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]
It is illegal and cruel to ‘protect property’ by killing cats. You don’t get that which is worrying.
Again that’s your point a view. Protecting property from bring damage by cats.
You again are saying that because people do not have your view point they are bad people. Pam neglected to keep her cats safe. She let them out to roam. She us at fault. She really has no idea what happened. She states she seen the wound in the cat. Why did she let it back out? What did. She do with her cat. Her victim impact statement doesn’t not match the original complaint. Did you read both?
Steven has a right to protect his property. With Pam not living in Cohasset. Who is going to feed her feral cats, raccoons and skunks. She now has abandoned them causing another issue. The new owners are going to have strays to deal with. Yet another typical character of Pam’s.
I disagree with you and Steve was convicted of a crime and admitted killing cats. I only condemn people who like to kill cats and who kill them for no reason other than a dislike of cats. The deserve condemnation. No one is a saint here but Steve and his supporters are less good than those on the other side. That’s clear.
You let others use hateful words to Steve n any support he had to fight against a cat owner who was not responsible. You violate you so called rules to frame you story. You will let Christine post her Wish for violence. If someone doesn’t agree with you, you yourself condemn them. Go figure. Your the only person Pam could find to contribute to her hate. The only person that would even listen to the so called tape. The tape was never played in court. No one heard it. You personally can not say personally which one was Steven. You personally do not know. You received it from Pam. She can’t even get the story straight on how she received the recording. So because Pam said, it must be right.
No, I let trolls post comments all the time. Please stop being blind and annoying. I let people with alternative viewpoints post comments. I actually like it. I don’t allow non-compliance with comment rules.
I am scrupulously fair. If I did what you say I do your comment and many others would not be published! Wake up please.
So because someone doesn’t have your same view point. They are wrong. You encourage and promote hate. Your double standard isn’t working.