Jump to content

Georgia House votes to increase dog fighting penalties.


birdweiserrr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Georgia House votes to increase dog-fighting penalties

By Mike Billips - mbillips@mindspring.com

The Georgia House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly today to increase criminal penalties for dog fighting, which if passed into law would for the first time make it a crime in Georgia simply to attend a dog fight.

The House voted 165-6 in favor of House Bill 301, which tightens the current state law against dog fighting. Advocates said the current law lacks sufficient penalties, and makes it easy for dog owners to melt into the crowd during a law enforcement raid, avoiding prosecution.

Because there was no penalty, it made it basically legal to attend a dog fight, said Rep. Bobby Reese, R-Sugar Hill, who sponsored the bill.

The bill would make spectators guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, allowing for up to a year in jail and a maximum $5,000 fine. Dog owners, those who run dog fighting rings, or those who bet on the events would be subject to felony charges, with maximum penalties for a second offense of up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine.

One of the few to vote against the bill was Rep. David Lucas, D-Macon, who said he thought the bill carried excessive penalties for a practice that is deeply rooted in some African-American communities. We ve got over 60,000 people in the corrections system now, Lucas said. I think we take things too far sometimes.

The main debate on the House floor centered on an whether to include an exception to the law for guard dog trainers. The bill would only ban dogs fighting other dogs, Reese said,

This is only about dog-on-dog, Reese said. For training guard dogs, they typically use a volunteer in a big fluffy suit, from what I see on TV.

The Senate passed a similar bill last year that carries felony charges for spectators. The House bill was negotiated with Gov. Sonny Perdue in order to ensure his immediate signature upon passage by both houses, Reese said.

The issue gained much more attention last April when former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was indicted on federal dog-fighting charges. Vick was later convicted and imprisoned. Singer Willie Nelson recorded a commercial late last year pushing for the Senate bill.

Some lawmakers were concerned about language in Senate Bill 16 about enticing dogs to fight, which was removed from the House version. The language of the two bills is very different, despite similar effects.

Reese said the House trimmed its version in order to simplify the bill and ensure its passage. When I first sunk my teeth into it, this was a much longer bill, he said.

.....................................................

So this guy thinks that because something is "deeply rooted" in specific communities, it's OK to vote against a bill because it carries "excessive penalties"?

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

birdweiserrr (1/28/2008)

So this guy thinks that because something is "deeply rooted" in specific communities, it's OK to vote against a bill because it carries "excessive penalties"?

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

He's right. The sole mandate of government is to protect the rights of people. This bill does nothing to further that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's David Lucas though and I'll leave it right there.

This is something that a lot of us "activists" have been petitioning for and fighting for. Just because a practice is "deeply rooted" doesn't make it right. That line of thinking is just asinine IMO. All it takes is a little common sense it's not like it's a drug that you get addicted to and can't stop. Of course, until parole is done away with I don't see how a penalty can be considered harsh when it will probably be lessened anyways and increase the rate of recidivism in this country...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One of the few to vote against the bill was Rep. David Lucas, D-Macon, who said he thought the bill carried excessive penalties for a practice that is deeply rooted in some African-American communities."

I guess slave holders in the south might have made that same argument as to why they should be allowed to continue that cruelty as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...