Final Paper

The formatting is very weird and I don't know how to change it and I am sorry!!!

Natalie Polston
ENGL 306
Dr. Steph Brown
6 May 2016
Animal Abuse: Misdemeanor or Felony?
    In many states in North America, it is a misdemeanor to abuse an animal. Each state has its own definition of what qualifies as "abuse," but most center their qualifications around concepts such as intentional torture, inflicting unnecessary injury, and/or neglecting the animal for prolonged periods of time (Allen). In many cases, the culprit can simply pay a fine with no jail service. It is only upon second and third offenses that this crime is considered a felony. Since the range of possibilities is wide and vague, many offenders are able to simply pay a fine then be set free (Allen). Instead, activists could stage a protest to let lawmakers know that animal cruelty is a serious crime and should be treated as such. The main goal of this protest would be for North Dakotans to get Congress to change the classification of animal cruelty in North Dakota from a misdemeanor to a felony.
    The concept of a felony stems from crimes that pose a threat to the public safety and involve "moral turpitude" (Hill). In the situation presented by animal abuse, one task it will need to achieve is convincing North Dakotans that intentionally harming an animal is a serious moral issue. In order to accomplish this goal, a line needs to be drawn directly between animal abuse and other psychiatric disorders. It is rarely a stand-alone act. In a study conducted by medical researchers, it was found that "a history of animal cruelty...was significantly associated with APD [antisocial personality disorder], antisocial personality traits, and polysubstance abuse" (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 257). Clearly, if a person is exhibiting cruelty toward an animal, they need psychiatric help (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 259). Since their disorder manifests itself violently, they pose a threat to public safety.
    This particular issue is in its period of inception phase. This is because most Americans would agree that harming an animal is not good—there is already a "pre-existing sentiment" (Griffin 11). In “emphasizing existing beliefs [and] values,” this protest will be framed as an Amplification (Heaney and Rojas 244). The same people who are against animal cruelty generally might not agree that it is a crime on par with other felonies such as arson, domestic violence, driving intoxicated, or drug abuse crimes. Participants in this protest would become “aggressor orators and journalists”, since they will be "attempt[ing] to establish" a new classification of crime while destroying the other (Griffin 11). Their opportune moment,or kairos, would lie at any time the House is in session, since they will ideally introduce a bill to change the law through Congress. Since the House does not meet every week throughout the year, it would be wise to choose a time close to June and July, since that is when they meet most frequently (2015 Annual House Calendar).
    The law classifications vary by state, so I am going to focus in on North Dakota. I chose this particular state because it appears, from my research, to be the state with the lowest degree of punishment for offenders. According to North Dakota Century Code 36-21.1-01, “Cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor with up to $2000 in fines and up to 1 year imprisonment” (North Dakota State Government 1). While this punishment is tangibly hurtful to the offender, it should be worse for the violator of the requirements listed. These include inflictions such as “breaking an animal’s bones; causing the prolonged impairment of an animal’s health; mutilating an animal; or physically torturing an animal” (North Dakota State Government 2). Such activities are not simply horrific—they are indicative of deeper psychological issues that pose a threat to public safety (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 260).
Any protest regarding this subject would need to rely heavily on pathos. Since the animals have no way of speaking for on their own behalf, it should be conveyed that it is a human responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. North Dakotans need to be made aware that the horrors inflicted on animals in their state are not being adequately punished in correlation with the severity of the offense. For the beginning parts of this protest, those involved should utilize the concept of “if it bleeds, it leads”—in other words, show the people what abused animals look like, in order to incite more passion toward the law change (DeLuca and Peeples 193). In doing so, the organizers of the protest can accrue support to move forward.
    Then, protesters should utilize their “body rhetoric”—or, to physically occupy a certain space at a particular point to reach a specific goal (Haiman 24). In this case, protesters should take to the North Dakota state capitol in Bismarck (North Dakota State Government). Lawmakers tend listen to their constituents because their constituents are the ones who decide whether or not they maintain their job. So, the more people to physically show up at the capitol, the better the chances that those in power will pay attention to their requests. If the congressmen in the capitol could see just how many citizens of North Dakota felt passionately about this issue, they would be more likely to introduce it to Congress. This also brings the discussion further into the “public sphere,” where it can be discussed by anyone around—thus creating an atmosphere of collaboration and open conversation (DeLuca and Peeples 200). Once the protesters have made themselves visible, they will need to focus in specifically on the North Dakota congressmen.
    The next part will likely be the most difficult: writing a bill and getting it endorsed. If all the aforementioned phases go as planned, the protest will have to move to a more logistical route. In order for the protest goals to be achieved, the law needs to change—and for that to happen, a congressman or congresswoman will have to sponsor a bill to change said law. In this case, the group will have to collaborate to form and exemplify their “collective identity”—or, “a shared sense of 'we-ness' and 'collective agency'” (Snow 2001). In this phase, protesters must decide how they will portray themselves in this bill—as a collective “we the protesters.” Here, they will need to take hold ethos in utilizing research conducted regarding the poor mental state of those abusing animals. Then, they must gain the attention and endorsement of John Hoeven, Heidi Heitkamp, both Senators, or Kevin Cramer, Representative in the House of Representatives. After this is achieved, protesters have done all they can to ensure the law gets changed.
    1) The purpose of this paragraph is to explain what goals the protesters will accomplish         by writing a bill, and the ways in which they must go about doing such.
    2) congressmen: those in charge of deciding whether their bill will become a law
        the group/protesters: those working toward getting the law changed (also highlighted             in green, since protesters counts as a nominalization).
        those abusing animals: the criminals who would be affected by the law change
    3) This is a chained topic string.
    This protest is legal in that protesters would utilize a system already in place in order to improve said system—that is, the process of lawmaking and amending. I anticipate that if all the proper steps are carried out, this protest would likely be effective in achieving its goals. It is ethical because it uses peaceful methods to move toward its goal, and the goal itself deals with morality and an ethical purpose. Finally, it is legible as protest in that it addresses a certain identity in all phases, with a specific goal throughout. In all, this protest is multifaceted yet specific, with high chances of success.
    1) This conclusion doesn’t repeat information or summarize, but assesses it all as a         whole. I chose this form because it shows the effectiveness and addresses the likely         outcome of the protest I created.




Works Cited

"2015 Annual House Calendar." Majorityleader.gov, Kevin McCarthy.

Allen, Mahalley D. "Laying Down the Law? Interest Group Influence on State Adoption of Animal
     Cruelty Felony Laws." Policy Studies Journal 33.3, 2005.

DeLuca, Michael and Jennifer Peeples. "From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy,
    Activism, and the ‘Violence' of Seattle." Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest,
    Charles E. Morris III and Stephen H. Brown, 3rd ed.

Gleyzer, Roman, MD, Alan R. Felthouse, MD, and Charles E. Holzer III, PhD. "Animal Cruelty
    and Psychiatric Disorders." Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations Merck/
    Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, Animal Cruelty Forensic Supplies,
    2013.

Heaney and Rojas. "Harnessing the Symbolism of Fayetteville".  Springer Science+Business
    Media, 2006.

Griffin, Leland. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social
    Protest, Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris lll, eds. State College, Pa:
    Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Haiman, Franklyn S. "Rhetoric of the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations.”
    Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest, Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E.
    Morris III, eds. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Hill, Gerald, and Kathleen Hill. "Felony." Law.com Legal Dictionary.

North Dakota State Legislators. "CHAPTER 36 - 21.2—TREATMENT OF ANIMALS." North
    Dakota State Government: 1-6, 2015, North Dakota.

Treré, Emiliano. "Reclaiming, Proclaiming, and Maintaining Collective Identity in the #YoSoy132
    Movement in Mexico: An Examination of Digital Frontstage and Backstage Activism
    through Social Media and Instant Messaging Platforms." Information, Communication,
    and Society, Taylor and Francis, 2015.