Frank Fernandez
The Daytona Beach News-Journal
August 16, 2020
Debbie Darino, the local animal-abuse-fighting activist who lobbied Florida lawmakers to pass Ponce’s Law, is now working to make it easier for prosecutors to punish anyone who "maliciously" kills an animal.
Darino said there is too much wiggle room in the law right now in which someone who kills a dog or cat or other animal could be looking at a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a third-degree felony which comes with a hammer of up to five years in state prison.
“If you maliciously kill an animal, you are going to be charged with a felony,” Darino said of her goal. “You are not going to be charged with a misdemeanor. If you maliciously kill an animal, I want you to go to jail. Period.”
Debbie Darino celebrates Ponce's Law on Oct. 1, 2018 which is the day it took effect. Darino gathered with others in front of the S. James Foxman Justice Center in Daytona Beach.
Darino rose to prominence as leader of Justice for Ponce, a large group of animal rights activists who like a pitbull clamped down on the cause of getting justice for a Labrador retriever puppy named Ponce beaten to death in 2017 at a Ponce Inlet home.
Darino, of Port Orange, and the group also won passage of Ponce’s Law, which increases the likelihood that someone convicted of animal cruelty could be sentenced to prison. Ponce’s Law also allows a judge to bar someone from ever owning an animal again.
Now, Darino said she is working with State Rep. Elizabeth Fetterhoff, R-DeLand, on introducing a bill in the 2021 session which would make changes to the state's animal abuse law.
The statute currently reads in part that a person who “unnecessarily” mutilates or kills an animal commits a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Another part of the law states that a person who does something resulting in an animal’s “cruel death” or has control of the animal but fails to act resulting in its cruel death or repeated pain and suffering commits aggravated animal cruelty, a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Darino said she wants to clarify the statute “so that there is no question that if you kill an animal that it's going to be a felony because there’s a lot of discretion with the state attorney’s office which one to charge.”
But while Darino said she would like to see animal abusers go to jail she said she will not seek mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of animal abuse. She said it would not be a good time to seek mandatory prison time during the coronavirus pandemic as authorities try to keep people out of jails and prisons due to the pandemic.
R.J. Larizza, the state attorney for the 7th Circuit which covers Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns and Putnam counties, said he is aware of Darino’s effort and said it’s time for a new version of the animal cruelty statute to drop.
"I think it's time to address the animal cruelty statute and get it up into the 21st Century,” Larizza said.
“Animal cruelty is a window into other types of behavior as well. Folks that are into malicious or intentional cruelty or injure pets and animals, there’s a deeper problem there,” Larizza said. “And I think this bill recognizes that or at least attempts to do that by elevating it to a felony.”
But Larizza said there would still be a misdemeanor charge available if the harm to the animal was not intentional or was a result of negligence.
“It’s not a blanket anybody kills a dog for any reason it's a felony,” Larizza said. “No that’s certainly not the case.”
He said the proposed changes don’t include a minimum mandatory prison sentence.
James Purdy, the public defender for the 7th Circuit, said he had questions about the proposal. For one, how would the law define animal? If someone kills a snake in their backyard would that be a felony? What about if someone is driving home from work and hit a dog that darts out in front of the vehicle?
Purdy added he would be against any mandatory jail or prison time for animal cruelty just as he is opposed for mandatory minimums for other crimes.
“Minimum mandatory sentences take discretion away from the judge and put in one-size-fits-all sentence and that’s not what our judicial system should be,” Purdy said.
Minimum mandatory sentences also give too much power to prosecutors in plea negotiations, Purdy added.
“That’s a lot of arm twisting particularly for someone that may be innocent of the crime,” Purdy said.
If a mandatory minimum sentence is proposed it would also be opposed by Aaron Delgado, who is the president of the Volusia County Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Delgado, who defended Travis Archer in the Ponce case, said he opposes all mandatory minimums on any offense because they are poor policy and “neuter” judges who are elected to “make wise and informed and individualized decisions.”
Delgado, though, who described himself as an animal lover, agrees that animal laws need to be revisited because the definitions are poor.
“There is nothing that differentiates between fish and felines or lobsters or Lassie,” Delgado wrote, "poison an anthill? If you kill a lobster by boiling it the law would be the same?"
Darino said she did not envision the law applying to someone who kills a venomous snake in their backyard, but she said she does not plan to list the animals to which the law would apply. She said people have been charged in the past for cruelty to ducks and to a shark in one well-publicized Florida case, so the law could apply — even to a snake.
“I think if it's done with a malicious intent: you did something really sick to the animal,” Darino said. “they may want to charge you because there’s something wrong with you.”