On California’s Animal Abuse Registry Proposal
The following video has several graphic and disturbing images.
And that’s a topic all its own.
I suspect that the proposal for California’s Animal Abuse Registry will create a buzz in the animal rights and animal welfare communities, with advocates of all kinds debating whether or not it furthers their cause.
Here‘s the New York Times article about the bill, drafted with the help of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, here’s the model law, and here‘s the press release. The website for the initiative is called ExposeAnimalAbusers and it allows you to sign a petition and send it to your legislators (and it identifies them for you), requesting mandatory registration of convicted animal abusers in your state.
Let’s deconstruct:
- The NYT article states that California’s proposal, “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.” I know what you’re thinking: “rights . . . protections” – two very different concepts.
- The intention underlying the bill, at least for Dean Florez (D), who is the chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee, is to “provide information for those who ‘have animals and want to take care of them,’” including farmers.
Do you need a moment?
Here’s the part that brought me back from the edge:
Under Mr. Florez’s bill, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.
- Some people don’t like the idea of publicizing the names and photos and crimes of animal abusers, and some people do. Some civil libertarians, not surprisingly, have raised privacy concerns. Of course, “crimes” is the linguistic rub, as much of what the average farmer–in a factory or otherwise–does is just as painful as what the convicted abusers do, but the former’s abuse is institutionalized cruelty and as such is not considered criminal. Some might say that this is speciesist and unfairly focuses on cats, dogs and horses, leaving only the “unnecessary” abuses of animals raised for food to ever be included.
- An important layer of complexity and intention has to do with our knowledge that people who abuse animals often go on to abuse people (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Albert DeSalvo, Columbine’s Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, and BTK killer, Dennis Rader). And if we can prevent abuse of people, we want to do that.
- Please note that Petabuse.com is a helpful resource that already monitors abuse cases, posts cruelty laws and has a database of offenders in the US as well as Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Spain. Also note that a similar proposal to the California bill is currently pending in Tennessee (and stalled in 2008) and bills have been introduced in the past in Rhode Island and Colorado, as well.
- At 10:30 a.m. PST, Senator Florez will stream his press conference live on the ALDF site (this is the link provided-the second item is “Press Conference Webcast”), if you are so inclined.
Notwithstanding the reality that this is not about animal rights but animal protection, I don’t see any reason to be against an Animal Abuse Registry, but I’ve also spent only two hours thinking about it so far.
Yes, the institutionalized torture of sentient nonhumans whom we have decided to use as food is in all but extreme cases entirely excluded from most cruelty laws. What that says to me is that the cruelty laws need to be changed.
And as far as privacy goes, I don’t think I have any problem with warning any community that a convicted child abuser, an animal abuser or an arsonist (there are lists for them too!) is living among them.
What do you think?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
I see every reason to be against such a registry. How is this registry going to do anything except keep abusers in the exact spot they are in for eternity? Prisons don’t work. Registries don’t work. All of these things are built upon revenge politics so people can get their anger about what a person does out.
If we really care about helping people to get better and stopping further animal abuse, creating state-run registries is not the way to do it. The state doesn’t give a shit about animals.
I despise animal cruelty as much as (if not more) than the next person, but things like this will only make it worse. Things like this trap people in an endless cycle of “criminality”.
I tend to agree.
If there was any evidence that this a) deterred future animal abusers and b) reduced the likelihood of repeat offenders, there might be some merit to the idea of a registry. But so far as I know, these types of registries do not deter or reduce the likelihood of felony-level animal abuse.
I also do not like that the penalty for not registering is a felony. Our state of California has an enormous prison population and we spend far too much money on litigation and care of prisoners, it’s beyond ridiculous and inhumane. I cannot imagine the legislature will let a bill with felony-level classification in it get past committee.
I wrote a more detailed response here: http://arphilosophia.blogspot.com/2010/02/animal-abuse-registries-will-make.html
Well, what the hell, why not just go back to the tried-and-true method of branding on the cheek? And why stop at animal abuse, let’s brand all the scofflaws, the scapegraces, the impious and the outre! Atheist? Branded! Red-light runner? Branded! Red-light worker? Branded, branded, branded! The ability of ANYONE to conceal or grow past or walk away from ANY error or wickedness or misconduct is a clear threat to Good Public Order and must be prevented!
I hope you know that this will go down on your Permanent Record!
Today you’re all Rah!Rah! about this bollocks, tomorrow you’ll be back to wingeing about the AETA: “Oh, I’m so repressed! It’s not fair!” You fuzzy-headed totalitarian TIT!
You thought about this for TWO HOURS and this is where you fetched up?!? I’ve been thinking about it for five minutes, and I’m already FURIOUS! If I think about this for two hours, I’ll have a goddamn brain embolism! And if this nonsense passes, I’ll be having YOU charged for it! You, and Commissar Dean Florez as well!
Corvus, Marji, I find your responses very heartening – thank you. I’m a trifle excitable, myself, so I’m always gratified to see reason gently spoken.
I’ll start w/Jake and say: You’re rude and other than saying that, I will not respond to your insulting rant.
@Marji – I don’t know a lot about registries and whether or not they have demonstrated success as being deterrents. That’s an important question. And though the information about convicted abusers is important to have for people who, say, (unfortunately) sell sentient nonhumans, I wonder if it has the effect of disallowing for rehabilitation. Not everyone goes on to continue to abuse, and how about mandatory education instead. That seems more likely to be effective (unless there is a study that proves otherwise, which I’d like to see).
@Corvus – I don’t know that this is about revenge. And from what was said at the press conference, revenge certainly doesn’t appear to be the motive. If there is any intention that activists might object to–and I thought this point would be where most of the ire would come from–it’s that there’s a property protection premise. And I also figured that because it focuses on what is a crime, and plenty of what I think is criminal in fact is not because of the industry it falls under, some activists wouldn’t support it.
The questions for me are: Is this going to protect animals, and if so, how do we know that? And if indeed there is protection, is the cost (such as privacy) too high or not?
Those are good questions. I don’t know, of course. My inclination is to believe they would not serve to protect animals, but that’s a gut reaction, not a fact. Do you know if being aware of where sexual predators live has proven to reduce the likelihood of repeat offenders and others offending?
I like your idea of mandatory education and would add to that anger management and some form of therapy to the equation. Some forms of abuse, like hoarding, do not come about because of malicious intent but because of psychological problems and/or misguided attempts at assisting others…but the results could lead to a felony. I would characterize those people differently than, say, someone who intentionally tortured nonhumans. As always, a lot of nuances to consider, which is one reason I’m hesitant to lend support to such a registry.
We all remember the press hungry for every detail of the Michael Vick case of abuse of pit bulls. The country and world were outraged, yet what Vick did to the dogs is done to billions of pigs, cows, chickens and all other farm animals daily; and it is legal. Yes this is quite a conundrum pets vs/ other animals, yet any strides made to bring animal cruelty to the public is one more step to raising awareness of the suffering of all being that are oppressed and suffering. I have signed the petition and think this is a necessary step to ending cock fighting, dog fighting and other blood sports in this country. If I am aware there is a monster in my area, believe me I will checking up on him/her every day to make sure there is no abuse going on his home, yard or garage. There are always signs, but now we will be more vigilant to protect the defenseless. For those who let their cats roam they just may decide to keep them indoors to protect them.
Thanks for this post Mary and great writing.
@ Mary Martin: You’re quite right, I am rude, and I heartily apologize, once for having lit up like a rocket at what, on calm review, seems a very measured query, and a second time for having used the term ‘tit’ as an epithet, a yet a third time for having directed that epithet at a female person. Like I said, excitable. Sorry.
That said, please let us all bear in mind that when we talk about criminalizing anything, we are talking about more animals in more cages for more time. The two-leggedness of these animals should not put them beyond the umbra of your compassion. to imprison someone is a act of horrific violence, sustained for years – often a grossly abridged lifetime. Clearly you are all thoughtful, ethical people, or these questions would not interest you: I say to you that if you seek to have people imprisoned, you are responsible for ALL the results of that, just as an eater of eggs is responsible for de-beaking and forced molting.
Have a care while hunting monsters – said the rude, ranting man.
This seems like a problematic idea. I pretty much second Corvus’ take on this.
If there were a prison for corporations, and abuse registries for corporations that abuse animals, I think I might be in favor of such a law. (Slaughterhouses, pet shops, the State of California’s own dairy-obsessed industrial Unhappy Cow Complex, etc.)
Shame is a powerful force. But, if a person has changed his or her ways, and realized a kind of rehabilitation, I’m not sure the State publicly shaming an individual for one moment or one period of their lives is just or effective.
I was just re-reading a couple news stories about butchers who suddenly woke-up to what they were doing. They put down their tools-of-death and started living lives of compassion. Their own shame and regret and sadness motivated them to stop, but it came from within. Imagine if that kind of miracle were then drowned in a tragedy of state-sponsored shaming campaign.
The animal bill includes “hoarders” — this is really, really problematic. What’s a hoarder? Who decides?
Disturbingly, in their talking points for media, Animal Hoarders are the top story idea they’re suggesting:
[Story Ideas
http://www.exposeanimalabusers.org/section.php?id=166
* Animal hoarders, who are frequently responsible for causing hundreds of animals to suffer for many years, exhibit recidivism rates of nearly 100%.
* Serial killers from the Boston Strangler to Jeffrey Dahmer started out by torturing animals.
* Ongoing animal abuse and even torture are often the terrifying reality in homes plagued by domestic violence.
* Criminals convicted of involvement in dogfighting and cockfighting are usually involved in other dangerous criminal activity, like drugs and gambling, in their communities, and they will often go on to abuse more animals in fighting rings following convictions.
* There is a high correlation between sexual abuse of animals and sexual abuse of children.]
So far, the US system of punishment, on all fronts, has been a spectacular failure. There must be better models for dealing with this.
I think we have a case here of a good intention growing into a really bad idea. As a vegan animal rights activist, I find this law — very likely written by mostly non-vegan, non-animal rights supporters — a bad idea.
Admin note: My apologies to Chris and others in the conversation that his comment is appearing here a full two days after he wrote it. I’ve been distracted by the health issues of one of my dog companions this week, and in addition to being behind in reading posts and comments, I’ve also neglected to check the spam filter too apparently. Lo siento.
Apology accepted, Jake.
Everyone else: Here’s where I thought another issue would be, other than the ones stated: I think about people who publish the names and addresses of vivisectionists and others who engage in the legal abuse of sentient nonhumans. Obviously, the intention is to expose them as abusers. I guess this is another post, but I thought the discussion would naturally go here.
Unlike the vivisectionists whose torture is perfectly legal, here we have individuals who are not just suspects, and they were not acting within the law. They have been convicted of crimes (and Marji’s point about hoarding is well-taken and it seems like it should be treated differently).
My question would be: Do you support exposing legal abusers, and if so, why not support exposing convicted abusers? Is the significant difference for you that one list is kept by the state? Do you not support exposing anyone? Is your criteria: Show me how this helps animals because I don’t think it does?
Publishing the names of current animal abusers who are above the law and using our money to abuse animals is very different than creating a permanent registry run by the state that is out of our hands of people who break laws created by annoying dog/cat lovers who eat hamburgers.
I am sure any of us would gladly take the name of a vivisector off a list if they stopped vivisection.
Not sure that ‘any of us’ would – see kristin immediately below.
I agree with Tricia. Some people in the animal rights movement would really like to know if where these convicted abusers live. I would definitely be one of those people driving by their house on a regular basis to make sure no other animals are in their possession. Some people are worried about violating the privacy of a convicted abuser. I hate to burst your bubble but I don’t car for one minute about these people and their privacy. My concern is animals. People have been put first WAY to long and animals have suffered greatly for it. Jake, in response to your statement, “to imprison someone is a act of horrific violence” Who cares??? If they inflicted cruelty on an animal this is the least of what they deserve, sorry I wouldn’t feel bad about locking someone up for this, AT ALL!
I say register them all so I know where they live so my activists friends and I can breath down their necks!
I care. About what appears to be an accelerating reversal in the historical trend toward a LESS-violent society. Now, if your interest is, as you say, ‘animals’, and not a greater degree of compassion in the world generally, then your position is consistent with your interest. Please consider, however, what damage you do to yourself by inflicting harm on another, or again by causing such harm to be inflicted, perpetuating a vortex of ever-greater violence.
Furthermore, ‘you and your activist friends’ are exactly why I think such a registry should not be made public – your ‘breathing down their necks’ would no doubt consist, in part, of driving by, shouting, ‘advising’ the neighbors, and quite possibly more overt acts of destruction: terrorist acts. That’s not my definition, sister, that’s the AETA. So one of the people I’m trying to keep out of prison – is you.
For anyone curious, this is the proposed California bill (which makes it a misdemeanor, not a felony, to register): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1277_bill_20100219_introduced.html
Randomly, the bill includes a pet food surcharge as well. :)
Not randomly perhaps, I’ll assume the surcharge is to assist paying for the legislation…
Yes, the surcharge will pay for the registry. During the press conference it becomes clear that details of the pet food fee haven’t been thoroughly worked out, but at least the idea of the mechanism for paying for the registry exists.
Did I understand that correctly? reduce animal cruelty by charging people extra for feeding animals?
That is correct. It’s a creative way to fund the proposed program. With California in a fiscal crisis only those bills with funding integrated into the bill will get a chance at passing.
I imagine most California pet guardians aren’t going to be too pleased with that unless it was super minimal and they all agreed with the program. I don’t know about the former, but I can guarantee the latter won’t be true.
After reading the post – and especially the comments – I’m reminded of a recent piece I saw at IBTP re: sex offender registries:
You know these cards. “NOTICE OF HIGH-RISK SEX OFFENDER IN COMMUNITY.” The state sends’em out when a convicted perv, who for some reason isn’t in jail even though he is “high risk,” moves into your neighborhood, to frolic and molest.
The question is, what the fuck are you supposed to do with this information? Go from orange to red alert? Or, if you are already on red alert because this is, like, the 8th one of these cards you’ve gotten, escalate to infrared alert? [...]
Because, Jesus in a jetpack, these unhelpful warnings are meaningless, merely adding to the shitpile and general sense of exhaustion women perpetually experience as a result of performing our unceasing hyper-vigilance.
Given that our entire society is built around speciesism – so much so that this registry necessarily exempts standard / “industry” animal use/abuse – would such a registry prove all that helpful? Everyone’s a potential animal abuser, in some way, shape or form. Of course, I can also see the utility in such a list for animal shelters and rescue orgs (although, many already have their own informal “do not adopt” lists as it is, yes?).
That said, one aspect of the sex offender list – i.e., tasking women with preventing their own rapes, rather than expecting men to refrain from raping women and children – doesn’t really translate to the animal abuser registry.
Also, I’m kind of just thinking out loud here. Which is to say, I’m not really sure what I think!
Also, sex offender registries do not work the way I think they were intended to. They do not reduce the likelihood of repeat offenders. They do not deter crimes. Even in communities with increased awareness about the program, the recidivism rate is no different than in communities with little to no awareness of the program. The only program so far that is proving successful (really low risk of recidivism and high deterrence) is a GPS system for high-risk, very dangerous released offenders. New Jersey has a program and has had a really great success with it.
I wrote a bit about it at my own blog: http://for-the-pits.blogspot.com/2010/02/california-internet-animal-abuse.html
Canada has a different program and a much lower rate of recidivism.
Also, I don’t think the surcharge is going to fly with pet guardians. :)
It’s definitely difficult to justify if similar tactics don’t reduce recidivism for sex offenders. What makes the most sense to me is mandatory treatment. After all, we’re trying to decrease the likelihood that someone is going to abuse again, and it would seem that spending some positive time on the person is better than humiliating them.
But then there’s the function of letting the community know there’s an abuser in their midst and I wonder if people think they have a right to know . . .
Having just read a wrenching story of cats being ‘adopted’ and tortured makes this topic really clear for me, register them. The link is really hard to read but if you want to:
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16231/NY/US/RSS/
I have seen no research that shows forcing therapy on anyone ever works to rehab them so…register. At least it would keep serial abusers from strolling into the next shelter and walking out with another victim. So, in this way there is a point to the notice, rather like the point of keeping child abusers from fostering or adopting children.
Is it perfect? No, it leaves ‘livestock’ to suffer. But at present I’ll take what I can get and work for more. And yes, jail is violence, but again, it’s what we have. We can work for alternatives, work for less harsh and awful treatment in prison. And getting private prisons out of the equation is way up there, but that’s another rant, sorry.
I look forward to that other rant on prisons-for-profit – if you can explain how that isn’t the slave trade, I’ll be gratified to hear it.
On the subject of forced therapy, I expect you’re right, strictly speaking. In some cases, however, probationers are told, in effect, ‘work this program, and we’ll expunge your record/ dismiss these charges/ reduce this to a misdemeanor; fail to work this program and it’s hard time, or more hard time’. One sees a great deal of this in connection with drug offenses: while not permitting the offender to escape punishment, we created an opportunity and an incentive for the offender to correct himself in a constructive and observable fashion. This is the ‘rigorous rehabilitation’ I allude to below.
Canada has a program of mandatory therapy for sex offenders. Their recidivism rates are much lower than in the US.
The fact remains that the comparable program – sex offender registries – does not work. Why would try to emulate a failed program?
Let me add: I think it would be fair to offer a registry to government run shelters and some qualified privately run animal shelters…if it worked. If the program fails, toss it.
That said, it should be noted that animals do not exist solely in animal shelters. It is easy to acquire an animal through craigslist, backyard breeders, unscrupulous breeders, puppy mills, pet stores, parking lots, flea markets. I do not say this to deter the proposed program (even if I disagree with it), just that it won’t necessarily mean a reduction in animal abuse if animal shelters deny adoption based on past misbehavior.
If you are talking about a database available to, say, county-run shelters or the city pound, that seems like an obvious step – any peace officer can access that kind of information (unless the convict has taken some very rigorous steps to ‘rehabilitate’ himself before the law.) I believe every state now uses thumbprints to verify identity for driver’s licenses, certainly anyone with a felony rap has prints in the system, your local pound should be able to check your license and say ‘no way, Bob – you eat puppies!’ at least with respect to those offenses which are animal-related. When you start to include, say, privately-held sanctuaries, it gets a little fuzzier in terms of privacy rights and information control and so forth, but certainly anyone in a position to foster- or adopt-out animals ought to be able to check such a record, if only by calling the local sheriff’s office.
A public registry, however, quite apart from the deficiency Vida cites (that it does nothing to address ‘industry practices’), creates several problems: first, it creates a risk of vigilantism, in which ARAs might well go about confronting registrants (cf Kristin, above), and while said ARAs might insist that this is ‘non-violent action’, the man cornered in his house by epithet-shrieking loons will not regard it so – or respond as though it were; second, it involves a lot of law-enforcement resources, to dubious effect (a great many law-enforcement professionals have turned against the sex-offender registration laws over this: they’re too inclusive, don’t leave any discretion to the judges, detectives and probation officers who actually deal directly with registrants, and they have no washout, so they continue to tie up more and more money and person-hours, forever); third, and, I think, most importantly, the person so registered can never again bask in the good opinion of his neighbors; what, then, impels him to conduct himself in a socially-acceptable fashion? I mean to say that if we consign such folks permanently and publicly to the ranks of Evildoers – the proverbial Brand upon the Cheek – then theirs is the only good opinion available to him. I think that our interests as a society are much better served if we restrain ourselves in our vengeance, and refrain from foreclosing all paths to redemption – “make good men your judges, but not so great in their goodness that they forget what human frailty is.”
Hmm.
This: (vida) “I have seen no research that shows forcing therapy on anyone ever works to rehab them so…register. At least it would keep serial abusers from strolling into the next shelter and walking out with another victim.”
I’m a shelter volunteer. If we can have some foreknowledge, before placing an unwanted animal in the hands of someone who will JUST torture that animal, that’s a worthwhile tradeoff, all other privacy concerns and slippery slope arguments aside.
Not to brush those things off – they’re important – but vastly LESS important than doing *nothing* in the face of at least *some* preventable suffering.
Yes, the systemic problems (from an AR perspective) are still, well, problematic: such a registry does what we ALWAYS do in this culture – we privilege cats and dogs (some of the time) and largely ignore every other form of animal abuse. But at *least* – at the very least – this would give those of us in shelters a little more foreknowledge.
“Some might say that this is speciesist and unfairly focuses on cats, dogs and horses, leaving only the “unnecessary” abuses of animals raised for food to ever be included.”
This.
As far as I’m concerned, there is very little difference in people who abuse animals as part of the food system, and people who abuse animals when it is not part of the abuse system. Both cases of abuse are completely voluntary and completely unnecessary. I’m not interested in driving the divide between cats/dogs/”pet” animals and sheep/cows/chickens/”farm” animals any further.
I agree with the law. Animal abuse is heinous. But if there’s gonna be an animal abuser registry, anyone working in a medical research lab needs to be on it. Sorry, but you can’t create a law like this and not expend it to EVERYONE who abuses animals. Research labs adopt from shelters too and there are even people who breed animals specifically to be tortured in the name of human comforts. Do you take medications for restless leg syndrome or let your doctor prescrine something for your kid’s Obsessive Disobedient Disorder? If so, you support animal abuse.
The law is admirable, but if California’s gonna do it, they need to open their eyes all the way.
The “scarlet letter” sex offender registry programs in California make me ashamed of my state. Branding someone who once exposed themselves in public or, god forbid, flirted with an imaginary 14 year old on an NBC tabloid show, is the height of paternalist sexism. And even in extreme cases (rape, dogfighting) I don’t see the sense or ethics in labeling someone for life based on one evil act.
Also, we’re playing with fire when we endorse any aspect of the prison-industrial complex. It’s not hard to imagine a registry program for anyone who’s ever monkey wrenched an animal industry; say, by rescuing chickens from a poultry farm.
IMO we should refrain from jailing, or promoting the jailing of, anyone.
Just a clarification: I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect ourselves from the Dahmers of the world. But Dahmers exist in a particular cultural context, and that context includes us saying, as a society, that it’s all right to jail/kill the less powerful. Take away the social support for violence — and violence includes prisons — and violence would be rare indeed.
Forgive the double-post spam: I just want to reiterate that intersectionality means emptying prisons as much as it does emptying other kinds of cages.