Politicians say: enough! They want tougher penalties for animal abuse
Lower penalties than for property damage
Veterinarian Siri Martinsen from the NOAH organization supports the change. She claims that the current upper penalty limit is too low. She emphasizes that the maximum penalty of three years has never been applied in full. She also points out that higher sanctions may influence the priorities of law enforcement agencies. In her opinion, raising the limit is important as a signal.
The topic attracts the interest of animal rights organizations.Photo: stock.adobe.com/standard license
Court practice and Økokrim's position
The institution supports raising the maximum penalty. It believes this will give courts more flexibility in sentencing. Bastholm emphasizes that the threshold for recognizing an act as serious will remain high. In her opinion, a higher limit will allow penalties to be better matched to the scale of the violation.
An example is a case from western Norway involving serious abuse of dogs. A man committed sexual crimes against animals over a long period. The case was considered one of the most serious of its kind. Despite the scale of the acts, the court imposed a sentence of 16 months in prison. The case is cited as an argument in the debate on tougher penalties.