Letter to the Editor: The cat thing

Being a criminal defense attorney, it seems only right that I share a few of the criminal cases before our local courts; the citizens of our community should always be informed as much as possible of current policy and government activity that may affect them. Such is the case with a person I know, whether professionally or otherwise need not be discussed, who was charged with animal abuse for leaving a cat in a residence (with open window) having been evicted by the landlord for, presumably, nonpayment of rent.

The defendant in this matter is thrown out on the street by the landlord, and then prosecuted by the State of Iowa for not taking a cat with him. The landlord is not being prosecuted for human abuse, the ex-tenant is being prosecuted for animal abuse — for leaving the cat.

Now, don’t get in a toot and conclude that I’m in favor of cat abuse (although I will say the world has too many cats). One does not have to be in favor of cat abuse to wonder about the disparity here. Afterall, it is not clear if the landlord actually evicted the cat. The cat may not have had to depart the premises as did the human; and if this is the case, it would seem that prosecuting the human for leaving the cat would be premature. The facts regarding this situation are unclear.

One ought to be familiar with the situation where a cat or cats share an abode with humans and do pretty much what they please when they please. This is especially true with farm cats and cats of more rural areas. The idea, to the cat, that it is owned by a human, has no purchase. Ergo, any forceful entry and detainer evicting a human from a residence may have no effect on the feline resident — it is not the one being evicted; there is nothing in the paperwork naming the cat as the evictee or as a defendant in the legal proceeding affecting the human.

Now you say, the tenant left the cat without food. Okay, fair enough. The cat and the human are now in the same situation if both leave the premises. Neither has a place to sleep and both have to go out and find something to eat. Determining that the human has to find something for himself to eat and at the same time find something for the cat to eat seems a little unfair. The cat and human both this time of year can find nice fat crickets to eat and the cat can catch a mouse or two while the human may have some difficulty in that regard. And they both will have the same dumpsters to check for thrown away food to share. So it actually may be that the cat is better off than the human when it comes to dining after eviction; and if this is so, the idea of prosecuting the human for animal abuse seems unjustified altogether.

As I indicated above, this article is simply an effort to inform the local citizenry of local legal issues. It is always good to be informed of these matters so that one’s conduct can be in conformity with local expectations — if evicted, take the cat.

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo