Animal cruelty

To the editor: On Aug. 13 I attended the animal cruelty case of Danielle Assante in the Pike County Courthouse in Milford. I attended not as an animal advocate, but as a concerned pet owner who knew and had worked with Danielle in the training of my sheltie, Dante. The case was about Danielle leaving twelve animals home alone for three weeks without food or water. Nine of those animals died - including one puppy. During his summation, the DA defined her behavior as “wanton and cruel.” Webster defines the word wanton as “...senseless, unprovoked, unjustifiable, or deliberately malicious; .reckless or arrogant disregardful of decency.” Judge Joseph Kameen, however, did not agree that her behavior was wanton as he believed she did not intend to kill her animals. Let me get this straight. If I had left a child or bedridden person home alone for a period of time, and that child/person died, then according to Judge Kameen’s reasoning, I should not be charged with murder because I did not “intend” for them to die? He then found her guilty on five out of ten counts of animal cruelty. After the hearing, the Humane Society’s representative said that, at most, she could be given 90 days and a $750 fine for each count but, given Judge Kameen’s opinion, he did not feel she would get any jail time. These animals did not have to die. As a professional animal handler/trainer, Danielle had a community of pet owners and other animal trainers that she could have reached out to for assistance. She chose, instead, to let her animals suffer and die. She deserves harsh punishment; she deserves to spend time in jail. However, until judges who hear animal cruelty cases believe that animals are not disposable, and that they do suffer from mistreatment (whether intended or not), then these animals, and countless others, will have died in vain. Nancie Bozza Rockaway, N.J.