A member of PETA, while surfing the Internet, discovered an eBay listing for "gothic kittens." The listing included images of kittens with piercings, earrings, studs, and "docked" tails. The PETA member contacted the local branch of the humane society.
A humane society police officer contacted the seller - defendant Crawford - and pretended to be interested in purchasing one of the animals. Crawford told the police officer that the animals had not been to a vet, and that the piercings had been done at home. With this information, as well as the postings, the Humane Society successfully applied for a warrant and seized the animals.
The defendant was tried before a jury, and convicted of cruelty to animals. She was sentenced to a year of intermediate punishment, including a year of monitoring via ankle bracelet. She appealed, alleging that the cruelty to animals statute was unconstitutionally vague.
The Superior Court construed the defendant's claim as, essentially, an argument that "a person of normal intelligence would not know whether piercing a kitten’s ears or banding its tail is maiming, mutilating, torturing, or disfiguring an animal." It then resorted to the dictionary definitions for the elements of the crime, including "maim," "mutilate," "torture," and "disfigure."
Having noted the accepted definitions for the key words in the statute, the Court concluded that the law gives "fair notice of an objective standard of reasonableness in the avoidance of infliction of suffering. The notice component of due process does not require any more."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment