SOUNDING OFF:

I am writing in response to your article pertaining to the discovery of dismembered animal parts on the beaches and in residential neighborhoods of Newport Beach (“Beheaded animals found,” April 8).

Lt. Craig Fox’s statement that the matter was “not of great concern to [Newport Beach Police Department] from a law enforcement standpoint” evinces a lack of knowledge about the very law he is charged by the state to uphold and enforce.

Apparently Fox is unfamiliar with Penal Code section 597(a), which provides in relevant part:

“...every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

The assumption that religious practices such as animal torture deserve constitutional protection is appalling. As discussed in “God vs. the Gavel Religion and the Rule of Law,” by Marci A. Hamilton, this assumption has led to medical neglect, abandonment and abuse of children, and clearly the ongoing torture of animals.

The Supreme Court in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, (1993) 508 U.S. 520, found that Hialeah acted unconstitutionally when it attempted to outlaw the “sacrifice” of animals. As Hamilton writes, “the language of the statute made it clear to the court that the city was not engaged in a neutral lawmaking effort, but rather was targeting the one group [the Santerians] in its jurisdiction that believed in the sacrifice of animals as part of its religious rituals.”

Lest there be any confusion, it was Hialeah’s “singling out” of one religion that made the statute unconstitutional.

California’s Penal Code section 597(a) does not “single out” any one group. Instead, section 597(a) makes it a crime for any person to intentionally maim, mutilate or torture a living animal. Thus, the neutrality of California’s law is indeed constitutional, and I would argue that this law should be used to stop the Santerians from committing these egregious and barbaric acts against animals.

Contrary to Fox’s apathetic statement, the issue of killing and torturing animals, whether it be in the name of religion or not, should be of great concern to not only the Newport Beach Police Department, but to all residents.

KELLY BROELOW DUNAGAN lives in Fullerton.