Group protests animal cruelty penalties

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

Although state law currently doesn’t consider cruelty to animals as a violent crime, a group of passionate animal lovers paraded in front of the Van Wert County Courthouse on Thursday to express their opinions on the matter, and to seek justice for the canine victim of a beating that occurred last month. 

Protestors held up a variety of signs, among them ones that stated “Animal Cruelty is Violent”, “Stop Animal Cruelty”, and “Animal Abuse is a Felony, Make the Time Fit the Crime”. The majority of signs, however, sought “Justice for Carl”, the dog who was abducted from his residence and allegedly tied up by Elisha “Jake” Secrist. After tying up Carl, Secrist then reportedly beat the dog severely, smashing him repeatedly in the head nd muzzle area with a large rock.

Although Secrist is facing a fifth-degree felony charge of cruelty to a companion animal, local resident Kirsten Barnhart, whose stepbrother is Carl’s owner, organized Thursday’s protest because of what she says are inequities in the current state laws regarding sentencing on animal cruelty charges.

Barnhart noted that, according to Goddard’s Law, which was adopted in 2016, someone convicted of the charge of cruelty to a companion animal can face up to 12 months in prison. However, under a state measure adopted to keep non-violent offenders out of state prisons, animal cruelty charges are not considered crimes of violence. 

That means Secrist, if convicted of the charge, would serve a maximum of 180 days (six months) in the county jail, rather than a longer term in prison, and could possibly spend even less jail time than that.

The reason Secrist would face a jail sentence rather than prison is the state’s Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison (T-CAP) program, which provides financial incentives to local courts to sentence non-violent offenders to county jails, rather than to prison. And while Goddard’s Law provides for a sentence of up to a year in prison, T-CAP excludes animal cruelty from the definitions of violent crimes under the program. 

Barnhart said she feels the law needs to be changed, since, in her mind and that of many others, cruelty to animals can be very violent. Carl would likely agree, if he could talk, since the dog suffered significant injuries, including bleeding from the mouth, nose, and eyes, and brain trauma, from the beating, according to Barnhart, and is still not fully recovered from his injuries, which cost more than $3,000 in veterinarian’s fees.

“It was extremely violent; I can’t see how anybody would think it was not,” she noted.

Barnhart added that there is even a possibility that Secrist, if he enters a guilty plea during a hearing set for Friday in Common Pleas Court, could be freed after serving the 35 days he has already spent in jail, according to a conversation she had with Assistant County Prosecutor Steven Diller, who is handling the case.

“So, we don’t want that, we want him to stay for the entire 180 days, and also like him to seek mental health treatment, because he’s truly got something wrong,” Barnhart noted.

In addition to the current animal cruelty charge, Secrist has been charged in the past with minor drug offenses, as well as a domestic violence charge in January of this year.

To let Common Pleas Judge Martin D. Burchfield know how she and other protestors feel about sentencing for Secrist, Barnhart said she planned to hand-deliver a letter to the judge on Thursday that also includes a petition that includes 2,500 signatures.

Barnhart is also asking area residents to contact their state legislators to seek reclassification of animal cruelty as a violent crime and add it to the list of T-CAP violent crime definitions.