Should those who abuse animals be treated in a manner similar to arsonists and sex offenders? Some people in California seem to think so:
California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.
The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.
[ . . .]
The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.
“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”
If the concern is to protect vulnerable humans, as Mr. Otto claims, then why not simply advocate having a registry of violent felons instead? The truth is that the concern is purely about animals, not humans. While the proposed law may be well-intentioned, its effect would merely be to further undermine human exceptionalism.
I truly believe that protecting animals from abuse should be a priority for any civilized society. But unlike a sex offender registry, a public list of animal abusers is unnecessary. The danger posed to the community by a child rapist is of a completely different order than that posed by someone involved in, say, dogfighting. While I’d want to be notified if Roman Polanski were to move in next door, I don’t have the same concerns about Michael Vick moving into the neighborhood.
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:39 am
I agree with you that these sorts of movements walk a thin line between being good ideas and undermining, as you say, human exceptionalism.
It has been shown, however, that animal abuse–especially in children–is a precursor and warning sign to certain types of heinous crimes like serial killers. At least, I had read that somewhere–that children that are willing to torture animals have a high probability of one day becoming serial killers and/or sociopaths.
Of course, your argument that if you really want to do something like this just keep a registry of all felonies is a good one. And then you have to balance that with the notion that they paid their debt to society and shouldn’t be punished for their actions beyond their sentence which such a registry would do.
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:11 am
Why should we ascribe “good” intentions to people who want to legislate the destruction of the lives of others? Look at the outcome not the claim of moral superiority.
Prohibitions against animal abuse are inscribed in the Hebrew Bible so we know that it has been a concern to civil society for the last several thousand years. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is not telling us anything new here.
I suspect that if you queried these folks about the meaning of animal abuse that their definition would be way beyond the bounds of what any human society would accept.
The flagrant politicization of science so aptly demonstrated by AGW should make everyone skeptical to the extreme about “studies” that demonstrate a need to curtail liberty or to punish undesirable behavior.
February 23rd, 2010 | 6:19 am
Joe, Joe, Joe, what are we going to do with you?
When used as an adjective, the word is “scarlet.” You were, no doubt, thinking of Scarlett Johansson, and I sure don’t blame you. But I’m a stickler for spelling.
February 23rd, 2010 | 10:22 am
Peter,
Before you besmirch the intentions of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, why not visit their website and learn a bit more about them. I did, and they have a very clear definition of what they think constitutes cruelty — in fact they have a whole collection of “model” laws they have assembled. Their “animal abuse” looks quite like what I, and probably most people, consider animal abuse.
February 23rd, 2010 | 10:27 am
And to Joe… a good lot of these animal abusers are the same ones committing other violence and crimes. Those who sexually abuse animals, for example, may very well be opportunists, and yes, I sure as hell want to know if they are living next door, not only to protect my pets, but my children.
The point is, much of this information is already “public” — but getting access to it is a cumbersome and timely process. Would a broader registry for all violent felons make sense? Maybe. And I’d be in support of it too, just as I think their idea here for animal abusers makes sense too.
February 23rd, 2010 | 7:06 pm
I agree with Peter Boston. Everyone knows that cruelty to animals is wrong. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been around for a long, long time. What is new is the malice of totalitarian organizations like the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which will risk ruining people’s lives in order to advance their angry and obsessive agenda. Their narrow obsessions have made them crazy.
February 23rd, 2010 | 7:16 pm
I love the idea of such a registry. Animal abusers should be reported just as sexual abusers. I would not want to live near either and would want to know if they are in my neighborhood. Thank you for the article
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact