Recent incidents of blatant animal abuse have made it clear that violence against animals should be viewed similarly to violence against human beings, and should be punished accordingly, not just settled with corrective education courses.
Most recently, former LBCC trustee and active Long Beach councilman Robert Uranga, and his wife Tonia, avoided criminal charges on animal abuse via the Los Angeles’ pre-filing diversion program, which allows for low-level non-violent offenders to avoid charges upon the completion of certain requirements.
These requirements allowed Uranga and his wife to complete an online animal cruelty course known as B.A.R.C. (Benchmark Animal Cruelty Rehabilitative Curriculum) in 60 days to avoid criminal charges, essentially allowing them to avoid accountability for their abuse of animals.
About a year ago, Uranga and his wife were being investigated by the Long Beach Animal Care Services due to concerns of neglect against their two German Shepherd dogs, which allegedly led to the death of their male dog Ghost and the removal and adoption of their remaining dog Chloe, as reported by the Long Beach Post news.
In the state of California animal cruelty falls under Penal Code 597, which claims that animal abusers could be subject to imprisonment and a possible $20,000 fine. However, diversion programs that don’t exclude acts of violence against animals undermine the penal code.
Allowing animal abusers the chance to avoid the consequences of their crimes only dismisses the severity of their actions and sends out a message to the public that violence towards animals is going to be met within minimal backlash.
Uranga, who still holds a position as Council member to Long Beach, Seventh District, faced little to no repercussions other than a mandated course on animal cruelty prevention, whereas, the life of his dog Ghost was unjustly ended because of serious neglect.
It is vital people ask themselves whether they would be okay with Uranga still holding his position as Council member and going unpunished, had the charges against him been in regards to child abuse.
After all, children share similar qualities to animals through their dependency on adults for basic necessities and their inability to advocate for themselves in the face of harm. In this way, the level of responsibility involved for their well being is on equal footing.
The consequences surrounding the abuse of both children and animals should be dealt with actual imprisonment for their crimes, without the interference of potential loopholes that circumvent any accountability the abusers may face.
Even now, most people only discuss animal cruelty when theorizing about the psychological profiles of serial killers, and how harm towards animals or other creatures may be a precursor to future violence against human beings.
If we are to truly treat our animals humanely, then there must be an update on what qualifies as animal abuse, because as it stands, only the acts of torture, maiming and mutilation define animal cruelty under California law, though definitions of child abuse include neglect.
If the abuse of children includes neglecting a child’s welfare by not meeting their medical needs or ensuring that they are eating or have healthy development, then neglect which causes harm to a pet should also be considered punishable, as a pet relies on its owner for survival, welfare, and medical needs.
It’s clear animal cruelty isn’t taken as seriously as child abuse because we’ve been conditioned to devalue non-human beings, and feel that humans take greater precedence over animal lives.