A federal judge has sentenced three animal rights activists to four to six years in prison and ordered them to help pay more than $1 million in restitution for inciting violence and terror against Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract research organization in the U.S. and U.K. that has long been the target of militant animal rights groups. Three other defendants await sentencing within the next two weeks.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson in Trenton, NJ, sentenced Kevin Kjonaas, former president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA Inc. (SHAC-USA), to 72 months in jail. Lauren Gazzola, SHAC-USA's former campaign coordinator, was sentenced to 52 months, while Jacob Conroy, who served as the group's coordinator and Web site manager, got 48 months. Each will be on three years of supervised probation after serving their terms. As the group's former leader, Kjonaas was ordered to serve a
minimum of 60 months in jail.
SHAC-USA, as an organization, was ordered to pay about $1 million in restitution, fined $2,400, and placed on five years of probation. Because the organization is considered virtually defunct, the three defendants are required to participate in paying the restitution.
"On behalf of the dozens of victims whose lives were turned upside-down by the actions of these activists, we are gratified by these sentencings," Mike Caulfield, Huntingdon Life Sciences-USA (HLS-USA) general manager, told The Scientist.
Six SHAC members had been found guilty in March of various counts relating to animal enterprise terrorism, conspiracy, interstate stalking, and other crimes against employees and officers of HLS-USA in East Millstone, NJ. It was the first prosecution under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a 1992 law that was expanded in 2002 to equate acts of harassment and intimidation with terrorism.
Joshua Harper, SHAC's West Coast coordinator, who was found guilty of two counts, is scheduled to be sentenced today, while Andrew Stepanian and Darius Fullmer, who were each found guilty of one count, will be sentenced next week.
HLS victims testified their homes had been vandalized and their cars overturned. SHAC and its organizers routinely posted personal information about HLS employees on the Internet, including the names and ages of their children and where the children attended school. Defense lawyers unsuccessfully argued that the SHAC members had merely been exercising free speech. Kjonaas's lawyer, Robert Stahl, said the convictions would be appealed.
SHAC claimed on a Web site it runs about the trial that the case "is the latest in an onslaught of attacks against domestic dissedents (sic) under the guise of fighting terrorism" and "is intended to pave the way for further silencing of activists involved in all issues."
Jacquie Calnan, president of Americans for Medical Progress, a research advocacy group, told The Scientist that she is pleased with the sentences. "But we need additional legislation to cover future cases in which scientists, research companies, business partners, and their families can all be protected against a conspiracy of violence, such as this one was," she said.
Last week, Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill (S 3880) to expand protection for researchers by outlawing economic damage against "animal enterprises," which include organizations involved in academic and commercial research and testing. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, as it is called, also provides a graduated scale of prison time and fines for those found guilty of harassing, intimidating, trespassing against or vandalizing the property of anyone associated with animal research.
"Our bipartisan legislation will provide law enforcement the tools they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals," said Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which held two hearings on the topic this year. "This is terrorism and must not be tolerated," Inhofe said in a statement last week.
The new bill is a substitute for pending legislation (S 1926 and HR 4239), but has been amended to address free speech and other concerns. Similar in some ways to legislation regulating protests at abortion clinics, the new bill expressly protects such First Amendment activities as peaceful picketing, demonstrations, and "lawful boycotts"
against animal enterprises. It also substitutes life imprisonment for the death penalty should an offense result in the death of an individual.
Inhofe and Feinstein are seeking to streamline passage of their new bill before Congress adjourns at the end of the month. An Inhofe aide told The Scientist that staffers plan to make the House and Senate versions of the new bill identical to avoid having to reconcile differences later.
Ted Agres
tagres@the-scientist.com
Links within this article
Huntingdon Life Sciences
http://www.huntingdon.com/
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA
http://www.shac7.com/updates.htm
T. Agres, "Animal rights activists found guilty," The Scientist, March 3, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23185/
Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl102346.htm
The SHAC 7
http://www.shac7.com/case.htm
Americans for Medical Progress
www.amprogress.org
Press Release: Inhofe-Feinstein Introduce Bi-Partisan Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=262681
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (Introduced in Senate) S. 1926
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1926:
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (Introduced in House) HR 4239
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.4239:
Advertisement
Rate this article
|
The News |
|||||||
Register for FREE Online Access
- »Current issue
- »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
- »Daily news and monthly contents emails
Subscribe to the Magazine
- »Monthly print issues
- »Unlimited online access
- »Special offers on books, apparel, and more
[Comment posted 2006-09-16 12:33:25]
[Comment posted 2006-09-15 21:53:22]
David Ruffieux, Canada
www.cah-research.com
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 18:12:08]
Freedom of speech is one thing. The use of violence and the threat of violence to terrorise people is quite another. This form of organised crime should be treated just like any other - idealogical fervor is not an excuse.
If the the animal rights movement has a valid message, it will succeed through democratic process. If the message is false, it will fail. Through the use of violence and threats thereof, SHAC already seem to have acknowledged defeat. But it's not "Big Pharma" that deated them. It's the false message.
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 18:11:49]
Animal-rights is like intelligent design with terrorism. It is profoundly anti-science in its world-view.
There is a place for religion and a place for moral concern about animals, but when these or any forms of thought are used to deny and deceive about science, society must demonstrate its support for science or lose it altogether.
For human civilisation to turn its back on honest science and seek to make it a slave to serve ideological purposes, religious or secular, is a thought to make any sane person blanche.
Moral concerns about animals must be given all due attention and then weighed in the balance with moral concerns about humans.
Science must not be distorted or attacked because it says things that some people do not like. Moral judgements must be made by taking into account the best scientific knowledge we have, and that means taking account of the fact that animal experiments can save human lives and prevent terrible human suffering.
Human society must choose whether to put humans before other animals or not. Abusing science and scientists will not help society to make the correct moral decision. Moral concern for non-human animals is noble; but no less so is the concern for human health, human science and human democracy.
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 17:50:03]
As ever, the anti-test movement has no argument and knows it, and so resorts to an admixture of wild unsupported claims, citations from soi-disant experts and empty threats. The sad thing is that some people are actually taken in by this nonsense.
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 13:27:14]
Animal research is one of the crucial tools (along side tissue culture, computer modelling etc) for medical progress. We all look forward to the day when it is no longer necessary, but until suitable alternatives can provide equally valid data, those scientists and researchers seeking to alleviate human pain and suffering should be protected from the (undemocratic) illegal actions of fanatical extremists - whether animal rights activists, anti-abortionists or religious fundementalists.
Extremist action in the UK has opened the public's eyes regarding animal rights and medical research, resulting in grassroots support such as Pro-Test and the People's Petition. The atmosphere (media, public approval etc) has utterly transformed as the debate has become more open - come on America, stand up for your scientists!
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 12:14:49]
New laws and better law enforcement are however not enough. Scientists and their supporters must be more willing to discuss animal research in public and explain why their work is important and necessary, and also to debunk the myths and distortions spread by the antivivisectionist movement. This can be done in cooperation with Pro-research groups such as AMP, but you can also write articles and letters to newspapers, popular science journals, online forums etc.
It is common for those targeted by extremists to feel isolated by their colleagues and left to deal with the extremists on their own. This must change. The Pro-Test movement in Oxford has shown how it is possible to rally support for those threatened by AV extremists. It's time for supporters of medical research in the US to learn from Pro-Test and provide grassroots support for their colleagues by getting together and signing petitions, holding public meetings, and even going on marches.
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 10:08:11]
Moreover, most of the 'new' drugs are duplicates of those already avaialble, for illnesses that could be prevented, or imaginary illnesses that Big Pharma has dreamt up. Animal testing is a relic of the dark ages, and as scientific as alchemy. The recent case of the TGN1412 trials is an example of the dangers of vivisection.
I support the ALF and wish it every success in all that it does.
[Comment posted 2006-09-14 03:21:54]