Results

Although prosecutorial discretion is a firmly entrenched legal doctrine in the United States, such unbridled discretion impedes the vigorous and consistent prosecution of animal crimes. With an overwhelming incidence of animal cruelty and neglect crimes perpetrated in the United States every year, documented cases should not be passed over for prosecution due to a lack of empathy on the part of the prosecutor, a misplaced understanding of the seriousness of animal cruelty crimes, or a dearth of resources. To ensure that animal crimes are more vigorously and consistently prosecuted, citizens should take advantage of existing mechanisms that allow for public participation in the prosecutorial process, and strive to enact new legislative schemes to further facilitate the prosecution of animal crimes.

This article provides an in-depth look at the intricacies of Texas animal cruelty laws. Both the criminal and civil statutes are discussed, as is relevant case law. Additionally, this article introduces a new Texas law governing the keeping of dangerous wild animals.

This overview of Texas animal cruelty laws summarizes the currently enacted laws, addresses the unique aspects of Texas cruelty laws, mentions current controversies, and introduces the new laws dealing with dangerous wild animals.

In 1991, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 48, which prohibits the interstate sale and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty, in response to the proliferation of animal “crush videos” on the Internet. In 2008, the Third Circuit, in United States v. Stevens, a case involving dog fighting, held that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. In April of 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. Discussions about the regulation of depictions of animal cruelty have largely focused on whether the child pornography or obscenity exceptions to the First Amendment should be extended to include violent depictions of animal cruelty. This Article suggests that instead of expanding those doctrines, criminal anti-profit statutes or “Son of Sam” laws may be constitutionally applied to regulate the profitability of these images, thereby reducing the incentive to produce such materials and creating a lesser restriction on speech.