Seldom-Discussed Sections of IP28, Part Two: Restorative Justice
- 18 minutes ago
- 4 min read
"The more we punish a person, the more violent they become. So if I really do want this person to behave less violently, the last thing I want to do is punish them for the violence. But nor do I want to be permissive, because doing nothing increases the violence. So permissiveness and punitiveness both increase violence."
~ Marshall Rosenberg
In part one of this two-part series, I shared that while most of the conversation around IP28 understandably focuses on how it would ban the slaughter, hunting, experimentation, and breeding of animals in Oregon (by expanding the same animal cruelty protections our companion animals have to animals currently on farms, in labs, and in the wild), there are some less-often discussed aspects to the initiative that I think are helpful to draw some attention to.
Previously I discussed how IP28 creates a Humane Transition Fund to help provide funds to those who need support transitioning into a world that no longer relies on injuring, killing, and breeding animals—a world we would describe as more humane. Now, in part two, I’d like to share a bit about how IP28 attempts to create a restorative-justice alternative to incarceration for those convicted of violating crimes of animal cruelty.
As it stands currently, someone who commits a crime of animal abuse, neglect, or sexual assault, would be convicted of either a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or a Class C felony, depending on the specific circumstances involved. That could involve imprisonment for up to six months, 364 days, or five years, respectively. Because our campaign isn’t confident that imprisonment is the most effective strategy for addressing the root causes of violence (against human or non-human animals), we wanted our initiative to provide an alternative that sought to increase empathy towards animals which we believe would better prevent such violence from re-occurring.
The way we created this alternative was by making an amendment to a pre-existing Oregon statute. Right now in Oregon, according to ORS 167.332, in addition to a misdemeanor or felony conviction, a judge can order that the person convicted of an animal cruelty statute may not possess any animal of the same genus against which the crime was committed for a period of five or fifteen years, depending on the severity of the crime. We took this initial statute, and made three important changes to it.
First, we removed the specification that one would only be prohibited from owning an animal “of the same genus”. Regardless of the animal’s species, if someone intentionally injured one animal, we don’t want that individual to own any other animal. We made this change not because it would be restorative, but because we thought it would help provide greater protections to more animals. A primary goal of our campaign after all is to advocate for authorizing the protective use of force to prohibit humans from intentionally killing non-human animals.
Second, and here’s the restorative part, alongside prohibiting animal ownership IP28 would amend this statute to include the completion of either 100 or 300 hours of supervised community service at an animal care facility, depending on the initial severity of the crime. The specific type of facility (either a farmed animal sanctuary, wildlife rehabilitation center, or humane society) would depend on the species of the animal abused, neglected, or sexually assaulted. The reason we believe this may be restorative is because by being in a position to connect with and help take care of animals (under supervision), one will hopefully develop more empathy for those animals as individuals. With greater empathy, we believe this would translate into a lower likelihood of violence against animals in the future.
The third and final way we amended this statute, is that IP28 would replace in addition to with in lieu of. This is perhaps most important, because it is the change that makes this a true alternative to incarceration, rather than something added on top of incarceration. As amended the revised statute clearly states that “In lieu of any other penalty, a person convicted of violating [animal cruelty crimes] may not possess any animal…and must complete…supervised community service at an animal care facility.”
For us, this change demonstrates a commitment to nonviolence and compassion (if you’re curious to understand what we mean by nonviolence, I expand on it in our post titled A Spiritual Foundation), which we want to extend not just to non-human animals but also to each other. Although this initiative can’t fundamentally shift our entire approach to justice towards one that prioritizes restoration, we at least wanted to incorporate those restorative justice principles into the changes we were proposing.
We’re asking for the world that we want, even when that world seems far away. We genuinely do want to live in a world where everyone, human and non-human, can get their needs met. And we believe that a restorative justice system, rather than a retributive justice system, is a better strategy for meeting those needs.
Joining the campaign as a monthly donor would help meet our need for stability and support. As we move into the spring, the more funds we are able to raise the greater our chances of getting on the ballot. If you are inspired by our work so far, would you consider signing up to give, at any amount, as a monthly donor?
Do you know of other ideas for how we can either secure additional funding or how we can spread the word about our campaign? Email team@yesonip28.org and let us know.
Like / Share on Instagram:
