Cruelty to animals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A live fowl market in Asia with live, dead and dying birds.
A live fowl market in Asia with live, dead and dying birds.

Cruelty to animals refers to the infliction of unnecessary suffering or harm to nonhuman animals.

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to the issue. The animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a humane way that reduces unnecessary suffering. Animal rights theorists criticize this position, arguing that the words "unnecessary" and "humane" are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property, and to ensure that they are never used as commodities.

Contents

[edit] In law

Many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals but these vary by country and in some cases by the use or practice.

[edit] Australia

In Australia, many states have enacted legislation outlawing cruelty to animals. Whilst police maintain an overall jurisdiction in prosecution of criminal matters, in many states officers of the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are accorded authority to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty offences.

Most jurisdictions simply depend on law enforcement officers who may not be knowledgeable in the area or assign it a high priority. Spectacular stories about grave atrocities and animal hoarders are mainstays of local TV news reporting, but most offences concern lack of adequate shelter or food and similar neglect in animal care.

[edit] China

As of 2006 there were no available laws in China governing acts of cruelty to animals.[1] In certain jurisdictions such as Fuzhou, dog control officers may kill any unaccompanied dogs on sight.

[edit] Mexico

In Mexico, animal cruelty laws are slowly being implemented. The Law of Animal Protection of the Federal District]is wide-ranging, based on banning 'unnecessary suffering.' The law prohibits conducts from dissection for students in high school or earlier years, to negligence of the owner in providing medical attention to an animal that needs it. Similar laws now exist in most states. However, this is blatantly disregarded by much of the public and authorities; animal protection legislation is gaining relevance very slowly.

[edit] United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence and one may be fined or jailed for it for up to five years, under the

[edit] United States

In the United States a few jurisdictions, notably Massachusetts and New York, agents of humane societies and associations may be appointed as special officers to enforce statutes outlawing animal cruelty. "Brute Force: Animal Police and the Challenge of Cruelty" by Arnold Arluke is an ethnographic study of these special humane law enforcement officers.

In 2004, a Florida legislator proposed a ban on "cruelty to bovines," stating: "A person who, for the purpose of practice, entertainment, or sport, intentionally fells, trips, or otherwise causes a cow to fall or lose its balance by means of roping, lassoing, dragging, or otherwise touching the tail of the cow commits a misdemeanor of the first degree."[2]

It is to be noted, however, that in the USA ear cropping, tail docking, the Geier Hitch, rodeo sports and other acts perceived as cruelty in many other countries are often condoned. Penalties for cruelty can be minimal, if pursued. Currently, 44 of the 50 states have enacted felony penalties for certain forms of animal abuse.[3] However, in most jurisdictions, animal cruelty is most commonly charged as a misdemeanor offense. In one recent California case, a felony conviction for animal cruelty could theoretically net a 25 year to life sentence due to their three-strikes law, which increases sentences based on prior felony convictions.[4]

In 2003, West Hollywood, California passed an ordinance banning declawing of house cats.[5] In 2007, Norfolk, Virginia passed legislation only allowing the procedure for medical reasons.[6] However, most jurisdictions allow the procedure. It is illegal in many parts of Europe.[7]

[edit] Circuses

The use of animals in the circus has been a matter for argument recently, as animal welfare groups have documented instances of animal cruelty, used in the training of performing animals. Animals in the circus are open to many diseases and are often whipped.[citation needed] The Humane Society of the United States has documented multiple cases of abuse and neglect,[8] and cite several reasons for opposing the use of animals in circuses, including confining enclosures, lack of regular vetrinary care, abusive training methods and lack of oversight by regulating bodies.[9] Animal trainers have pointed out some misconceptions that can arise about animal training, including beliefs that animals are 'hurt' by being shouted at, that caging is cruel and common, and the harm caused by the use of whips, chains or training implements.[10]

[edit] Restrictions

Sweden, Austria, Costa Rica, India, Finland, and Singapore have restricted the use of animals in entertainment. The UK and Scottish Parliaments have committed to ban certain wild animals in travelling circuses and approximately 200 local authorities in the UK have banned all animal acts on council land.[citation needed] Animal acts are still very popular throughout much of Europe, the Americas and Asia. In the United States animal welfare standards are overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture under provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Efforts to ban circus animals in cities like Denver, Colorado have been rejected by voters. Some circuses now present animal-free acts.[11]

[edit] In theory and practice

There are many different reasons why individuals abuse animals. Animal cruelty covers a wide range of actions (or lack of action), so one blanket answer simply isn’t possible. Each type of abuse has displayed certain patterns of behavior that we can use to help understand more about why people commit the crimes we encounter today.

Animal cruelty is often broken down into two main categories: active and passive, also referred to as commission and omission, respectively.

Passive cruelty is typified by cases of neglect, where the crime is a lack of action rather than the action itself. Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing a collar to grow into an animal’s skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and failure to seek veterinary care when an animal needs medical attention.

In many cases of neglect where an investigator feels that the cruelty occurred as a result of ignorance, they may attempt to educate the pet owner and then revisit the situation to check for improvements. In more severe cases however, exigent circumstances may require that the animal is removed from the site immediately and taken in for urgent medical care.

Active cruelty implies malicious intent, where a person has deliberately and intentionally caused harm to an animal, and is sometimes referred to as NAI (Non-Accidental Injury). Acts of intentional cruelty are often some of the most disturbing and should be considered signs of serious psychological problems. This type of behavior is often associated with sociopathic behavior and should be taken very seriously.[citation needed]

Animal abuse in violent homes can take many forms and can occur for many reasons. Many times a parent or domestic partner who is abusive may kill, or threaten to kill, the household pets to intimidate family members into sexual abuse, to remain silent about previous or current abuse, or simply to psychologically torture the victims, flexing their "power."

[edit] Psychological disorders

One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism. According to the New York Times, "[t]he FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.[12] "A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a young boy."[12] Robert K. Ressler, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,"Murderers like this [Jeffrey Dahmer] very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids."[13]

Cruelty to animals is one of the three components of the MacDonald Triad, indicators of violent antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. According to the studies used to form this model, cruelty to animals is a common (but not with every case) behavior in children and adolescents who grow up to become serial killers and other violent criminals.

It has also been found that animal cruelty in children is frequently committed by children who have witnessed or been victims of abuse themselves. In two separate studies cited by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), roughly one-third of families suffering from domestic abuse indicated that at least one child had hurt or killed a pet.

[edit] Film making

There is a case of cruelty to animals in the South Korean film The Isle, according to its director Kim Ki-Duk.[14] In the film, a real frog is skinned alive while fish are mutilated.

Several animals were killed for the camera in the controversial Italian film Cannibal Holocaust.[15] The images in the film include the slow and graphic beheading and ripping apart of a turtle, a monkey being beheaded and its brains being consumed by natives and a spider being chopped apart. In fact, Cannibal Holocaust was only one film in a collective of similarly themed movies (cannibal films) that featured unstaged animal cruelty. Their influences were rooted in the films of Mondo filmmakers, which sometimes contained similar content.

More recently, the video sharing site YouTube has been criticized for hosting thousands of videos of real life animal cruelty, especially the feeding of one animal to another for the purposes of entertainment and spectacle. In spite of these videos being flagged as inappropriate by many users, YouTube has generally failed to take the same policing actions to remove them that they have with videos containing copyright infringement or sexual content.[16][17]

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has contracted with the American Humane Association (AHA) for monitoring of animal use during filming or while on the set.[18] Compliance with this arrangement is voluntary and only applies to films made in the United States. Films monitored by the American Humane Association may bear one of their end-credit messages. Many productions, including those made in the US, do not advise AHA or SAG of animal use in films, so there is no oversight.[19]

[edit] Palestinian National Authority

PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder of PETA) wrote to then President of the Palestinian National Authority Yasser Arafat after learning that a donkey, laden with explosives, was intentionally blown up on January 26, 2003 in Jerusalem. Newkirk wrote that “Animals claim no nation. They are in perpetual involuntary servitude to all mankind, and although they pose no threat and own no weapons, human beings always win in the undeclared war against them."[20] Newkirk asked Arafat to leave animals out of the conflict.

[edit] See also

[edit] Further reading

  • Arluke, Arnold. Brute Force: Animal Police and the Challenge of Cruelty, Purdue University Press (August 15, 2004), hardcover, 175 pages, ISBN 1-55753-350-4. An ethnographic study of humane law enforcement officers.
  • Lea, Suzanne Goodney (2007). Delinquency and Animal Cruelty: Myths and Realities about Social Pathology, hardcover, 168 pages, ISBN 978-1-59332-197-0. Lea challenges the assertion made by animal rights activists that animal cruelty enacted during childhood is a precursor to human-directed violence. The activists argue that our most violent criminals started off their bloody sprees with animal torture. Many parents, teachers, school administrators, and policy makers have thus accepted this claim on face value. In contrast, Lea finds that, in fact, many American youngsters-- and boys, especially-- engage in acts of animal cruelty but that few of these children go on to enact human-directed violence.
  • Munro H. (The battered pet (1999) In F. Ascione & P. Arkow (Eds.) Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 199-208.

[edit] External links