The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice Volume 21 Number 1 Article 4 6-2019 Skinning the Cat: How Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations for Animal Cruelty Offenders Can Prevent Future Violence Ashley Kunz St. Mary's University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thescholar Part of the Animal Law Commons, Animal Studies Commons, Counseling Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Family Law Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Legislation Commons, Prison Education and Reentry Commons, Psychology Commons, Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Ashley Kunz, Skinning the Cat: How Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations for Animal Cruelty Offenders Can Prevent Future Violence, 21 THE SCHOLAR 167 (2019). Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thescholar/vol21/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the St. Mary's Law Journals at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice by an authorized editor of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kunz: Skinning the Cat SKINNING THE CAT: HOW MANDATORY PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY OFFENDERS CAN PREVENT FUTURE VIOLENCE ASHLEY KUNZ* INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 168 I. PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS WITHIN TEXAS ANIMAL CRUELTY LEGISLATION .............................................................................. 173 A. Pre-2001: Animal Cruelty Offenses are Misdemeanors at Most ................................................................................ 173 B. The Plights of Loco and Queso Serve as Catalysts for Animal Law Reform in Texas ............................................ 174 C. The 2017 Amendments to the Animal Cruelty Statute in the Texas Penal Code ..................................................... 176 D. Other States’ Efforts to End Animal Cruelty ..................... 177 1. Illinois ........................................................................... 177 2. Oregon .......................................................................... 178 3. California ...................................................................... 178 4. The Animal Legal Defense Fund Prompts Kansas to Progress .................................................................... 179 II. HALTING THE INTERSTATE TRADE OF ANIMAL TORTURE PORNOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 179 A. The United States has a Compelling Interest in Preventing the Creation, Distribution, and Possession of Animal Torture Films ..................................................... 179 B. Non-Governmental Organizations and Law Enforcement Agencies Should Use Non-Distributive Techniques to Catch Producers and Possessors of Animal Torture Videos ....................................................... 182 III. THE IMPACT OF ANIMAL ABUSE ON SOCIETY ............................. 184 167 Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 2019 1 The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, Vol. 21 [2019], No. 1, Art. 4 168 THE SCHOLAR [Vol. 21:167 A. Addressing Animal Abuse by Juveniles ............................. 184 B. The Necessity of Mandatory Animal Abuse Reporting Requirements for Veterinarians .......................................... 186 C. Acts of Animal Cruelty Grant Significant Power to Domestic Abusers .............................................................. 187 D. Animal Hoarding ................................................................ 189 E. Sexual Abuse of Animals in the Internet Age .................... 191 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 193 INTRODUCTION Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he, who is cruel to living creatures, cannot be a good man. —Arthur Schopenhauer1 In 2012, an undercover cybercrimes investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) discovered a Houston-based producer of crush videos.2 Crush videos typically involve a seductively dressed female engaging in sexual acts while torturing small animals until their inevitable death.3 Ashley Richards, the woman featured in the Houston videos, would cut, maim, behead, and disembowel animals, including crustaceans, fish, chickens, rabbits, cats, and a puppy, before sometimes urinating on them for the camera.4 Clients requested custom videos from Richards, which producer Brent Justice filmed, promoted, * St. Mary’s University School of Law, Candidate for Juris Doctor, May 2019; Doane University, B.A., Political Science and Law, Politics, & Society, December 2015. I would like to thank the Volume 21 editors who have worked so hard to ensure this piece is the best it can possibly be. I would also like to thank my family, friends, and my partner Shane for their support and love throughout my legal career. This comment could not be written without them. 1.ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, ON THE BASIS OF MORALITY 223 (Arthur Brodrick Bullock trans., Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd. 1903) (1840). 2. State’s Appellate Brief at 2-4, Justice v. State, 532 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (No. 14-16-00153-CR), 2017 WL 2662531; see also Justice v. State, 532 S.W.3d 862, 864 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). 3. Justice v. State, 532 S.W.3d 862, 863-64 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). 4. Id. at 864. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thescholar/vol21/iss1/4 2 Kunz: Skinning the Cat 2019] SKINNING THE CAT 169 and sold online.5 Justice even facilitated live sessions for some clients.6 Richards experienced sexual abuse from childhood to her teenage years which, according to psychiatric research, made her more likely to torture animals.7 The maximum punishment Richards and Justice could receive for their crimes if charged under the relevant animal cruelty laws at the time of sentencing without enhancing allegations, were a $10,000 fine and two years in jail.8 In May of 2016, a three-month-old puppy adopted from an Austin no- kill animal shelter was found floating in a bathtub full of water after his owner, Joshua Fortier, force-fed him rubbing alcohol.9 Prior to the killing, Fortier ingested a myriad of psychoactive drugs.10 Fortier surrendered to police who committed him to a mental hospital for evaluation, prior to his arrest, pursuant to a Peace Officer Emergency Detention.11 The mental hospital released Fortier ten days later after it determined he longer posed a risk to himself or others.12 A Travis 5.Id.; see also Craig Malisow, What We Learned from the Crush Video Trial, HOUS. PRESS, (Feb. 15, 2016, 6:00 AM), http://www.houstonpress.com/news/what-we-learned-from-the-crush- video-trial-updated-8158284 [https://perma.cc/R7GN-9DYU]. 6. Justice, 532 S.W.3d at 864. 7. Compare Malisow, supra note 5 (reporting that Richards’ mother was a sex worker with a substance abuse disorder, whose clients molested Richards, and after failing to receive support from social services, Richards fled home and became a sex worker, where she eventually met Justice), with Lacey Levitt, Understanding Animal Cruelty and Sexual Abuse, in ANIMAL MALTREATMENT: FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND EVALUATIONS 97-98, 117, 122-23 (Lacey Levitt et al. eds., 2016) (analyzing the connection between childhood abuse and future violent behavior). 8.See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.092(b)(1), (c-1) (West 2007) (explaining intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly torturing, killing, or causing serious bodily injury to an animal constitutes cruelty to nonlivestock animals, which is punishable as a state jail felony); see also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35 (West 2017) (listing the maximum punishments for conviction of a state jail felony). See Criminal Records for Brent Justice (on file with The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice) (showing convictions on two counts of “Cruelty to Non-Livestock Animals with Enhancements,” both third degree felonies). See Criminal Records for Ashley Richards (on file with The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice) (showing convictions on two counts of “Cruelty to Animals,” both state jail felonies). 9. Warrant Issued for Austin Man Accused of Animal Cruelty, FOX 7 AUSTIN, http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/warrant-issued-for-austin-man-accused-of-cruelty- to-animals#/ [https://perma.cc/DHN7-4JYJ] (last updated Aug. 2, 2016, 9:40 PM). 10.Id. 11.Id. 12.Id. Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 2019 3 The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, Vol. 21 [2019], No. 1, Art. 4 170 THE SCHOLAR [Vol. 21:167 County District Court ultimately convicted Fortier of animal torture and sentenced him to four years’ probation.13 The historically insignificant punishment considering the crime makes these sickening cases even more disturbing.14 A 2017 amendment to the Texas Penal Code elevated the offense of animal torture from a state jail felony to a third degree felony.15 While Texas animal