SJC to rule on youth animal abusers
Kids could be charged, punished as adults
Massachusetts law has historically shown little mercy to those who abuse animals, and now the state’s highest court is set to determine whether a juvenile accused of harming one of our furry friends can be charged and punished as an adult.
The Supreme Judicial Court has decided to hear a case that will determine whether a juvenile accused of causing “serious bodily injury” to an animal can be tried as a youthful offender. If the high court sides with prosecutors, the teen could face an adult sentence if he is convicted.
Under state law, that could mean seven years in state prison. If charged as a juvenile, a teen perpetrator could only be committed to the Department of Youth Services until the age of 18.
“I think whatever the SJC does, it points to an increased awareness of and concern for the interests of nonhuman animals,” said Steven Wise, an attorney who specializes in animal rights. “The fact that the court has decided to hear it is a good sign. I don’t think 10 years ago this would have been in front of the SJC.”
Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley’s office is asking the SJC to consider the unique question, and the court has sent out a request for input from those who may have an interest in the outcome. Since the case is still a juvenile proceeding, Suffolk prosecutors declined comment.
The sensitive nature of juvenile proceedings also means that all court documents are under seal.
“The commonwealth here is trying to expand the categories of crimes for which children can be punished as adults. They argue that it includes abuse to animals,” said Benjamin Falkner, an attorney representing the juvenile. “That will be up to the Supreme Judicial Court to decide.”
Under Massachusetts law, a juvenile between 14 and 17 can be tried as a youthful offender if they commit an offense that “involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm.” The law, however, does not say whether or not a human being needs to be the one being harmed.
The court will be tasked with determining whether that omission can mean that abuse to animals is also covered or whether prosecutors are reading too much into it.
“We are seeing more that prosecutors are seeing animals as victims,” said Diane Balkin, an attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a California-based organization that files lawsuits to protect animals from harm. “This is, however, a very difficult question to answer.”
The court will likely have to look into the legislative intent of the youthful offender statute. Prosecutors will likely argue that humans and nonhumans alike can suffer bodily harm and that they are simply asking the court to consider the law as its written.
The defense is that this reading overinflates the statute.
“Right now there is a real question as to whether or not the law goes that far,” said Wise, who founded the Nonhuman Rights Project. “It’s not an easy question.”