Animal abuser registry

[Flea]

It's a county policy in New York state that anyone convicted of abusing an animal be put on a registry, to be managed roughly the same way that sex offenders are.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/curbing-animal-abuse-22609135

I think it's a great idea, with the only shortfall being that it would apply just to the tiny minority who get both caught and convicted. As with rapists, that's a tiny tip of the iceberg. To make it more effective I think those convicted should receive some kind of mandatory psychological services, as many drunk drivers have AA meetings attached to their sentences.

Thoughts?

 

[girlbug2]

I like the idea--time will tell how effective it will be.

As to the proposal of mandatory psychological services, I would think that a psych evaluation first would be in order. Like the officer said, animal abuse is a red flag to more serious sociopathic tendencies. Will the state be proactive enough to recognize the value of "catching" antisocial people early? Hmmm, maybe somebody who knows more about this can chime in.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it's a waste of time and money.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think it's a waste of time and money.

Why?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Why?

Best case, it accomplishes nothing, but it costs money to establish and maintain.

Sexual predator and sex-offender registries are based on two theories. The first is that sexual predators have a high recidivism rate; they are likely to re-offend. The second is that the public have a right to know if a convicted sexual predator lives in their neighborhood. I am not entirely sure I agree with such registries (my own searches for my zipcode have shown mostly people who paid for sex with prostitutes and got caught at it, not people who are a threat to me or my family), but at least a public good can be defined.

Animal abusers are not - to the best of my knowledge - recidivists in the same way sexual predators are. We don't post databases of convicted bank robbers or domestic abusers or kidnappers, but we do for those who fight dogs or throw cats in wheelie bins? Not sure how it has been established that animal abuse is a pathological illness that will continue with or without treatment.

As well, although I certainly would not like living next door to a guy who was known to have failed to feed his dogs for too long, or left his horse outside in bad weather, or kicked a cat, or so on, I would not see him as a risk for myself or my family for him to be living next door - so in what way would he be a threat to our safety? This crazy lady kept 50 cats in her garage under unsanitary conditions and a bunch of them died; she's going to invade my home and do something awful to me or my cats?

Worst-case, we get to delve into the can of worms (pardon the pun) that is animal abuse. Whilst most of can agree that inflicting needless suffering on an animal for one's sadistic pleasure is evil and wrong and bad, many of us differ on other things commonly called animal abuse, including the ritual religious slaughter of animals for food or as sacrifice in religious rituals, and then we get into just the way commercial animals are kept and treated prior to being slaughtered as food that we buy as consumers in grocery stores. Docking the ears and tails of dogs, even breeding for specific qualities, all of these have been called animal abuse at one time or another, by various people. And as much as you and I probably don't disagree much on what is and what is not animal cruelty, I'm not terribly interested in creating a list that we agree with today - knowing that tomorrow, that list might be maintained by someone with a grudge against, say, fur, or halal meat production, or even bug zappers.

Cruel treatment of animals makes me sick and angry. I am glad that certain aspects of it are criminal. That's pretty much as far as I go with it. I don't see what possible use a registry of convicted animal rights abusers would do, other than to further punish those who had served the sentences (revenge), to give politicians something to point to with pride on election day (see how much I care about my community?) and spend more tax dollars on something that creates busy-work jobs on the community nickle.

 

[Tanaka]

I think it's a good idea. Maybe pet owners and pet stores can access this database in order to avoid giving pets to these villains that will mistreat them.

 

[teekin]

Flea, I think it's a hell of a good idea. and Mr. Bill ( your new name by-and -by) animal abusers of certain stripes DO have high a recidivism rate. Those who see animals as nothing but a cash crop like scrap metal or potatoes. The people who run puppy mills or breed scams or Breed fighting dogs or fight dogs. Or who animals for fur. Or certain race horse people. They get busted and their animals taken away. They move ( or not) and set up again with a new crop of animals to live and die in misery.

If your not part of the solution your part of the problem. Turning a blind eye does not mitigate the suffering of even one animal one iota.

respectfully ( this is a hot button for me)

Lori

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Flea, I think it's a hell of a good idea. and Mr. Bill ( your new name by-and -by) animal abusers of certain stripes DO have high a recidivism rate.

Do you have evidence of this?

Those who see animals as nothing but a cash crop like scrap metal or potatoes. The people who run puppy mills or breed scams or Breed fighting dogs or fight dogs. Or who animals for fur. Or certain race horse people. They get busted and their animals taken away. They move ( or not) and set up again with a new crop of animals to live and die in misery.

This is actually along the lines I mentioned in my response above. Whilst I can agree with you on some of the things you mentioned as being 'abuse', I do not agree with others; I also don't think that some of them are actually crimes in most places, such as running 'puppy mills' or raising animals for fur.

This kind of issue could lead to people being put on a list of criminals who are not criminals, regardless of how you feel about them. I have a bit of a problem with that.

If your not part of the solution your part of the problem. Turning a blind eye does not mitigate the suffering of even one animal one iota.

I do not see how denying the usefulness of a registry for animal abusers is the same as 'turning a blind eye' to suffering of animals.

I also don't see where you have stated what this registry would do that protects the safety of the public. If it does not do that, I do not see a legitimate purpose for it.

 

[CoryKS]

It's basically a scarlet letter to identify and further vilify people who have committed particular crimes. But then, all the best laws are founded on emotional responses.

 

[teekin]

Do you have evidence of this?

Hell yes!!!!!!!! In Canada, anywhere in Canada the definition of Puppy Mill makes that enterprise illegal as well as immoral and repugnant. Several states in the US have these rules as well but not all. The problem is that there is very little if any enforcement of the penalties imposed by the courtes. Please remember the Puppy Mills defruad thousands of people as well as abuse animals. Keeps the Vets in buisness though.



This is actually along the lines I mentioned in my response above. Whilst I can agree with you on some of the things you mentioned as being 'abuse', I do not agree with others; I also don't think that some of them are actually crimes in most places, such as running 'puppy mills' or raising animals for fur.

We must agree to disagree here, although the Puppy mill thing I explained.

This kind of issue could lead to people being put on a list of criminals who are not criminals, regardless of how you feel about them. I have a bit of a problem with that.

Puppy Mills excepted. The fur raising is my own issue, I get that. Not illegal unless they are doing so to companion animals.



I do not see how denying the usefulness of a registry for animal abusers is the same as 'turning a blind eye' to suffering of animals.

I also don't see where you have stated what this registry would do that protects the safety of the public. If it does not do that, I do not see a legitimate purpose for it.

I am more interested in aleiviating the suffering of the animals than protecting the public. That is MY adgenda, you may not see it as being a legitiment reason for a registry but I sure do. All suffering brings us as a species down, it makes this planet a poorer blacker place.

Lori

 

[Blade96]

Bill, I lived next door to a puppy mill owner of sorts when i was a kid. He had a female collie he bred continually just to have the babies and sell them. He did not look after the mother, he just wanted the babies. And it wasnt just her. Beagle dogs were treated the same way by this human 'thing' We looked after the female dog. We fed her, medicated her of the worms and we gave her shelter from the cold. Trust me, leaving a dog outside in - 40 degree Celcius in the middle of winter with jack for shelter is not cool. He never got caught - no one reported him.

These people don't stop; they do not care. They will keep doing it.

I think its a good idea about the registry.

 

[Flea]

The Santeria community successfully defended animal sacrifice under the 1st amendment at the Supreme Court level back in the early 80s. So that's protected under the law.

Yes, enforcement is a terrible problem. Animal control simply doesn't have the resources to enforce cruelty/abuse laws. A few years ago I reported a neighbor for puppy abuse - on a 4' leash out in the sun, no water for several days during a brutal heat wave. I found out after the fact that if an owner relinquishes the animal, there are no criminal charges. Even if they pressed charges, abuse is a matter of degrees. They can only go after the worst cases, the ones most likely to get a conviction.

That said, I like the intention of the registry. Pet stores and breeders are required to check the registry before placing an animal with someone. If nothing else, hopefully it'll raise public awareness. If this serves to educate communities about investigating before placing pets in homes, it's worth it.

 

[MA-Caver]

I thought I found myself in middle of the road or on the fence with this issue. I used to think it was a good idea because I've never saw the need to be cruel to animals just because they're (the abusers) having a bad day or they've stopped caring about it or the cute widdle puppy now is an overgrown mutt who won't behave as they thought it should (most likely because it wasn't trained as it SHOULD'VE been)... or for whatever reason. It's simply has no point to it and it's downright mean. The animal either didn't know better or simply is reacting as an animal should when treated in the manner it has been treated.

But vilifying people, slapping a "scarlet letter" on them does what purpose? I'm guessing that roughly over 90% of the animals that were abused were owned by the abuser. I'd find it hard to believe that there would be a serial abuser... somebody sneaking over to your house to abuse your dog for their own perverse pleasure and then leaving. Hard to wrap one's mind around THAT concept.
Extreme animal abusers should be denied owning pets if found and tried to guilty. It probably won't stop them ... especially those living in remote rural areas but then a person can have an animal in their big city apartment for years and nobody in authority would know about it until they are reported (big brother or a "good citizen") or investigated for something different.
Posting their faces all over the planet isn't going to solve anything. Well, it might make the PETA folks happy that's about it.
It is a serious problem I won't deny that. I've watched enough of Animal Planet's Animal Cops program to see that there are still mean and cruel people out there hurting animals or just being plain neglectful. Thousands of animals are euthanize all the time because shelters can't find them homes and it's just too much to keep them for long periods.

Where I live there is a paper put out for a dollar a copy, that has photographs of people who have recently been arrested and their names and crimes are printed out beneath the picture. Makes me wonder about this. I'm sure other cities have this as well.

Break the law and you lose your privacy. That's what it seems to be boiling down to.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, I lived next door to a puppy mill owner of sorts when i was a kid. He had a female collie he bred continually just to have the babies and sell them. He did not look after the mother, he just wanted the babies. And it wasnt just her. Beagle dogs were treated the same way by this human 'thing' We looked after the female dog. We fed her, medicated her of the worms and we gave her shelter from the cold. Trust me, leaving a dog outside in - 40 degree Celcius in the middle of winter with jack for shelter is not cool. He never got caught - no one reported him.

These people don't stop; they do not care. They will keep doing it.

I think its a good idea about the registry.

What you're telling me is he treated dogs badly. Got it.

Now explain why that translates to the registry being a good idea. What does it do to stop what you described above? By your description, not only did he not get 'caught', he never was charged with a crime. He would not have been on this list.

 

[Blade96]

If he had been caught his name and face would be up there if we had one registry like this.

I personally if I had an animal to give away or sell would like to be able to check people out via a registry like this.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It's not that I agree with people abusing their animals, but at what point does an offense warrant the perpetual violation of privacy?
Another issue is that it is easy enough to get on such lists, but nigh on impossible to get off. At least in the US this seems to be the case with the terrorist watch lists.

With sex offenders, at least the safety of the public can be an argument. But even then? Why do you need the right to know if someone visited a prostitue? Does this make him a danger to you? And I don't believe that people urination is particularly threatening either. So even that 'obvious' registry is fundamentally flawed.

What's next? People with speeding tickets so that you know who is driving too fast? People who got drunk?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If he had been caught his name and face would be up there if we had one registry like this.

I personally if I had an animal to give away or sell would like to be able to check people out via a registry like this.

But he wasn't caught. As you said yourself, no one even reported him. So how would this registry help you?

I still fail to see any benefit that a registry like this does, except:

1) Give a 'feel good' to the community.
2) Allow a politician to claim something positive when they run for office.
3) Create a few jobs.

 

[Carol]

The first lines are about how the local SPCA says animal abuse/neglect has increased 20 percent due to the down economy, and states themselves is saying it is because people cannot take care of their kids and their pets, or the pets are staying behind in foreclosed homes. If convicted, one not only has to join the registry but pay a $50 fine per year, for 5 years.

I have no love lost for animal abusers. But this reads more like a chi-chi Long Island county is trying to legislate out its poor.

 

[Edmindo]

http://current.com/participate/vc2/89693882_stop-animal-torture.htm
these are evil people

 

[Blade96]

But he wasn't caught. As you said yourself, no one even reported him. So how would this registry help you?

Maybe not me, cause he wasnt reported. Not help me with regards to him. But it would help me if I wanted to buy or sell/give away an animal its a nice thing to look at to help a little with who's legit and who's not. I don't think I'd wanna unsuspectingly buy an animal from a puppy/kitten mill or unknowingly give one to one of those abusers or some other waste of earthly space, would you? Wouldn't you like to know who to avoid?