Question

Read the following case.

Megan has been arrested for violating a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, on her personal laptop. The case began when a friend of Megan’s noticed that she was viewing videos of chicken fights in her dorm room and complained to the Dean of Students at the state university they both attend. Megan was immediately expelled and removed from campus. Her laptop was confiscated by security and turned over to the State’s Federal Prosecutor. Further investigation led the federal prosecutor to Michael Mills, a producer of films who presented himself as an authority on chickens. Mills compiled and sold videotapes showing chicken fights. Though Mills did not participate in the chicken fights, he was charged under a federal law that banned trafficking in "depictions of animal cruelty."

Answer the following questions.

You have been retained to assist the attorneys for the defendants in the above matter.

A) Did the University handle the matter appropriately and should Megan have been expelled? Why or why not? Does it matter that the university was a state university as opposed to a private university?

B) Discuss all of the criminal and civil issues involved in the case and the arguments of all of the parties involved.

C) Should Megan or Mills be convicted of any crimes? Why or why not?

Answer 1

A) Yes, Megan must be expelled as she had violated an act which was passed by parliament after getting the presidential assent or in simple terms she had violated a law that was against animal cruelty (Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act) and the law states that cruelty against an animal is a federal crime punishable with fines and up to seven years in prison. University has the right to expel any student committing a crime irrespective of Private or State University. Megan can raise this issue in the court of law.

B) Megan can present an argument that she had unintentionally seen this video and had no intention to breach the law. It will depend upon the Counselor to decide the term of punishment as per the law and the same applies to the Mills about punishment decision. They can be awarded a maximum of seven-year prison if proved guilty.

C) Yes, Both Megan and Mills must be convicted to violate the PART Act and the law clearly states that the cruelty against an animal is a federal crime punishable with fines and up to seven years in prison.

This Bill provides an exemption to people who slaughter animals for Food or to those who hunt, trap and fish. But, here Mills has composed a video of the chicken fight and spread it among the public which is nothing but the violation of this law.