Should Animal Abusers, Like Sex Offenders, Be Registered?

Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes. So would there not be some usefulness to a registry of individuals convicted of felony animal abuse? Legislators in California want the Golden State to be the first to establish such a record — just as California was the first in the nation to create a registry of sex offenders.

The goal of the registry, which would list crimes against both pets and farm animals, is to make it easier for shelters and animal adoption groups to identify people who shouldn't be allowed access to animals. It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' argue, often escalates to violence against people. Abuses covered in the bill would include the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal. It would also target pet hoarders and operators of animal fighting rings (such as dog-baiting and cockfighting) who have felony convictions.

Read more: time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969346,00.html?iid=tsmodule#ixzz0hEFOQoey

Yes, I think it's a good idea. I believe anyone capable of hurting an animal is definitely quite fully capable of hurting humans. They need to be stopped. :mad:

Yes, they should be registered.

The fact that *some *people who are cruel to animals go on to become serial killers or whatever would not justify putting *all *who are cruel to animals on a list like that.

If so, then we’d have to put all readers of Playboy and the like on a list, as so many sexual abusers and rapists look at porn.

No.

They already put so many names on the lists as to make them almost useless. The list should be limited to those who are a real threat not an 18 year old having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriend. No sexting offenders. No one charged with public indecency for urinating in public or caught skinny dipping etc etc

IMO

The list should be limited to violent offenders and child molesters(physical contact made or attempted).

Paul, I think the proposal would create a separate list for animal abusers. But your point about mission creep is reasonable. The public in the US equates the sex offender list with sexual predators, and many of the persons on the list are not a danger to others.

Its a concern that was in the back of my mind, along with the potential cost of the program. The law would tax pet food an extra 3%, but at least one opponent of the bill objects that livestock would be covered yet livestock owners not shoulder the cost of the program.

[quote="Dale_M, post:1, topic:189352"]
Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes. So would there not be some usefulness to a registry of individuals convicted of felony animal abuse? Legislators in California want the Golden State to be the first to establish such a record — just as California was the first in the nation to create a registry of sex offenders.

de the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal. It would also target pet hoarders and operators of animal fighting rings (such as dog-baiting and cockfighting) who have felony convictions.

Read more: time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969346,00.html?iid=tsmodule#ixzz0hEFOQoey

[/quote]

How very silly. I cringe when-ever people act like animals are our equals. Yes, it is not nice to be cruel to them, but they are, after all, just animals for goodness sake.

yes, it might be a good idea to have them registered in some way.

i am not sure if the exact same measures would apply to animal abusers as to sex offenders. there are so many different types of animals that are abused and can be abused in so many ways that i am not sure how you would regulate it.

should child abusers also be registered? people who abuse their children physically?

i guess we could go on and on.

i don;t like animal cruelty though and i hate to hear of any animal that has been tortured or abused in any way.

Most who perpetuate violence against animals also engage in other criminal acts. Often, animal cruelty is dropped as a charge because a longer sentence can be had for the often cooccurrent drug use and/or spousal abuse &/or child abuse.

It isn't 1:1, but it is frequent enough that animal abuse enforcement is already rare.

I'd say any crime which involves cruelty to animals should also come with a lifetime bar on living in a home with pets. And that would require an enforcement list.

[quote="Aramis, post:9, topic:189352"]
Most who perpetuate violence against animals also engage in other criminal acts. Often, animal cruelty is dropped as a charge because a longer sentence can be had for the often cooccurrent drug use and/or spousal abuse &/or child abuse.

It isn't 1:1, but it is frequent enough that animal abuse enforcement is already rare.

I'd say any crime which involves cruelty to animals should also come with a lifetime bar on living in a home with pets. And that would require an enforcement list.

[/quote]

i agree. they shouldn't be able to have pets or livestock.

Right now in my city there is a guy registered as a sex offender that he had to do by law he is a convicted sex offender from California and had to register when he moved to Texas. His crime he was at a party he went into the backyard and took a no. 1!!! The person living next door called the cops.

What is animal cruelty? I kill inspects, I kill squirrels, I kill fish, I have killed many a rabbit and pheasant.

You people that say yes to this don’t you think we have too much government in our lives already?

I am not calling anyone a Nazi here please understand this!!! NOT ANYONE!!!

If you look at the history of Nazi Germany the Gestapo was not around every corner it was neighbor turning in neighbor is that what you people want to do?

My God most of us are Americans here; we are about freedom and liberty!!! We are not about reporting our neighbors to the government, think, think, think?

BTW; let’s spend our time getting rid of killing our children from abortion than spending anytime on this nonsense.

Stan, almost every serial killer tortured animals. the few who didn’t didn’t have routine access. Most who willfully inflict pain on other mammals, on birds, or on reptiles also are engaged in other criminal behaviors.

Abortion is one of many evils; it isn’t the sole evil in the world. By taking your approach, one could say just as validly, “No, we shouldn’t have done anything about Hitler, Qaddafi, Hussein, nor the Taliban, because we should be spending our efforts eliminating abortion instead.”

The people engaged in this type of behavior are violating the 1st covenant; we are to be stewards of the creatures. They are put here for our use, not for our abuse.

And while I agree, public urination is not a sex offense, California has even more bizarre legal issues… like considering letting ones’ kids play outside without coats at 65°F to be a criminal case of child neglect. Like considering use of force to be criminal even after one’s been attacked.

Just because there is one issue of social endorsement of sin does NOT mean we should turn a blind eye to other sinful or just plain wrong things.

hunting for food is one thing. i know there are many hunters and fishermen. however, if someone is going out and shooting animals with guns or bows and arrows just for the fun of it, that is different. i have heard of cats, dogs and geese that have been found with arrows protruding from them. they are still alive most of the time and are rescued and taken to a local vet. some survive and others aren’t so lucky. then we even have the people who sexually abuse animals and i definitely think they should be on a list of some kind.

[quote="Dale_M, post:1, topic:189352"]
Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes. So would there not be some usefulness to a registry of individuals convicted of felony animal abuse? Legislators in California want the Golden State to be the first to establish such a record — just as California was the first in the nation to create a registry of sex offenders.

The goal of the registry, which would list crimes against both pets and farm animals, is to make it easier for shelters and animal adoption groups to identify people who shouldn't be allowed access to animals. It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' argue, often escalates to violence against people. Abuses covered in the bill would include the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal. It would also target pet hoarders and operators of animal fighting rings (such as dog-baiting and cockfighting) who have felony convictions.

Read more: time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969346,00.html?iid=tsmodule#ixzz0hEFOQoey

[/quote]

Yes. They should be, because otherwise it is just too hard to keep them from owning animals. As for whether it leads on to other things... I am not sure. We look at it after the other things have happened - plenty of muderers may have started on animals, but plenty of people who abuse animals do not go on to murder/abuse people.

I do think animal abuse is horrific though - they, like children, are innocent. I can only understand it when it is self-defence or perhaps retaliation (lashing out because a dog bit you or something)

Some people are not getting my point; who is going to set the standard for animal cruelty?

Some vegetarian who thinks we should not eat meat anyway or some radical animal rights activist who thinks slaughtering animals for food is cruelty to animals.

Let’s say I hit a dog with my car; a witness says I didn’t react fast enough so I should be arrested and charged with animal cruelty.

So what else would in entail: My concealed handgun license suspended, I cannot apply for a federal job…etc

What happens when a little pulls a cats tail? Let’s get him registered have this on his record for the rest of his life.

If somebody is a serial killer do anyone honestly believe; well he’s registered now so that will stop him.

There is already laws on the books, don’t we have enough government bureaucrats in our lives already?

What’s shocking to me is how many people are saying yes to this!

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:15, topic:189352"]
Some people are not getting my point; who is going to set the standard for animal cruelty?

[size=3]Some vegetarian who thinks we should not eat meat anyway or some radical animal rights activist who thinks slaughtering animals for food is cruelty to animals.[/size]
I think you are making a reasonable point. When a list such as this is created, it becomes a cultural football, subject to emotions rather than a reasoned look at risk. We see that already with sex offender laws.Not everyone on the sexual offender list are predators, or a risk to the public.

Certainly groups such as PETA would try to condemn the workers at slaughterhouses. Perhaps not all slaughterhouses, but specific ones where they video procedures they deem inhumane. If South Carolina had such registry, perhaps they would have gone after the Trappist monks whose egg operation they once denounced as animal abuse.

[/quote]

The question of who defines abuse is only relevant because people like PETA try to expand it beyond its literal meaning.

A quick and humane kill is no real imposition in exchange for meat to eat.

A person who beats an animal for their own pleasure is sick, and a danger.
A person who neglects an animal's welfare when they are responsible for it is also sick, and a danger.
A person who causes medical injury to an animal out of lack of self-control is a danger, as well.

Why? Because that kind of callousness generalizes. Generally to humans as well as animals.

Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain.

------ Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement)

“An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself. I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp.”

------ Herman Goring, speaking as the Police Chief of Prussia, 1933

--

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.