The concepts of animal rights and animal welfare are often used interchangeably, but it is important to recognize their distinctions when conceptualizing an argument about animal welfare laws. The animal rights approach is the more radical, as its advocates advance the belief that humans should not use any products from of created by animals. On the other hand, animal welfare advocates set out to improve the legal structure that protects animals from suffering and push for more humane treatment. It is important to the movement to have laws that clearly define cruel acts and impose punishments to deter people from violating these laws. In order to make the laws better, we must examine where and how the laws are deficient before we can understand how to improve them. This paper will analyze why humans have an obligation to protect all animals from unjust and harmful cruelties inflicted, with a specific focus on Phoenix and Arizona's legal framework of anti-cruelty laws. The evaluation of these laws and how they are enforced exposes a disparity in our accountability to animals and our approach to their ultimate protection.