Animal cruelty laws need sharper teeth

Frank Rich, a Willow-area dog breeder accused of animal cruelty, got his sentence yesterday - 180 days in jail - after he pleaded guilty to two of 50 counts of animal cruelty.

We mentioned that on our Facebook page, and within minutes, disapproving Valley-ites had chimed in that the sentence was roughly a day per mistreated dog.

They're right. Mat-Su Borough Animal Care and Regulation officials seized 168 live dogs found on Rich's property. There also were 19 dead dogs there, too. So, depending on how you calculate it, the judge sentenced Rich to serve about a day per dog.

Not to stoke the ire of those already incensed by his sentence, but it is likely Rich will behave himself in jail. If he does, he could only serve 120 days because statutes allow a one-third reduction for good behavior. Oh, and Rich also seems a likely candidate for ankle monitoring, which means we are probably talking about 120 to 180 days of house arrest.

The judge and prosecutor at his hearing said they believed that, at heart, Rich is a good man.

We agree, in the broadest sense, that there is good and bad in everyone. But we make no excuses for Rich's behavior - animals in his care died of malnutrition and dehydration.

In the end, only Rich is responsible for the suffering endured by these helpless animals.

The act itself deserves condemnation in the form of the stiffest penalties and limits on a person's freedom the law allows.

But is 180 days suitable punishment for the crimes committed?

According to statute, animal cruelty is a class A misdemeanor, no matter how many of those charges you rack up. Other class A misdemeanors include possessing a gun while drunk, profiting from illegal gambling and allowing underage people to hang out in a strip club.

While sentencing guidelines are a tricky set of laws, the gist of what we heard Monday was that the prosecutors asked for the maximum Rich could get - 90 days per charge - and that's what the judge imposed.

Some people may say that existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient. They may view starving more than 150 dogs nearly to death as no more egregious a transgression than profiting from illegal gambling.

We think the law should be changed to distinguish between a person who starves one dog to death and one who starves 180 or 11,180 dogs. But Alaska has no law on its books to punish people who commit such instances of mass animal cruelty.

Currently, the law tries to handle these cases by charging someone in Rich's situation with 50 of those misdemeanors. But it would be exceedingly rare for a person to be convicted on all 50. Rich's case is the rule rather than the exception, in that he was allowed to plead guilty to just two counts.

So judges like District Court Judge David Zwink are left with a legislatively prescribed sentencing range, and 180 days is the most jail time the law allows.

It's time the Legislature draft new regulations that put some real teeth in Alaska's animal cruelty laws.