Feeding Fido: The Case for Restitution in Ohio Animal Cruelty Convictions

Authors

Mary Walsh, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

First Page

417

Abstract

This Note reviews Ohio animal cruelty convictions and makes an argument that restitution should be paid in those cases to the caretakers of the seized animals. First, this Note walks through the changing status of animals under the law from strictly property to the first anti-cruelty statutes imposed in Ohio. There is further discussion of what restitution means in cases like anti-cruelty and why it matters. The discussion then turns to why the current allowed financial sanctions are not enough to pay the fees required in housing and taking care of seized animals. Several cases in Ohio where restitution was ordered, or the order was reversed, are laid out to show the impact that cost and restitution have on the organizations that care for these animals. The Note concludes with a recommendation to the Ohio Supreme Court to make sure that restitution is ordered and upheld, as appellate courts in Ohio have a history of overturning trial court orders of restitution.

Recommended Citation

Mary Walsh, Feeding Fido: The Case for Restitution in Ohio Animal Cruelty Convictions, 26 Animal L. Rev. 417 (2020).
Available at: https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol26/iss2/6