Animal Abuse and Domestic Violence

[UKR]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

The Case of the Battered Pet
Who would suspect that a family’s animals could be pawns in domestic violence? Or that their sad condition might tip off investigators to women in trouble? The terrifying truth about cats and dogs.

By Barry Yeoman

Originally published in O, The Oprah Magazine, June 2008



The article goes on from there. Mostly just posting this cause it was the kind of thing that never would have occured to me to think about but once I did it made perfect sense, the kind of person who attacks a spouse is going to be exactly the kind of person who holds a pet hostage to control that spouse, and threatening violence against a pet is probably exactly the kind of thing that would successfully terrorize a spouse into staying with an abuser.
This list from the Humane Society does pretty good at explaining how it works:



So anyway, I thought it would be a worthwhile use of a thread to share this with you all.

One word for you: "Feminazis".

[mad2physicist]

Originally Posted by Azisien

I take a slightly more radical stance, in that I think anybody torturing an animal should face the same penalties by law as they do if they had been torturing a human being. Not only were they already torturing/abusing a sentient creature, but this probably prevents further abuse to other animals/humans and just generally removes undesirables from society.

Yes, agreed (well, maybe the penalties should be toned down a bit, but not as much as they are now). Not so much for the pragmatic benefit as simply because torturing animals is very serious in itself. And the current penalties are ridiculously low. Not long ago a kid about to go to college decided to get rid of his pet rabbit by duck taping a bomb to it and throwing it in a lake. For the record, rabbits are not natural water creatures. Fortunately the bomb did not go off and the rabbit survived and was rescued, but the perpetrator was given only a month in jail.

On a related topic (I don't remember where I read this), 7 in 10 violent offenders in Chicago's prison system admitted that their first acts of violence were against animals, then they moved on to people.

The problem for these people in domestic abuse situations is not always the fact that there are no organizations to help the pet, but that they are not aware of those organizations. Organizations like Best Friends or Life Long Tails (the latter is unfortunately a local organization) are not widely known.

[Funka Genocide]

I think it's generally understood that battering animals is a despicable act, so I won't go into length about my personal feelings.

A point I'd like to introduce, which is interesting to me, is the relationship between abuser and abused. I would assume that an emotionally "average" person would not tolerate any form of abuse towards their pets or themselves, but given the choice between personal safety and the safety of a pet, one should,in my opinion, logically choose themselves.

I understand that qualms one would have in selling out one of their animal friends, but the decision would not be as hard for myself as it would be to decide between my safety and that of another human.

to pose a hypothetical situation:

"I will kill your dog if you don't let me beat you."

Which is ostensibly the choice which is illustrated in this example. The primary objective is to remove yourself to a safer situation before worrying about your pet. I think this codependency illustrates far more about the mind of the abused than the abuser, who seems to be for all intents and purposes a singleminded control freak with violent tendencies.

Nobody should blame the victim for being victimized, but one should take account of the mental frailties which allow one to be victimized in the first place. The abuser is in the wrong, but the abused is doing something wrong.

[Nique]

I take a slightly more radical stance, in that I think anybody torturing an animal should face the same penalties by law as they do if they had been torturing a human being. Not only were they already torturing/abusing a sentient creature, but this probably prevents further abuse to other animals/humans and just generally removes undesirables from society.

Agreed. But only because the person to beat an animal in anger is likely to do the same to humans, as illustrated, and is probably more dangerous. I mean, in principle, its like beating children, or even a baby - a defenseless creature who cannot understand the situation and cannot protect themselves against it in any way. In this case, the punishment should be derived from the mentality of the abuser, and not the consequences of their actions.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by Nique

In this case, the punishment should be derived from the mentality of the abuser, and not the consequences of their actions.

That is an interesting point which I had not considered.

I think in an ideal situation this would apply, however action being the only observable occurence makes it the default determination criteria for punishment.

Punishing mentality is too big of a stretch, in my opinion. One could conceivably be punished for having murderous intent without action, which seems highly unjust.

Also impossible to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Even with the fantastical capability to read the mind of another human being, punishment for intent without action would be unjust. One can desire to perform all manner of heinous acts and not actually perpetrate any sort of transgression.

So a pattern of animal abuse will serve to illustrate a tendency towards violence in general, however without an actual incidence of human abuse prosecution should coincide with the severity of the crime. We have all maimed and killed defenseless animals before without the slightest hint of regret, by way of an example spiders and roaches. If we can all casually murder a living organism, or benefit from it's demise (a la delicious turkey sandwiches) then who is to say we won't hurt or kill humans for our own benefit?

There are accepted levels of empathy in human society, one important step in this progression of acceptable empathy is the jump from domestic animals to humans. Abusing a pet is unnacceptable, however not as severe a transgression against social norms as abusing a person.

This is a cruel system, however it is also an appropriate one. It works within the confines of the system of human society. Giving animals rights on par with human beings, and enforcing those rights as vigorously as we would for another human, is to some an ideal situation, however I do not believe it is the actual situation, nor do I see any trend towards this ideal in modern society.

[Gorefiend]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

I understand that qualms one would have in selling out one of their animal friends, but the decision would not be as hard for myself as it would be to decide between my safety and that of another human.

I think the issue here, and I think this was in the article, is that often abusers will first cut off every single tie the abused has to the outside world or other creatures except for that one pet. While I agree with you that in normal circumstances the animal would be allowed to kick the bucket, often for these women its not "one of their animal friends" but their only friend, or at least the only friend they can safely continue to be friends with.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Punishing mentality is too big of a stretch, in my opinion. One could conceivably be punished for having murderous intent without action, which seems highly unjust.

I suppose, at least with the actions of animal abuse/slaying and spousal abuse, one could conceivably prove that a) the person in question is a sociopath who clearly has no qualms about killing/hurting other creatures, likely including people and, more importantly b) they already have a history that proves that they are more than willing to indulge in this macabre hobby with people as well. That may not be entirely criminal, but I'm sure it'd justify at least some sort of either surveillance or mandated psychiatric evaluation or therapy. Point is, I am more than prepared to believe that someone who beats on/kills animals and beats on people is willing to go the next step and kill people with no real qualms about it, and I think something, perhaps short of actual jail time or the like, ought to be done.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

So a pattern of animal abuse will serve to illustrate a tendency towards violence in general, however without an actual incidence of human abuse prosecution should coincide with the severity of the crime. We have all maimed and killed defenseless animals before without the slightest hint of regret, by way of an example spiders and roaches. If we can all casually murder a living organism, or benefit from it's demise (a la delicious turkey sandwiches) then who is to say we won't hurt or kill humans for our own benefit?

I suppose I ought to draw a line I think I see between killing roaches, spiders or other small insectoid arthropods, killing larger birds or mammals for food, and animal abuse as it is shown in the article above and defined by law. That line is that, almost universally, killing insects or animals for food is done with the final purpose, killing, in mind, and is therefore usually done quickly and without intent of pain, whereas in animal abuse, almost universally the intent IS pain. Clearly, someone willing to inflict pain liberally on creatures that can visibly and often audibly feel that pain implies a very sick mind, moreso if the same individual also inflicts pain on humans. In contrast, I believe most animal slaughterers don't, or at least didn't back when it wasn't a gigantic industry, revel in their actions. Actually, I wouldn't think even those who work in gigantic industries today necessarily do, either. And I know that I don't usually try to torture insects before I kill them, and wouldn't imagine many adults do. So, again, its a case where the actions, in context, help prove a mentality that society should do something about.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

This is a cruel system, however it is also an appropriate one. It works within the confines of the system of human society. Giving animals rights on par with human beings, and enforcing those rights as vigorously as we would for another human, is to some an ideal situation, however I do not believe it is the actual situation, nor do I see any trend towards this ideal in modern society.

I will add, though, that I agree with this wholeheartedly. Ultimately, animal abuse should only be judged as being as criminal as human abuse if the abuser has also, visibly, shown himself/herself willing to harm humans.

[Nique]

I should say that I intended to be a little less literal, as I am basically in agreement with Funka.

[Azisien]

I don't see the trend coming to any kind of fruition either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, or that I can't try to work towards it.

I am glad to see a whole range of perspectives tend to agree on this issue, at least. Cooperation at last!

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

We have all maimed and killed defenseless animals before without the slightest hint of regret, by way of an example spiders and roaches. If we can all casually murder a living organism, or benefit from it's demise (a la delicious turkey sandwiches) then who is to say we won't hurt or kill humans for our own benefit?

Gorefiend handled this pretty well, but I should just add in by saying I think this is horribly, horribly wrong. Self defense, accidents, pest control (if that's why you're casually killing roaches), and consuming meat can really in no way be compared practically or psychologically to actual abuse, essentially torture, and perhaps leading up to the painful death of an animal.

The type of animal does matter. While I enjoy preaching my radical stance, my biology background demands I concede to the hierarchy of sentience and likeness to humans in the living world. While pain is still a bit of an enigma in humans, it's to some extent structurally and functionally understood and it doesn't seem like that kind of pain signalling exists in a lot of lower animals due to completely different nervous systems, not to mention size and life strategy. In that way, there's less of a behavioural link to sadism (I guess I'll call it that) if you're killing spiders and roaches. While I'd think it rather dispicable of you to pull the wings off a bunch of flies and watch them die, no, I don't think that requires a criminal conviction.

As we move up the ladder of animal complexity and nervous system become more complex, pain becomes a trait of animals for survival, and animals in general are evolutionarily closer to humans; they should be further protected. Practically speaking, abuse of these animals shows that the abuser simply isn't right in the head.

Moving to domesticated animals complicates things even further because there are emotional and relational ties between the animals and the humans that demand further enforcement. Many people would be willing to kill to protect their family members, and many pets are considered family members. They shouldn't be entitled to all the rights a human being receives, in the same way men shouldn't be given a right to terminate their pregnancy; some rights just aren't applicable. But seeing as a dog or cat is just as sentient as you are, it should be given the same rights to protect against arbitrary harm, and the law should back up those rights just as it does humans.

As far as meat eating goes, I can understand a vegetarian perspective frankly, and I commend all of them. There is a certain moral greyness, but nonetheless, I doubt many in the meat industry abuse the animals intended for slaughter. If they do, such actions should be stopped and the law should step in, punishments handed out. But the consumer in this day and age is generally so far removed from even the humane death of the animal that morality doesn't really come into play; and dang that burger tastes good!

However, to use a quick example, I've been cussed at before for bringing up the slaughter of the animals we were eating at the dinner table, or even jokingly making cute "moo" or "arf arf" sounds. My mother especially was upset by this, and though I apologised and dropped it, it shows me I'm not alone in feeling a sort of guilt once the slaughter of an animal (unnecessary slaughter too) is brought closer to my attention. I think my mother would be a vegetarian if she had to kill the chicken herself, unless she made my father do it or unless we were starving (and I do make exceptions for "desperate measures").

I go so far as to compare the guilt one feels on a day to day basis when eating a turkey sandwich to, say, the situation in Africa. Millions upon millions infected, suffering, and dying of AIDS, malaria, TB, wars, you name an atrocity they're got it. I've never shed a single tear for it all, and likewise for eating a burger. The similarity is that I'm so far removed from the situations, morality doesn't come into play. It's psychological. If I actually went to Africa, or hell, even if I just watched a movie like Blood Diamond, the situation is brought closer to me on a personal level, and my opinion (and hopefully my actions) change.

Well I imagine I'm well off the rail now, so I'll leave it there and hope I made some sort of sense. In conclusion, there need to be firmer laws and enforcement of BOTH animal abuse AND domestic violence.

[Funka Genocide]

My blurb about delicious turkey sandwiches was a bit tongue in cheek, and I apologize if my intent became muddled in that attempt. The point I mean to illustrate is that we have distinctions in society between classes of organism. Bugs and food animals occupy a lesser station than pets, whereas pets occupy a lesser station than humans. This is a logical and effective system.

So, it was merely enforcing my initial summation that an emotionally average person would not make the same choice these victims did.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Bugs and food animals occupy a lesser station than pets, whereas pets occupy a lesser station than humans. This is a logical and effective system.

What I would like to challenge is just this: you've said twice now its a logical and effective system and a few others do seem inclined to agree. I can agree as far as its hierarchal nature seems logical, with "lesser" animals being ranked lesser on its scale, culminating in medium to large-sized, furry domesticated animals.

My problem? It's too skewed for us. I'm not at all surprised, but genetics and other things I ain't bringing up here do incline the average joe to favor his species over another. On the other hand, if I witnessed negligently run over my dog with a car, I'd be inclined to decapitate him. Point being, it's at least worth evaluating our inclinations.

I personally value my pets very highly, and grant them a level of respect similar to humans. I don't consider myself an owner of my pets, as if I were to own a slave (hey, interesting analogy), but as members of the household just like I am. Now, given the communication barrier and so on, I don't expect them to go out and get a job, so like any parent raising a child all I demand is some obedience.

So I ask the question: what makes the system so effective? It's not absolutely broken, but what would be gained from a change that grants more protection to higher animals? Some of the acts committed on pets that are loved and feel as much as any human would subject the abuser to probably a relatively small fine and rudimentary jail time. A slap on the wrist that reeks of lack of respect for other beings.

I think it would be more effective if, at least to start, the punishment level for crimes against our pets was raised significantly. Jail time to show that we're not kidding around and it's really really not okay to throw a cat into a lake attached to a cinder block. Maybe not as bad as humans, but I think any significant torture to an animal, which if done on a human would probably get someone 25 to Death Row, should be at least 10 to 25.