide norms. We conclude that this issue helps an evaluation that the everlasting related animal possession prohibition is proportional to the crime of first diploma animal cruelty….

[Finally, we compare] the punishment for the defendant’s crime in opposition to Washington’s punishments for different offenses. Doll contends that the prohibition on proudly owning related animals bars him “from completely possessing a member of the family,” evaluating the prohibition to the lack of custody of a kid. We disagree.

Doll factors to no regulation that ensures a elementary proper to own animals. “Pets, as a matter of regulation, are thought of private property” with none constitutional protections for possession…. Proudly owning an animal is a privilege, not a proper. Washington revokes driver’s licenses for vehicle-related offenses that don’t essentially contain any hurt to individuals or property, for instance. Revocation can happen despite the fact that the power to function a motorcar is essential to the requirements of life and participation in society.

We additionally emphasize that the legislature’s punishment for animal cruelty just isn’t with out nuance. An individual commits second diploma animal cruelty in the event that they “knowingly, recklessly, or with legal negligence inflict[ ] pointless struggling or ache upon an animal,” abandon an animal, or fail “to offer the animal with mandatory shelter, relaxation, sanitation, area, or medical consideration and the animal suffers pointless or unjustifiable bodily ache because of the failure.” On the time of Doll’s offense, a single conviction for second diploma animal cruelty resulted in a two-year prohibition on possession of comparable animals that turned everlasting after the second conviction. However the precise of possession might be restored in such circumstances upon the defendant’s petition to a courtroom. The legislature took care to fine-tune the punishment for animal cruelty and permits leniency for lesser variations of Doll’s offense if the defendant presents proof of rehabilitation. Solely defendants convicted of essentially the most extreme type of animal cruelty are extra completely prohibited from animal possession. …

Doll’s actions had been intentional, and he plainly precipitated pointless struggling when he shot the cat by means of the backbone with out following as much as affirm whether or not it was experiencing ongoing struggling…. [I]t was not disproportionate to ban Doll from possession of comparable animals, particularly given the legislature’s limitation of the lifetime ban solely to the worst animal cruelty offenses.