CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

8.2 Application of anti-cruelty laws
enforCement of state laWs
The above review of state enforcement records suggests that very few prosecutions
are brought under state humane slaughter laws. In fact, only one prosecution could
be identified for the entire United States during a recent 3-year period of time. Even
were prosecutions to be brought under state humane slaughter statutes, only relatively
weak misdemeanor penalties could be assessed in most cases. Moreover, not all states
have humane slaughter codes that can be applied. As a result, animal advocates have
encouraged state and local officials to prosecute occurrences of inhumane slaughter under
state anti-cruelty laws.
Although all 50 states have enacted anti-cruelty laws, a number of states exempt
accepted agricultural practices (Table 24). This exemption does not necessarily
preclude prosecution of inhumane slaughter cases, as the meat industry has clearly
defined practices in terms of the humane handling and slaughter of livestock (see
Section 9). Three of these states, as well as two additional ones, exempt slaughter by
approved methods. Again, this limitation should not automatically rule out prosecution
of inhumane slaughter under the law. However, the anti-cruelty laws of five states
exempt slaughter generally, which could preclude prosecution. (See Appendix D for
relevant excerpts from the laws.)
Table 24. State Anti-Cruelty Laws
State laws exempting accepted agricultural practices (22 states):
Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming
State laws exempting slaughter by approved methods (five states):
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota
State laws exempting slaughter generally (five states):
Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Rhode Island
To date, attempts to pressure state officials to prosecute inhumane slaughter under state
animal cruelty codes have proven unsuccessful. An individual was prosecuted for neglect/
abuse of animals on the premises of a slaughterhouse in at least one case 213 , but no
instances have been located of successful prosecution of inhumane treatment during the
slaughter process itself. In declining to prosecute under anti-cruelty statutes, state and
213 Teeter B, Arrest warrants issued for slaughterhouse owner, [Ft Worth] Star-Telegram, August 24, 2004;
Slaughterhouse owner gets 6 month sentence, Star-Telegram, May 5, 2005.
75