Animal abusers often punished only on paper in Latvia

In Latvia, several dozen criminal proceedings for cruel treatment of animals are initiated each year, but only a portion reach trial. According to data from the Zemgale District Prosecutor's Office, about 35% of cases result in community service, probation supervision, or a temporary ban on keeping animals, while actual imprisonment is imposed in only a quarter of cases. These figures highlight deficiencies in the system's ability to effectively protect animals.

Last year, over 50 criminal cases were opened under Article 230 of the Criminal Law on cruelty to animals, and 29 cases in the first six months of this year. Court practice shows significant disparities in sentences for similar offenses. For instance, an attempt to set a bull terrier on a street cat initially resulted in 200 hours of community service, but the appellate court acquitted the person. In another case, stabbing a dog with a knife and striking it with a metal rod while intoxicated led to nine months' imprisonment, while killing a two-month-old kitten resulted in short-term imprisonment, probation, and community service.

A Norstat Latvia survey found that 50% of respondents consider current penalties too lenient; 47% support a lifetime ban on keeping animals, and 45% cite imprisonment as appropriate. Meanwhile, 40% admitted lacking information to assess penalty effectiveness.

A pressing issue is the sexual exploitation of animals – the Criminal Law currently only penalizes the circulation of pornographic material, not the act itself, unless another offense (e.g., torture) is present. The Latvian Veterinary Association calls for legal amendments. Also problematic is the enforcement of bans on keeping animals – in practice, convicted persons often end up with new animals in their households, formally acquired by another family member.

Data from the Food and Veterinary Service show that in 2025, nearly 300 out of over 2,000 inspections confirmed animal welfare violations. At the LAMPA festival discussion, experts concluded that an effective system requires inevitability of punishment, clear regulation, and prevention, including public education. Positively, the Saeima has supported in first reading the initiative "An Animal is Not Property," which aims to remove the classification of animals as property from the Civil Law, reinforcing the understanding of animals as living beings.

Overall, a system combining clear regulation, inevitability of punishment, and targeted education is needed to reduce animal cruelty in the long term.