Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House narrows proposed felony penalty in bill to curb cockfighting after lengthy debate
Summary
After more than two hours of floor debate and competing amendments, the Utah House approved an amended bill that raises penalties for animal fighting to strengthen deterrence while stopping short of imposing felonies for repeat offenders in most cases.
The Utah House on March 13 adopted an amended version of first substitute Senate Bill 112, a bill sponsored on the floor by Representative Jeremy Anderson intended to increase penalties for animal fighting and strengthen deterrence.
The bill's sponsor told members the state was an outlier: "Utah is now the only state in the West that does still not have a game foul fighting penalty of a felony," and urged the House to act to discourage the practice. Debate quickly grew contentious and covered legal classifications, enforcement, prison capacity and whether felony labels were an appropriate tool for animal cruelty.
Representative Greene offered amendment number 6 to remove various ownership/possession culpability clauses and to limit criminal liability to the intentional causing of a gamefowl to fight or knowingly allowing a fight on property controlled by the defendant. Greene argued the amendment would avoid making felons of people for private property conduct and said it "strikes a fair balance," citing concerns about the cost and reach of additional felonies.
Supporters of stronger penalties said higher classifications provide deterrence. Representative Christiansen, speaking in favor of the bill as originally drafted, warned the enterprise has "no redeeming value," citing other states that have elevated penalties and arguing the commerce, gambling and grooming around animal fighting merits strict sanctions. Representative King and others characterized the policy as about deterrence, not filling prisons.
Members also debated prosecutorial practice and the fiscal note. Greene noted that prosecutions had been "virtually nonexistent" and the fiscal note projected roughly "one-half of a prosecution per year," while opponents said stronger classification could change enforcement incentives.
The House adopted amendment 6 after a division vote (motion to amend received 43 yes votes and 28 no votes) and then passed the amended bill on final passage (first substitute SB112 having received 62 yes votes and 10 no votes). Under the adopted amendment, the law emphasizes intentional acts and knowingly permitting fights on controlled property; felony exposure was limited to the most egregious repeat offenders under the amendment's language.
What happens next: the amended bill will be returned to the Senate for further consideration. The House also appointed a three-member conference committee later in the evening related to the bill's resolution of house-senate differences.
Representative Anderson said the effort was meant to create greater deterrence; opponents and amendment proponents cautioned lawmakers to weigh criminal classifications and collateral consequences for conviction records.
Votes and procedural steps: amendment number 6 was adopted (43-28) and the final passage of the first substitute SB112 was recorded as 62 yes, 10 no. The House recorded a motion to appoint a conference committee to resolve outstanding difference after the Senate refused to concur with some House amendments.
