This story from CNN caught my attention last week. Joe Petcka, a minor league baseball player and actor, was put on trial for the death of his girlfriend's cat. After an argument, the girlfriend left the apartment leaving Joe and Norman alone. What happened next was disputed.
Joe claimed that 8 pound Norman, who his girlfriend claimed was a very friendly cat,
"had it in for him from the start of his six-week relationship with Altobelli. He testified that he fought back after the feline charged at him, bit his hand and knocked him onto a coffee table."
The prosecutor suggested that Joe was angry at his girlfriend, who cared more about the cat than him, and used savage force against the cat. His girlfriend came him and Joe was gone; Norman had crawled under the bed and died.
Joe was tried with aggravated animal cruelty, a crime recently made into a felony under New York law. Joe faced up to 2 years in jail if convicted. The statute:
[...] requires proving that someone unjustifiably attacked a pet and either aimed to cause extreme pain or mounted an "especially depraved or sadistic" assault.
A hung jury returned after 5 days of deliberation. On a vote of 11-1, the jury wanted to convict Petcka of aggravated animal cruelty but the lone hold-out prevented such a conviction.
Purportedly, the hold out was not convinced that Pecka had the necessary mindset to be culpable of aggravated cruelty. As the statute states, Joe would have needed to either "(a) aim to cause extreme pain or (b) mounted an especially depraved or sadistic assault."
If Petcka was correct in stating that he "flung" the cat in self defense, a story I find convenient for Joe and unlikely considering that Norman was just a small friendly cat, then the hung juror may have simply thought that Joe did not aim to cause extreme pain because Joe was aiming simply to defend himself against the cat.
Even if this story is correct, I can't possibly see why the juror wouldn't find that the "self defense" flinging was an especially depraved or sadistic assault. According to the CNN article:
Assistant District Attorney Leila Kermani said the cat named Norman died with broken teeth, broken ribs, a broken leg, a torn tongue, massive internal injuries including bruised lungs and a bruised liver and a chest cavity filled with blood.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the hold out may have simply been unwilling to potentially send someone away for 2 years for killing a cat (intuition tells me he wouldn't have been sentenced to the whole 2 years anyway, since there was no sadism or torture involved).
I also find it unfortunate that some people have criticized the case as a waste of taxpayer money. For one, there is a real human impact to all of this; a person who is willing to treat an animal like dirt has a low floor of sympathy and needs to be deterred before that violence affects humans. Secondly, the law is important in and of itself; legal cases are routinely filed against people for a whole host of reasons some of which are definitely worthy (like murder) and some of which may be questionable (like traffic tickets and underage drinking).
Thirdly, and most importantly, (this is also the reason I'm sad at the prospect that Petcka got off the hook) is because Norman only had one chance to live; one chance to enjoy the gift of life, which to a cat is enriched with tuna, cat nip, a warm lap, chewing on fuzzy mouse toys, and chasing lasers.
Norman most likely died in extreme pain and extreme fear; his best friend and protector -- the girlfriend -- nowhere to be found to comfort him in his final hours.
I'm very sad to see the cruel and wrongful death of Norman go unpunished, and I sincerely hope that the jurist who held out was doing so out of an honest opinion of fact rather than a bias against animal cruelty law.
Click on the CNN link to see a picture of Norman.