A 25-Year Prison Sentence for Beating Up a Dog Is Not Justice
Frank Javier Fonseca's punishment, which may amount to a life sentence, is a microcosm for many of the issues with the U.S. criminal legal system.
"The only, absolute and best friend that a man has, in this selfish world, the only one that will not betray or deny him, is his Dog," King Frederick of Prussia is reported to have said in 1789. There's a reason we still say something like that today, and it's because you can't say the same thing about people. Like Frank Javier Fonseca, a Texas man caught on video punching and kicking his Rottweiler, Buddy, for getting out of the yard.
In early February 2019, a passerby filmed Fonseca as he punched his dog on his porch. He kicked and choked him and hit him with a piece of wood. The video was shared with Animal Care Services (ACS) of San Antonio, which questioned Fonseca, who told them that that was his way of disciplining Buddy. The dog was removed from Fonseca's home, aided to a full recovery, and placed with a new family that presumably has a better handle on obedience training.
Fonseca, meanwhile, will spend the next 25 years in prison. While I love dogs as much as the next person, this is not justice. Fonseca's sentence for beating up his pet—which was his property under Texas law—grossly exceeds most punishments Texas dispenses for those convicted of assaulting a human being. Defendants found guilty of an assault causing physical harm face up to a year in prison. When the alleged victim is a government official, security officer, emergency services worker, family member, or date, that punishment may be anywhere from two to 10 years behind bars. And when someone brandishes a deadly weapon and causes serious physical harm, they may land behind bars for anywhere from two to 20 years.
The city of San Antonio boasted about forcing taxpayers to house Fonseca in a steel cage for the next 25 years—for $22,751 annually, well over half a million dollars total—for losing his temper and beating an animal. It "is one of the longest punishments for animal cruelty ever recorded in the state of Texas," Lisa Norwood, the public relations and outreach manager for ACS, said in a statement.
Taxpayers will subsidize Fonseca's living arrangements for longer than someone who assaults a disabled or elderly person, longer than someone who assaults their mother, longer than someone who takes a knife and inflicts serious, lasting physical damage to another human being, which the city of San Antonio acknowledges is not the case even with Buddy, who recovered from his injuries. It is also a considerably longer sentence than most receive for rape, which in Texas is capped at 20 years without aggravating factors. Fonseca's sentence is even longer than many defendants receive for murder.
So why is Fonseca, 56, getting what amounts to a life sentence for hurting his dog? While Norwood's statement suggests this is about sending a message to other dog punchers, the government says Fonseca had felony priors for crimes of retaliation and drug possession.
It's difficult to argue with a straight face that a years-old drug possession conviction should be used to increase his sentence for hurting Buddy. Fonseca's consumption habits may harm himself, but invoking that offense at sentencing is not about keeping San Antonio safe. It is about securing a sentence that would otherwise be impermissible under the law. Access to that kind of leverage is one of the primary reasons law enforcement groups oppose ending the war on drugs.
And while the same cannot be said for "crimes of retaliation," in which people threaten government workers, Fonseca had already paid his debt to society for that, just as he had for possessing drugs. It's certainly reasonable to consider a criminal defendant's history at sentencing—someone who assaults people over and over again, for example, should not receive the same sentence each time.
But even if you find animal cruelty to be abhorrent, as I do, a decades-long prison term is not the appropriate response to all objectionable behavior—something we often forget in the context of the U.S. system, which is utterly addicted to lengthy prison terms. Desensitized bystanders may view Fonseca's punishment as normal. It shouldn't be.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And while the same cannot be said for "crimes of retaliation," in which people threaten government workers, Fonseca had already paid his debt to society for that, just as he had for possessing drugs. It's certainly reasonable to consider a criminal defendant's history at sentencing—someone who assaults people over and over again, for example, should not receive the same sentence each time.
It is not about just assaulting people. It is about a pattern of violence and failure to control himself. The guy has threatened people and went after this person's dog for no apparent reason. I would say he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. Is 25 years too long? Probably. But when you consider this guy is now a three time loser and this is the second time he has been convicted of a violent crime, locking him up is hardly an injustice.
and if you do own a dog, give it away today for free.
no idea how this became a response to you sorry.
I am a student and I do work part time on this website to meet my needs. One who is jobless or want to earn more money for himself, (res-12) should must try this because this is really very easy and less time consuming and also advantageous without investing any amount.
.
SEE MORE:>>>> https://googlejobs0945.netlify.app/
Happens to all of us for some reason.
A couple corrections. "The guy has threatened people" - technically true but based on the elements of the crime, the threatened people were government workers. Knowing what most government workers are like, I'm not willing to simply take the prosecutor's word that the threats were unjustified.
Second, he didn't go after "this person's dog" for "no reason", he went after his own dog in an attempt to discipline the dog. He was wrong (including criminally wrong) to do so but that does not make him a danger to society. It made him a danger to his dog.
By all means, take away the dog. And maybe some punishment appropriate to the abuse. But getting a sentence that's an order of magnitude larger than others get for assaulting a human? That is not justice. That's just irrational.
Personally, I chuckled that the misconception about "went after this person's dog for no apparent reason" makes it seem like Briggs is chastising Norwood rather than Fonseca.
By all means, take away the dog.
Let's say rather than disciplining a dog without any intent to kill or even maybe permanently injure, Fonseca was wringing a chicken's neck with the full intent to kill it. How would taking the chicken away be anything other than theft?
You people claim to want smaller government but then you want to torture the definitions of law and rights and equality every bit as much at the retards who can't define what a woman is and define bees as fish.
Your pet cause isn't special. Fuck you. Cut spending.
"Your pet cause isn't special. Fuck you. Cut spending."
Damn this is hitting the nail on the head. Definitely gonna use it
Not mine. Hopefully you have better luck using it than those of us who used it the first(?) time around.
He deserves to be publicly executed.
I'll do it for free.
It's not too long.
Let the dog's owner kill him.
"...the government says Fonseca had felony priors for crimes of retaliation and drug possession."
So this isn't "a 25 year prison sentence for beating up a dog". This is a 25-year prison sentence for a third felony conviction.
What? The original story contained a Lie of Omission?
Imagine that from a Lying Libertarian organization like "Reason"
Reason isn’t libertarian.
Ugh. This is exactly why the Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons agenda is so important. I bet this guy would provide years of cost-effective labor for Koch Industries. Instead he's going to waste that time behind bars. 🙁
#CheapLaborAboveAll
I don't know about 25 years - but I saw the headline and wondered, "does this guy have a felony record?" Checking the article I found that he does.
Shocking how being a repeat felon causes people to throw te book at you.
He is being punished for criminality, not crime. One may question whether 25 years is appropriate for criminality, but it's not about the instant crime.
Is he being punished, or is he being removed from society for being an ongoing danger to the public and to pets.
Some Americans just need to be kept in prison if society is to be safe from their criminality and violent behavior.
Most of those people are self professed Libertarians.
>>which was his property under Texas law
never own a dog.
Yes, dogs are property, and under Libertarian ideology the owner has the right to torture his animals.
The defense of the torture of animals is a key aspect of Libertarianism.
Uh, no.
Hey, at least the cops didn't shoot the dog?
This is what you get when Judges and Prosecutors are elected positions. Several years ago there was a series of rapes near where I worked. There was a $1500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the rapist. While they were looking for the rapist, there was a cat that was shot several times with paintball guns. The cat wasn't seriously injured, but, it's fur was stained. There were several media reports and updates on the cat, there was very little about the rapes. There was a $10,000 reward for whoever shot the cat.
Holy Shit, Reason gets a story about doggos right and, of course, the commentariate has to come out with their crypto-PETA religiosity.
So, could Animal Care Services wade through the local slaughterhouse handing out 3rd strikes to all the felons working there? Fuck the humans, those cattle have rights too, right?
When everything's a right, nothing is a right. When everything's got a right, nothing's got a right.
dogs are cattle.
Dogs are property. My or Fonseca's treating a dog as inhuman isn't a threat to you or *your* dog. The same can't be said for people who don't respect Fonseca's property rights and treat people worse than dogs.
It's really not that difficult but everybody's got a pet cause and nobody wants to hear "Fuck you. Cut spending."
>>treating a dog as inhuman isn't a threat to you or *your* dog
not at all. just makes you or Fonseca an asshole and especially subject to my freedom to not associate
Again, the choice or issue isn't between assholes and no assholes, it's between assholes who agree with and respect your freedom not to associate and assholes who don't.
we don't disagree here. we disagree dogs & cattle are the same. until tomorrow ...
I didn't say dogs and cattle are the same. You did.
I was saying dogs and humans and cattle are categorically different from one another and the distinctions between dogs and cattle are moot relative to the distinction between humans and the others. If I said my car needs an oil change, my dog and cows don't. The deduction that dogs = cattle from that premise is between false and non-sequitur.
The only way you get to dogs are cattle is via the same anti-human, anti-property, anti-rational, oxymoronic post modern rhetoric of 'bees are fish' and 'women are men'.
Slaves were not people either, but property.
Are you advocating a return to the policy?
Dogs are property. Cats are free animals. I love English common law!
He didn’t get 25 years for animal cruelty, he got 25 years for a third violent felony conviction.
Those who torture and beat animals, are worthy only of immediate death.
Justice would be letting dogs at him for an equal amount of time.
No it wouldn't. You'd have to restrain him, which no 3rd party restrained the dog, otherwise he'd just beat the shit out of the dog again.
This 'justice on behalf of animals' bullshit is more insidiously stupid than the gender nonsense.
Don't like the way he treats his dog. Buy the dog off of him or wait until it ventures onto public property, which it did, and then treat it as you see fit. Not a preferred option but not necessarily critically objectionable by libertarian standards: share the video of him abusing his dogs with his neighbors. Otherwise, you're just using the dog and/or the justice system to treat him as something other than human.
Fuck that.
Shoot him and take the dog.
"Shoot people because their stuff deserves to be free and/or treated the way *we* think it should be treated." sounds exceedingly socialist.
Socialism had nothing to do with it. People don’t want to associate with people who abuse animals, because that is an indication of serious psychological problems.
In a libertarian society, someone like this guy would be banished from most private property. His life would be worse than prison.
People don’t want to associate with people who abuse animals, because that is an indication of serious psychological problems.
You're seriously invoking McDonald's triad? You might as well be saying the guy's probably a serial killer because he's middle aged and white.
What a joke.
I'm not "invoking" anything. I'm explaining to you why these laws are on the books.
Really?
An elderly woman has a dog. The dog isn't feeling well so she takes it to a Vet. The Vet diagnosis that dog as terminal and wants $600 to put the dog down. The woman says "No" and takes the dog home. A few weeks later the dog is in bad shape, so a neighbor takes the dog and shoots it in the head to put it out of it's misery. The Vet doesn't call Local Animal Services, the Vet calls the ASPCA. The woman is threatened with jail by an officer of the organization that somehow has arrest powers. The DA laughs the officer out of his office when he's told why she should be prosecuted. Did the woman "abuse" the animal? Did the Neighbor abuse the animal? What about the Vet calling the ASPCA on the woman because he wanted $600 for a $3 shot?
By the way I was the neighbor.
Having worked at a rural vet, let me tell you thank you for putting that dog out of its misery and apologize for that stupid-ass vet. The vet I worked for would have thanked you too.
It was an act of kindness and you were braver than most, who would rather let their animals bleed out internally, slowly and miserably, then even let us euthanize them humanely.
I saw the vet I worked for euthanize suffering animals for free all the time if the person couldn't afford it. If that vet really cared, he would have done the same instead of enlisting the state to bully an old woman and her neighbor.
Yes, and that is not considered animal cruelty. Neither is killing animals for food considered animal cruelty.
Repeatedly kicking and beating a dog, on the other hand, that is animal cruelty.
You illustrate very nicely that even intellectually challenged people intuitively understand many moral distinctions. Congratulations!
The ASPCA agent wanted me charged with "animal cruelty". If we would have had the DA that we had a few years earlier I would have been charged.
The whole question is "What is the status of animals?" Are they property or something different? If they are different, it needs to be defined.
No, that is not the whole question. The question that is relevant to other people is what kind of person you are, and that reveals itself through your actions. Cruelty to animals is incompatible with a civilized society, and one way or another, a functioning society will punish you for such acts. You apparently weren't motivated by cruelty, which is why people let it slide. If you killed dogs because you enjoy it, society would (and should) throw the book at you, either through legal punishment or through ostracism.
Remind yourself of that when the rapist is busy with your 8 year old daughter.
Laws prohibiting animal cruelty are not about any fictitious animal rights, they are about identifying and removing people who are a danger to other humans.
Sure. And the war on drugs is to prevent marijuana users from becoming violent fiends.
Your description of a 'a libertarian society' is eerie inasmuch as everyone agrees with you and behaves the way you want them too, much like any other CRT or gender progressive talks about their perceived societies, rather than an actual libertarian society where people readily disagree with you but don't give a shit as long as you aren't hurting anyone or breaking stuff that doesn't belong to you.
You aren't a libertarian, you're just yet another moralizing social progressive with a different flavor of agenda.
I have no doubt that it is "eerie" to you. As I keep saying: a libertarian society is a conservative society in which private mechanisms enforce social conformance.
Progressives want proper social behavior imposed through the state. Libertarians want proper social behavior imposed through private mechanisms and freedom of association. I'm a libertarian.
You, on the other hand, want to maximize your individual freedom to choose and to act, and you want the state to protect you from the social consequences of your choices. That makes you a simple, run of the mill communist, because that's what the communist utopia looks like.
Just to be clear, when I say:
I don't mean that normatively. Hypothetically, a libertarian society\ could be a society in which wild sex, drugs, alternative lifestyles, and many other personal choices are widely practiced. That is what many "libertarians" imagine will happen. But in practice, things do not work out that way, because such a society would simply not function.
In practice, a libertarian society can only exist when strong state restrictions on individual behavior are replaced with even stronger private and social restrictions on individual behavior.
Exactly
Police - shot dogs regularly with no penalty.
This guy abuses his dog - 25 years in prison.
I wonder why people have no trust in our government institutions. 2 priors doesn't mean shit here. Take the dog away. Case closed. JFC people.
shoot, not shot
2 prior felony convictions*
Yeah, I was going to say, if this guy was a cop, he'd have gotten a medal. I'm 100% fine with letting this sentence stand if we can put cops in prison for shooting dogs. Don't come onto my property and shoot my dog.
You have been lied to by the article.
The scumbag wasn't jailed for 25 for beating his dog, but for the beating being his third serious criminal charge.
When you read anything in a Libertarian publication, sensible people realize that they are being lied to.
If it was my dog, he would of gotten the death penalty.
We live in a country of irrational dog worshippers that put the needs and rights of animals above those of human beings. It is a full blown cultural obsession that causes otherwise rational people to ignore the impact their choices have on those around them. If you own a dog, ask yourself to what degree your dog makes life worse for those around you. Bet you never stopped to think about the safety risks (especially to kids), the trauma suffered by hundreds of thousands of kids every year, the noise pollution, the dog shit you know you don’t clean up every time. Your dog makes your neighborhood a shittier place to live. Don’t believe me? Go ask your neighbors what they really think of your fur baby. My answer, fuck you and your little dog too.
Maybe instead of going to prison, the scumbag can live with you.
Are you going to cough up the $22K/yr. for the next 25 yrs.?
"ask yourself to what degree your dog makes life worse for those around you"
My dog makes like infinitely better for people around it than your worthless existence does.
Animal abuse is a strong indicator of psychopathy and violent tendencies. That is why societies come down hard on people who abuse animals.
That has nothing to do with whether one likes or dislikes dogs; even people who dislike dogs don’t abuse them.
"We live in a country of irrational dog worshippers that put the needs and rights of animals above those of human beings."
Excellent. That aspect of your nation is Rational, and moral.
You apparently are neither.
You are as vile and immoral as the people who kill/hurt animals for fun.
I support long prison sentences for people who abuse animals.
First the dog, then people. BTW, anyone who fucks with my dog? God help them.
This is how libertarians will win over people: being apologists for people who abuse their pets.
Libertarians can never win over anyone with an IQ above the mean.
Everyone with an IQ over 50 recognizes it as unworkable, irrational, Immoral, and a perpetual failure.
Well, that certainly excludes you.
"A 25-Year Prison Sentence for Beating Up a Dog Is Not Justice" sounds like something Don Corleone would say in the opening of The Godfather.
Maybe the sentence is so long because it's in dog years?
If beating up a dog leads to a 25 year sentence, shouldn't Fauci be prosecuted for killing a bunch of beagle puppies, by putting their head in a cage with sand flies that ate their faces off while alive? Fauci said this was allegedly for medical research. Yeah, sadistic experiments in depraved abuse of animals. It's not going to help with the problem of Fauci enjoying his torture of dogs.
YEAH! And whutabout Biden conniving in the postnatal abortion of a deeply faithful, religious, God-fearing and altruistic al-Qurayshi. So where are the Tea-Party Trumpanzees protesting the senseless martyrdom inflicted by Team Blue?
Your question should be more general. Is animal lab experimentation moral?
In my opinion it can only be moral if the animal does not suffer, and the research is essential, limited, can not be conducted any other way, and is conducted with the least sentient animals possible.
Preferably Libertarians and Republicans.
It is not justice -- it is not nearly enough. Life without parole seems appropriate.
The first six flights to the moon were committed in just 3 years, how long would it take to get to moon. Recently, you can observe a lot of conversations around repeated projects that are developed for testing on the lunar surface using new technologies and new goals.
“he punched his dog on his porch. He kicked and choked him and hit him with a piece of wood.”
He admitted this was his usual practice and a vet examine confirmed a history of the abuse.
Sorry, but he deserves every one of those 9,000 days
JFC, we have a story on Reason where a mother and pregnant daughter effectively induced labor at 28 weeks, may've given birth to a live baby, which they buried and set on fire and Reason's saying they should've used encryption to get away with the whole thing.
But here, a guy beats his dog in plain view of the public and the furry white knights are out to make sure he serves every minute of his rightly deserved 25 yr. sentence.
I'm beginning to think the greenies are right, this planet needs a purge.
Killing babies just send them to paradise in Heaven with your God.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
The dog-bullier will get no more sympathy from me than from Everett True (of cartoon fame). But who knows? Maybe he will be treated with proper kindness by fellow inmates in search of a punching bag to work off karmic resentment at being caged for completely victimless crimes.
I don't care for animal abuse and those who commit it, but, here's the question. Is an animal considered property under the Law? If not, what is it's status? If it is property, how can this be considered a violent crime? If I go to an auction and buy a rare vase for $1 million, pay the auction house for it and then throw it down and smash it on the floor of my home, have I committed a "crime"? There are people who will say that I did, but, if I didn't insure it or didn't file an insurance claim, I broke no laws.
Those of you say "If he did that to my dog." That's a different issue entirely. He's damaging or destroying your property.
The problem here is public perception. The Prosecutor wants to get reelected or to seek a higher office. There's no way he wants the "political fallout" if he goes easy on this guy. The Judge is in the same boat. That's the real problem here. We live in a society where more outrage is generated by a cat getting stained fur, than by a serial rapist. Ever notice how that outrage goes away when it isn't a "cute" animal? Pittsburgh has streaming video of a Bald Eagle nest. For years the animal lovers have been gushing over it. Last year one of the Eagles brought a cat to the nest to feed their young. You would have thought a bomb went off by the comments.
"he punched his dog on his porch. He kicked and choked him and hit him with a piece of wood" THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DISCIPLINE A DOG! That is abuse and if that dog was a person Fonseca would be in jail for TWICE AS LONG. If you are willing to BEAT A DEFENSELESS ANIMAL than you don't deserve the animal and you should be put away for that abuse. What starts with an animal moves to humans. If I had seen the abuse I would have put the POS down for it and taken the dog away.
Perhaps Fonseca can train his abusive skills with some of the guys in his cell block. Maybe even train that sphincter muscle REAL GOOD!
If he looks for sympathy here, he's barking up the wrong tree.
He should have been publicly executed.
Bring him to me. I'll make sure it's done painfully.
It didn't take long for you to reveal yourself as the psychopath you are.
BILLY BINION is just another Libertarian liar.