PARSING PENAL IN PINAL

As far as counties go, Pinal County, Arizona, is huge. As big as the state of Delaware it stretches from Phoenix in the north southward to Tucson. It comprises a vast array of people in terms of types and groups, 300,000 people in all.

This diversity was reflected in the jury that returned a not guilty verdict this past March. They found a man not guilty of one count of cruelty to animals. Their reasoning was that no substantial damage was done to the horse that was tied to the back bumper of the accused’s pick up truck and dragged down a county road behind the moving vehicle. But for a lone sheriff’s deputy out on patrol the accused would have gotten away with his actions. But for the officer’s swift intervention the horse may have received great bodily injury.

However, those familiar with the case say that it was a matter of jury nullification just as in the O. J. Simpson murder trial in the early 1990s. There was way too much worldwide media attention. In fact, the media pounded this county and its denizens. Some of the stories portrayed the county’s residents as “hicks” or “rubes.” This infuriated the residents many of whom migrated west recently during the housing boom.

Be it the no damage to the horse reasoning or the revenge on the worldwide media reasoning the jury’s actions smack of a parochial viewpoint. This is a shame because it thwarts the best intentions of the law and those who are sworn to enforce it. There was an officer, Deputy Phelps, who chased after the man and his thirteen year old daughter to stop the brutality and to issue an arrest. Then there was the county attorney who prepared and tried the criminal case. This person fought very hard for a guilty verdict knowing that this trial was the State’s only shot at the accused. All in all, there was huge pressure bearing down on the county’s officials in this matter.

To my question why there was not an additional charge against the man for child endangerment I did not receive an answer. That all this was going on in front of a child is child endangerment and should have been prosecuted.

Which brings us to the main point: The very act of tethering something alive, be it a horse, dog, human being or whatever to the back of a motorized vehicle and then starting the engine of that vehicle should never be condoned. Whether the vehicle was going backward or forward or whether the speed was two MPH is irrelevant. The act of tying something living to a motorized vehicle is reprehensible. The law views cars and trucks as inherently dangerous entities for good reason. Such actions are intrinsically evil and produce irreparable harm to society as a whole.

The act itself is against the law and should be punished. People should not be able to walk away from cruelty to animals. Not guilty is an unacceptable verdict, but it is a verdict in our land of the law with its system of judges and juries that we must accept. Would this jury find footballer Michael Vicks not guilty if fighting occurred but no dogs were tortured and killed?

How a society treats it animals is a very good indicator of how it treats its children. Years ago before child labor laws were enacted young children were working. At the same time little dogs called turnspits were forced to walk for hours in covered wheels also called turnspits so as to produce the energy necessary to move various appliances around the house. The wheels were covered so the people in the house did not have to face their inhumanity. Their thinking must have been what is unseen does not blot the character.

The jury needed to ignore what the world was saying about Pinal County, Arizona. They were personalizing the uproar and forgetting to uphold the law. Their focus on the worldwide media instead of the case caused them to flout the law. What about the deleterious effect upon the little girl? Will they care and take responsibility if she grows up to kick animals in the head which is what she was doing when the sheriff’s deputy arrived at the scene in this unincorporated section of the county? One day she might even be seen dragging something living behind a moving motorized vehicle, perhaps one of her children.

Like the sage psychologist Alice Miller (The Drama of the Gifted Child) states: Abusers are not born. They are made. Children who are abused and exposed to abuse in turn become abusers when they grow up. Does anyone in Pinal County, Arizona, doubt that this child is herself being exposed to abuse on some level? Has county children’s services paid a visit to the home since this event has occurred?

Since the horse is categorized as a productive animal by the State it was taken into custody by the Arizona Department of Agriculture from the county authorities. The determination that the horse was not substantially damaged was made by Pinal County, not the State of Arizona. From beginning to end this was a county affair.

When the not guilty verdict came in the horse was returned to its original owner, the man who dragged the horse behind his truck. Fortunately, the horse was soon bought from him by Equine Voices, an animal rescue group based in Arizona. Of course this is great news; however, is there any continuing supervision of the horse so as to ensure its well-being?

Not on my planet.