CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

Crimes Without ConsequenCes
intentional cruelty occurred, and county prosecutors agreed. Although a Worcester
County District Court commissioner brought a misdemeanor animal cruelty charge
against Perdue, the Worcester County district attorney requested the case be dismissed.
“In my opinion, the charges never should have been issued,” said District Attorney Joel
Todd. “I wanted this case over, because this defendant is not guilty.” 222
Oregon, 2004
The mother of a high school student complained to the board of the North Clackamas
School District after her daughter was traumatized from watching sheep being killed on
school grounds by a licensed mobile custom slaughter operator. The man slit the throat
and broke the neck of animals without using any form of stunning. A district investigation
eventually concluded that the manner of killing did not meet federal standards for
humane slaughter. Although animal advocates argued that the incident constituted a
violation of both Oregon humane slaughter and anti-cruelty laws, the Clackamas County
sheriff’s office determined no crime had been committed. 223
Texas, 2004
A slaughterhouse owner was arrested in August 2004 and charged with cruelty to animals
after nearly 100 sheep, goats and cattle in poor condition were removed from the premises
of his slaughter operation in Weatherford. Nine animals died despite veterinary care, and
another 12 animals appeared to have died from neglect prior to the arrival of local animal
care officials. In May 2005, a Parker County jury deliberated for only 30 minutes before
finding the man guilty of animal cruelty. The judge sentenced him to 6 months in jail and
imposed a fine of $4,000. 224
West Virginia, 2004
In July 2004, PETA released a videotape showing workers at a Pilgrim’s Pride chicken
slaughterhouse in Moorefield stomping live chickens, drop-kicking birds as if they were
footballs and slamming them into walls. Wood County Prosecutor Ginny Conley refused
to file cruelty charges in the case, claiming she had “made the decision that the incident
does not rise to the level of a criminal prosecution due to the fact that these were chickens
in a slaughterhouse.” Prosecutor Conley added that the situation demonstrated improper
behavior but it needed “to be handled more on a regulatory end than prosecuting someone
criminally. This is more appropriately dealt with through federal and state regulations
dealing with slaughterhouses,” explained Conley. 225 The USDA dispatched investigators
to the plant, but there is no record of any enforcement action having been taken. A USDA
222 Prosecutors halt complaint, dismiss Perdue animal cruelty charge, Associated Press, February 3, 2005; see
also Soper S, No probe yet in alleged Perdue cruelty case, The [Maryland Coast] Dispatch, November 4, 2004;
Animal rights group pursues complaint against Perdue farms, Associated Press, October 28, 2004.
223 Schmidt B, District scrutinized for slaughter, Oregonian, October 8, 2004; Pardington S, Slaughter must be
humane, Oregonian, October 26, 2004.
224 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. While this case represents a
successful cruelty prosecution of a slaughter facility, the animal treatment at issue was not directly related to
slaughter procedures.
225 Cited in Smith V, Charges won’t be filed in case alleging chicken torture in slaughterhouse, Associated Press,
January 11, 2005.
78