When a person is convicted of the unlawful killing of someone’s pet cat the owner seeks compensation for their loss; this is ‘restitution’.
A recent live and real case can be used to illustrate how it works. It concerns Pam Dowell, the lady who is moving home to get away from some neighbors, one of whom, Steven Mishow, pleaded guilty in a criminal court to two misdemeanour counts of cruelty to animals. He had shot at Dowell’s two cats. He admitted in a secret recording that he had ‘killed the motherfucker..’
He paid promptly!….
Dowell decided to move to a better neighbourhood and I agree with her decision. When your neighbours are consistently misbehaving and show no sign of letting up or changing their ways the best solution, even though it feels like a ‘defeat’ is to get out, to walk away. Life is too short to do anything else.
Back to restitution. The cats were never found but the judge decided, it seems to me (I’ll happily be corrected), that Mishow killed the cats as Judge Korey Wahwassuck ordered restitution on Dowell’s application.
“The State has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that P.D. [Pam Dowell] is entitled to restitution for the fair market replacement value of two cats.”
Dowell had asked for over $10,000. In her request she stated that ‘the cost of obtaining a new cat, including spaying/neutering, declawing, and other veterinarian bills, is approximately $500-$600’. Dowell had also asked for compensation in respect of other items such as the care costs of the two killed cats, Olivia and Emerald, for the period 2007-2017 amounting to almost $8,000.
The defendant, Mishow, objected to the amount and offered $100. He argued that the amount should be limited to the ‘fair market value of the cats’.
The judge stated in the court order that:
‘…restitution must be limited to losses incurred as a direct result of the crime for which the Defendant has been convicted.’ (i.e. the loss of PD’s two cats). Restitution would pay for replacement cats.
YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE COURT RESTITUTION ORDER BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK – published with the permission of Pam Dowell.
This begs the interesting question as to why restitution does not cover emotional distress. The true loss by the cats’ owner amounts to more than two cats. There is the long term emotional distress caused as a consequence. This is real and tangible. Some judges do allow compensation to cover such ‘loses’ (loss of contentment) but rarely.
Judge Korey Wahwassuck stuck to the conventional decision and agreed PD’s figure of $500 per cat and granted restitution of $1,000. It felt like a loss to PD but I’d say it was a success. Of course, it is far short of compensating for the true loss.
I am sure that the concept of restitution is standard procedure in most countries. In California, USA, restitution is mandatory for all persons convicted of any crime including cruelty to animals.
In a well-known case of cat cruelty which I reported on some time ago, a drive by shooter of a cat, Kyre West, was ordered to pay $276 in restitution to the cat’s caregiver.
[weaver_show_posts cats=”” tags=”crime” author=”” author_id=”” single_post=”” post_type=” orderby=”date” sort=”ASC” number=”3″ show=”full” hide_title=”” hide_top_info=”1″ hide_bottom_info=”1″ show_featured_image=”1″ hide_featured_image=”” show_avatar=”” show_bio=”” excerpt_length=”” style=”background-color:HoneyDew; border:2px dotted darkgrey; padding:12px” class=”” header=”Associated pages (this is a selection. Please search for more):” header_style=”color:Indigo; font-size:130%;” header_class=”” more_msg=”” left=0 right=0 clear=0]
Dean, you are ignoring the will of the people. The will of the people is reflected in the laws of the county, city or state or country. And if the law says that Steve did something wrong which he admittedly did (and convicted) then it is pointless to argue that he is protecting his property. Under these circumstances protecting his property is unlawful in the way he did it. I find it very surprising that you don’t understand that.
He had the option to protect his property in a humane and decent way without killing someone’s cats. These were not feral cats by the way because they were cared for by a human being.
If you don’t like it then there’s no point in criticising the person who owns the cats. You should criticise the law and the lawmakers and try and do something about it.
I agree Steve was protecting his property against cats that we’re damaging it. That is not wrong. Why does he have to suffer damage to his house because someone invites feral cats in a neighborhood. If she loved her cat, she would have kept it in the house. If a dig attacks someone the owner is responsible. Pam should be responsible. She is not. That tape also does not give a date it was recorded. The people in the tape are not saying their names. The whole conversation wasnt recorded. You want to join n an ruin this family. Wonder who Pam’s next victim will be. It won’t be long till she calls eery single vmedia outlet for another. “Pamela Dowell was victimized” article. Maybe it will be the people who sold her her new house. I’m sure they lied about something. Like the Ford Dealership,the person who built her last house, and the Princeton and Malica law enforcement departments. She is always a victim of something. Only a matter of time.