California’s anti-puppy mill legislation goes to governor

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

It all boils down to supply and demand. By passing A.B. 485, California lawmakers have demanded that puppy mills and similar operations no longer supply pet shops with companion animals.

Specifically the  legislation currently awaiting Gov. Gerry Brown’s signature takes aim at the unscrupulous breeders by ensuring that the pet stores can only acquire dogs, cats and rabbits from animal rescue groups, shelters and similar organizations.

A dog available for adoption at Adopt-a-Dog. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

As reported by Newsweek, “The purpose of the bill is to encourage pet stores to move into the rescue business and to reduce the number of animals killed at shelters due to lack of space.”

According to the ASPCA:

  • Approximately 6.5 million companion animals enter U.S. animal shelters nationwide every year. Of those, approximately 3.3 million are dogs and 3.2 million are cats.
  • Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats).
  • Approximately 3.2 million shelter animals are adopted each year (1.6 million dogs and 1.6 million cats).

Data provided by the American Pet Products Association (APPA) indicates that most people who have cats got them from shelters, friends or family, while most people who have dogs got them from breeders or shelters.

Many pet stores are already providing another option for people seeking companion animals. As Newsweek reported, “Some pet stores, including PetCo and Petfood Express, have already moved away from selling cats, dogs, and rabbits bred for profit and instead donate space to rescues and host adoption events.” According to its website, PetSmart is also on board.

“At PetSmart, we never sell dogs or cats. Together with PetSmart Charities, we help save over 1,300 pets every day through adoption,” the company says. In all, PetSmart claims it has saved more than 7.6 million animals through its adoption program.

Of course, there are always two sides to every story. And apparently, the AKC is not a fan of A.B. 485.

“AB 485’s proponents misleadingly claim that the bill will promote the purchasing of purebred dogs from local breeders. That claim, however, fails to shed light on the fact that many local anti-breeding laws and breeding restrictions, also supported by these groups, have already eliminated hobby breeding and now make obtaining a specific type of dog bred by a local breeder increasingly difficult,” the AKC says.

However, A.B. 485 does not ban Californians from getting purebred pets if they so choose. It simply bans them from doing so through pet stores. If the bill becomes law, they would still be able to get companion animals by contacting private breeders directly.

What do you think? Is this a good idea? Or will it do more harm than good? Let me know by leaving your thoughts in the comments section below.

Don’t you dare feel sorry for Brock Turner

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

 

Alexandra Bogdanovic
Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

To hear his daddy tell it, Brock Turner — the convicted sex offender and former Stanford University student — is actually a golden boy who doesn’t deserve much more than a slap on the wrist for the crime he committed.

Apparently the judge agrees with him.

In March, Brock Turner was convicted of three felony charges: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated/unconscious person; penetration of an intoxicated person; and penetration of an unconscious person. The charges stemmed from a January 2015 incident in which Brock Turner, 20, took advantage of a helpless young woman on campus.

The California Penal Code is very specific about the punishment upon conviction for these crimes.

First there’s Section 289 subdivision (d) which states: “Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.”

Under the law, a victim who is “unconscious of the nature of the act” is one who can’t fight back because he or she was “unconscious or asleep” or because he or she is not “aware, knowing, perceiving or cognizant that the act occurred.”

Then there’s Section 220. subdivision (a) (1), which states: “Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288, or 289 shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.”

At any rate, you can do the math.  And then ask yourself why Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky couldn’t seem to do the same. Or why he didn’t want to.

Last week he sentenced the former Stanford University swimmer to just six months incarceration and three years probation.

Boo Hoo

Even so, Brock Turner appears to be feeling pretty sorry for himself, according to a recent article in The New York Times that included a copy of his letter to Perksy and a link to his father’s controversial statement.

“The night of January 17th changed my life and the lives of everyone involved forever,” Brock Turner says in his statement. “I can never go back to being the person I was before that day. I am no longer a swimmer, a student, a resident of California, or the product of the work that I put in to accomplish the goals that I set out in the first nineteen years of my life.”

Although he acknowledges and says he regrets that he also caused the victim “emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair,” most of the emphasis in Brock Turner’s statement is on himself and how he has been affected.

“I’ve lost two jobs solely based on the reporting of my case,” he says. “I wish I never was good at swimming or had the opportunity to attend Stanford, so maybe the newspapers would want to write stories about me.”

He goes on to beg the judge to give him only probation, saying that wants to be a positive influence on young people and that he’s already paid a steep price for his actions.

“I’ve been shattered by the party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school. I’ve lost my chance to swim in the Olympics. I’ve lost my ability to obtain a Stanford degree. I’ve lost employment opportunities, my reputation and most of all, my life,” he says.

The Apple Hasn’t Fallen Far…

That Brock Turner is so selfish, self-absorbed and self-centered can be partially attributed to youth and immaturity. That he seems completely incapable of taking responsibility for his actions is also easily explained — especially when viewed in context of his own father’s statement.

In the written request that his son be placed on probation Dan Turner also indicates that his son has already paid — and will continue to pay dearly — for what he did. Specifically, he bemoans the fact that Brock Turner would have to register as a sex offender and says  incarceration would be too a harsh penalty for something that took place in a relatively short period of time when viewed in the context of his entire life.

Well with all due respect, Mr. Turner, the length of time it took your son to assault that young lady has nothing to do with the punishment he deserves. It takes someone a split second to decide to drive after they’ve had too much to drink. And guess what? If they hit and kill or maim someone, they are punished accordingly — even if it’s their first offense and they’ve never been in trouble. It can take years to plan and carry out a homicide. And guess what? If you’re caught and convicted, you’re punished accordingly — even if it’s your first offense and you’ve never been in trouble.

It’s the price we pay for living in a society governed by rule of law. There are always consequences for our actions. We all need to be held fully accountable for our choices.

By the way, my mother taught me that when I was little. Too bad you didn’t teach your son the same thing.