The unequal treatment of animals by species and practice in the United States: a moral and legal dilemma
| Autor | Pamela D. Frasch Hollie Lund |
| Cargo | Ph. D. Lewis & Clark Law School. Class of 2011 |
| Páginas | 13-28 |
Page 13
Every state in the United States of America has a complex web of laws protecting at least some animals from cruelty and neglect. Although many advocates agree that these laws do not afford legal rights to animals, as "rights" are defined under American Law, they do provide the principal (and in some cases only) legal protection available to animals in this country. Depending on the severity of the crime and other factors, state law may consider animal cruelty an infraction, a misdemeanor, or a felony.1Most often, the conduct encompassed by anti-cruelty laws is classified as a lower level misdemeanor offense; however, as of today, forty-six states and the District of Columbia have at least one felony anti-cruelty law. Only four states- Idaho, Mississippi North Dakota and South Dakota-currently have no felony-level anti-cruelty law.
Of more interest, however, is the fact that America’s first anti-cruelty law was enacted over three hundred years ago (by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641), followed by the first state anti-cruelty law in 1804, but that thirty-nine (more than eighty percent) of the existing felony anti-cruelty laws were only passed in the last fifteen years. This heightened legislative activity in
Page 14
the 1990s and first decade of this century suggests a pronounced fundamental, and very recent, change in the level of interest and willingness of states to address more vigorously animal abuse and neglect through the legislative process.
One theory many scholars point to as forming the basis for this recent interest and activity in anti-cruelty laws is the plethora of scientific studies demonstrating that a direct link exists between animal abuse and other forms of human violence. Over the past several years, a near constant stream of newspaper and magazine articles has presented this information to the public,2
causing (or maybe responding to) an increased interest in animal abuse issues in communities across the country.
Even before credible scientific research findings on the subject became generally available, the link between animal abuse and human violence made intuitive sense to most people. In 1751, the English artist William Hogarth printed a series of four engravings, entitled "The Four Stages of Cruelty." The engravings follow the criminal path of "Tom Nero", starting with his torture of a dog in the first engraving, theft and murder in the next two engravings, and ending with a final engraving (entitled "The Reward of Cruelty") that depicts Tom as a corpse being publicly dissected, having been convicted and hung for his crimes. The engravings simply illustrate in graphic fashion what we now recognize as a tragic, yet common, social "link" phenomenon. Dramatic modern day examples of this phenomenon focus on the more infamous serial killers of the past 20 years. Without exception, every serial killer in United States history has been shown to have a history of violence against animals.
Yet today, our knowledge of this phenomenon has more than anecdotal or intuitive bases. Sociologists, criminologists, psychologists and other scholars and practitioners have studied and documented the link, and there are now numerous peer-reviewed studies3exploring the "link" and its various permutations.
Page 15
The first well-documented evidence of the link resulted from a study of eighty-four prison inmates. The study, conducted in the 1960s, found that seventy-five percent of those charged with violent crimes had early records of cruelty to animals.4Twenty years later, another study found that twenty-five percent of 152 aggressive inmates had committed five or more acts of animal cruelty as children, compared to only six percent of the nonaggressive inmates.5In a second study, the same researchers interviewed criminals one-on-one to obtain historical descriptions of violent acts against animals. The results provided further support for their conclusion that childhood cruelty to animals is associated with later aggressive behaviors against people.6A 1988 study of serial sex killers (and the largest such study to date) found that thirty-six percent admitted to committing animal cruelty as children, forty-six percent admitted to committing animal cruelty as adolescents, and thirty-six percent admitted to committing animal cruelty as adults.7
There is also a high correlation between family violence and animal cruelty. A study in 1983 of New Jersey families referred to youth and family services for reasons of child abuse reported that sixty percent of the cases had at least one member of the household who physically abused nonhumans. Notably, it was sometimes the child acting out on the abuse that s/he had suffered.8A study in England resulted in similar findings: eighty-three percent of families reported for animal abuse had also been identified as at-risk families for child abuse and other violations by social service agencies.9The professional journal Social Work printed a manual for therapists designed to predict potential violent behavior from patients that, not surprisingly, includes animal cruelty as a "factor highly associated with violent, antisocial behavior."10And in 1997, a study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that seventy percent of people who committed violent crimes against animals also had criminal records for violent, property, drug, or disorderly conduct crimes.11This finding
Page 16
was further supported in a more recent study, conducted by the Chicago Police Department, that examined 322 animal cruelty arrests and discovered that seventy percent of those arrested had other felony charges (including homicides), eighty-six percent had multiple arrests, seventy percent had narcotics charges, sixty-five percent had been charged with violent offenses, twenty-seven percent had previous firearms charges, thirteen percent had been arrested on sex crime charges, and fifty-nine percent were alleged gang members.12In demonstrating the syndrome of abuse, however, the 1997 study found that fifty-six percent of animal abusers who committed other crimes, committed those crimes prior to the animal offense. This finding is interesting because it does not support the previously generally accepted premise that violent individuals start by abusing animals and then graduate to human victims. Seen in this context, animal abuse is not so much the "canary in the coalmine" as it is part of an overall scheme of anti-social, community-based violence.
More recently, the Chicago Police Department studied 322 animal cruelty arrests and discovered that seventy percent of those arrested had other felony charges, including homicides; eighty-six percent had multiple arrests; seventy percent had narcotics charges; sixty-five percent had been charged with violent offenses; twenty-seven percent had previous firearms charges; thirteen percent had been arrested on sex crime charges; and fifty-nine percent were alleged gang members.13
As we learn more about this link, a number of other practical and public policy considerations also take on renewed prominence, such as the problem that abused women have when trying to decide if, when, and how to leave their abusers. Research has demonstrated that oftentimes these women have companion animals who are not welcome at domestic violence shelters, but who face possible abuse if left behind. One recent study found that almost half of pet-owning battered women reported real or threatened animal abuse by their partner, and over one-quarter
Page 17
reported that concern for their pets affected their decision to leave or stay with the batterer.14 Another study similarly found that vast majorities of the women residing at domestic violence shelters were distraught about abuse experienced by family pets, and that a substantial minority delayed seeking shelter because of concerns for their pet’s welfare.15 When a woman in that situation either delays or simply refuses temporary shelter out of concern for her pets, she leaves herself, her pets, and possibly her children, in an environment where further abuse is likely to occur. In response to this problem, many communities have established programs that provide a safe, confidential home for the pet while the woman is in residence at a domestic violence shelter.16
The net result of this research-and its dissemination to the public-is a heightened understanding of the importance of combating violent crime wherever it occurs, and against whomever it occurs. State and federal law enforcement now routinely examine whether animal cruelty was involved in other violent criminal activity, as this information provides important clues to identifying the wrongdoer, and can provide prosecutors with additional options for criminal...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO