Court Case 4FA-06-2515CR (State of Alaska vs. Richard D. Lang)

(1)    No remorse has ever been shown on the part of the defendant to anyone whose dogs have been attacked or killed as a result of his actions.  Nor has the defendant ever offered any restitution in order to compensate his previous victims for their dogs veterinarian bills incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s past violent crimes in the community.  Finally, his current defense shows no remorse for the killing of Steve Kraft’s Siberian husky, as witnessed in the last hearing.  The defense even attempted to portray the defendant as a victim and somehow above the law.  This stance is insulting to Alaskans, especially to those whose dogs are a great source of pride and even a way of life.  We are not convinced that the defendant will change his behavior pattern unless he is held accountable for it and prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law.

(2)    All citizens have the right to equal protection of the laws, requiring that all criminal statutes be applied evenhandedly; with no one group being singled out in the application and pursuit of justice through prosecution.  In other words, just because this case involves the illegal killing of a dog, it cannot be singled out, as not worthy of the court’s consideration for full prosecution.  That would imply a measure of discrimination against the victims of this crime on the basis that they were simply dog owners.  Finally, we ask of what value is the life of this companion and working dog to the State, if Alaska will not proceed with a thorough prosecution of this case.

(3)    The defendant should not be eligible for a diversion type plea agreement because he has committed a crime of serious violence.  It makes no difference that the defendant’s victim was a dog.  A crime of violence is just that and should be kept on his record for future reference.  In addition, the defendant has shown that he has a history of uncontrollable violence involving dogs, as documented in multiple complaints to Animal Control and the Alaska State Troopers.  Without a criminal record, the defendant could simply move on to another state and no one in the justice system would have any way of knowing of such former diversion agreements.  Therefore, what may appear as a first-time offense for the current or future prosecution may in fact not be the first.  We do not want such a person moving into and out of our communities and our country without any way for the justice system to track him and without any real deterrent to keep him from committing the same crime again.