Animal PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN EXPLORATION OF ANIMAL ABUSE
AND ANIMAL ABUSERS
by
Gretchen Joy Bickerstaff
A Dissertation
Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Criminal Justice
2003
UMI Number: 3095183
Copyright 2003 by
Bickerstaff, Gretchen Joy
Ail rights reserved.
_ __ _®
UMI
UMI Microform 3095183
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346
AN EXPLORATION OF ANIMAL ABUSE
AND ANIMAL ABUSERS
by
Gretchen Joy Bickerstaff
C O PYRIG HT 2003
This is dedicated to all the animals whose suffering
made this possible.
iii
Acknowledgements
It is with great appreciation that I thank the members of my committee:
Drs. Hans Toch (Chair), Frankie Bailey, Shadd Maruna, Graeme Newman, and
Rob W orden. I was fortunate that they saw the value of this topic, and their
careful reading of the drafts and valuable comments allowed me to make
measurable improvements in the development and writing. It probably goes
without saying that without Dr. Toch this would never have happened since
he saw the possibilities long before I ever did.
I thank my mother Dorothy, whose hard work set the early example for
me. She was always the least surprised at any of my accomplishments.
Final thanks must go to Brian, who did the unglamorous work of a second
coder and “administrator”; these generally boring tasks were performed,
surprisingly, without complaint.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. Introduction 1
Cruelty to Animals - Measurement and Assessment 1
The Lure of Animals - Reconciling Indifference and Attachment 4

Statement of the Problem 8
Towards the Solution - A Content Analytic Approach 12
Historical Overview 13
2. Review of the Literature 33

Violence Graduation Hypothesis 34
Deviance Generalization Hypothesis 41
Cruelty to Animals and Motivation 46
3. Method 51
Research Instrument 55
Sample Selection 56
Analytical Procedure 70
Coding 71
Statistical Analysis 76
4. Results 79
Crime and Victim 79
Criminal Justice Response 87
Offender Characteristics 95
Motivation 99
Results of Cluster Analysis 107
Criminal Justice Disposition by Cluster 147
5. Discussion 152
6. Conclusion 165
Bibliography 169
Appendix A: Codebook for cluster analysis 179
Appendix B: Coding instructions 183
vi
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Distribution of type and number of animal victimized by offender 80
4.2 Species victimization by gender of offender 82
4.3 Modality of abuse by gender of abuser 84
4.4 Distribution of sentencing alternatives by category of offense 86
4.5 Offender characteristics and criminal activity by gender of abuser 94
4.6 Prior and concurrent charges by gender 96
4.7 Distribution of offender motivation, in rank order 98
4.8 Motivation of offense by gender of offender 103
4.9 Result of cluster analysis 105/106
4.10 Criminal justice disposition by cluster 148/149
vii
An Exploration of Animal Abuse
and Animal Abusers
Abstract
Crimes against animals have been consistently neglected within the
discipline of Criminal Justice, yet most states classify these acts as
misdemeanors, or with increasing frequency, as felonies. Lack of response
from police and prosecution contribute to the impression that animal cruelty is
rare or relatively benign. If all the seemingly isolated and random stories
involving cruelty to animals were collected and subjected to systematic
analysis, the number of cases and the extent of the cruelty might be sobering.
To this end, a search of electronic and print media of newspaper stories
nationwide was conducted, and patterns of crimes, victims, offenders and
criminal justice response were analyzed where cruelty to animals was evident.
A typology of offender based on motivation was also constructed by performing
a content analysis of newspaper articles for the year 2000.
A total number of 717 cases were retrieved; 591 cases had an
identified offender and 126 were anonymous. Dogs were the most abused
type of animal, followed by cats and horses. The largest group of abusers
were m ale (427), and fem ales totaled 104. A third group, mixed partner, was
also included, numbering 60 cases. Three-quarters of the fem ales and just
over half of the mixed partners owned more than one type of animal, while
viii
males tended to be more consistent in ownership patterns. Males showed the
most versatility in the types of abuse, with the predominant modes of abuse
being neglect, baiting, beating, shooting and starving.
The results of the analysis of the criminal justice response are considered
tentative because information on the final disposition may have been missing
from reported accounts. The most common form of sentencing was a
combination of fines, probation and community service. Roughly one-quarter
of offenders were incarcerated, and there was a great degree of variability in
sentences that appeared to be independent of the severity of the crime.
The most common motivation for animal cruelty crimes was profit,
followed by thrill-seeking behaviors. In all, 14 motivations were identified.
These and other select variables were cluster analyzed to arrive at 10
identifiable offender types: Violent Aggressors, Hapless Abusers, Career
Abusers, Disciplinarians, Schemers and Con Artists, Thrill-Seekers, Control
Freaks, Racketeers, Collectors, and Neglectors.
This study was designed to be a comprehensive analysis of the crime of
cruelty to animals and provide exploratory research on the development of an
offender typology. Up to this point, there has been little attention to crimes of
animal cruelty. Our treatment of animals is of interest because it presents a
chance to study human behavior, specifically criminal behavior, in a unique
social context that is isolated from other human interactions. Changing current
practices involving cruelty to animals may require major shifts in our current
attitudes.
ix
Chapter 1
Introduction
On June 28, 1999, the Felony Animal Cruelty Law was signed, making
cruelty to animals a Class E Felony in New York State. Officially on the books
by November 1, 1999, the passage of this law joined New York with twenty-six
other states demanding harsher penalties for crimes against animals. Buster’s
Law, as it is more familiarly known, is named for a cat that was torched and
burned to death. It is both appropriate and ironic that the name Buster evokes
such macho imagery; in reality, he was no match for a human opponent. It is
a fitting reminder that acts as distasteful and senseless as the immolation of a
cat are often directed towards pets, and were in the past only treated with the
seriousness of a misdemeanor charge, if prosecuted at all. Each state makes
its’ own determination of the requisite penalty for the crime of animal cruelty,
and although the trend is towards more punitive legislation, there is still a lack
of consensus on the issue. Inter-state variability in the laws coupled with intra
state fluctuations in enforcement lead to a tendency to under-report and under-
emphasize the suffering of these silent victims.
Cruelty to Animals - Measurement and Assessment
The general concept of animal cruelty can be divided into two major
areas: commercial use and exploitation of animals such as factory farming
and research; and the abuse of companion animals, specifically pets and
semi-domesticated animals. There has been a substantial and valuable
amount of literature on philosophical and ethical questions involved in large-
scale animal usage and exploitation and the concept of animal liberation, but
even under this enhanced scrutiny the topic is not easily studied. The
difficulties noted in evaluations of the use and abuse of animals used for
commercial purposes, while not integral to a study of cruelty to companion
animals, can be relevant and can foreshadow some of the difficulties that arise
in any animal cruelty study. Additionally, on occasion these two separate
areas of commercial and private animal ownership converge when pets
surface at research facilities and when humane agencies must step in to aid
failing farms.
The actual number of animals that die each year, as victims of crime or
consumed by research, is unknown. The Uniform Crime Report and the
National Crime Victimization Survey do not tabulate offenses against animals.
At a minimum, it would be expected that within well-regulated industries, such
as governmental use of animals for experimentation, the total number of
animals sacrificed or the conditions under which they were housed would be
recorded. There are only estimates of these numbers available, and these
range from 20-100 million; it is clear from this range that there is tremendous
imprecision in the accounting. In 1966 Congress passed the Laboratory
Animal W elfare Act, which was a set of minimum standards designed to
regulate the treatment of lab and farm animals and schedule inspections by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Act was
promulgated in direct response to the increased upsurge in animal research
and testing and was designed, where pets were concerned, as protection
against theft and sale to research facilities (Mendelson, 1997). From the
outset, little funding was channeled into enforcement (Morse, 1968) and
although amendments have followed initial propagation of the law,
enforcement still remains sporadic or non-existent. Government facilities are
exempt from any reporting or inspection requirements and curtail humane
concerns by being self-monitoring, and therefore, answering to no one
(Reitman, 1992). Inspection and reporting on farm conditions have also
suffered under the aegis of the USDA. Local humane agencies may
sometimes step in when the USDA fails to monitor severely compromised farm
animals, so real numbers become blurred as some agencies work sporadically
and informally outside their jurisdictions.
Many lab animals originate as pets, either stolen or products of “free to a
good home” advertisements, but with an unclear picture of the number of
animals consumed in experimental labs, it is impossible to evaluate the
percentage that originated as companion animals. Records of pets that
eventually make their way to research facilities are often missing or falsified,
for it is a secretive and closed society, difficult to penetrate and even more
difficult to monitor. The desirability of pets for research purposes should not
be underestimated, since pets offer the advantage of easier manageability by
having been socialized into human routines, and it is believed that the volume
of pets lost to this industry is not inconsequential (Reitman, 1992).
Governmental bodies and research agencies, then, appear to suffer from
a lack of accountability that would lead to accurate assessment and evaluation
of either global animal or specific pet consumption. Alternatively, local
agencies, such as the Amercian Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA) should be a good source of information about animal cruelty cases
but in New York City, for instance, the ASPCA has undergone periods of gross
inefficiency (Carson, 1972) where little investigation of a substantive nature
has occurred. Similarly, big cities like New York City can have a large number
of cases with a relatively small number of investigators, and this disadvantage
can be compounded when these limited resources are consumed by frivolous
complaints such as barking dogs, lodged as a means of harassing neighbors.
The orientation and philosophy of the ASPCA revolves around education which
can more often result in an informal notice to comply instead of formal criminal
charges, thereby further decreasing the number of prosecuted cases.
Although there are philosophical, legal and emotional issues separating
commercial or private animal ownership, there is considerable overlap when
(potbelly) pigs become pets and pets become (guinea) pigs; neither division
can provide reliable descriptions of abuses or numbers of suffering animals.
The Lure of Animals - Reconciling Indifference and Attachment
The United States is a nation of animal lovers. Pet populations number in
the millions: 59 million cats in the U.S. and 52.9 million dogs; birds, fish and
other small mammals account for 78.7 million other household pets (American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1992). Despite this dedication to companion
animals, approximately 5 million dogs and cats are killed in shelters every year
(Nieves, 1999). The Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC) in New York,
which is one of the largest shelters in the country, takes in approximately
60,000 cats and dogs a y e a r roughly 40,000 are euthanized (Hess, 1996).
With these exceedingly large pet populations, the probability of a substantial
number of animal abuse cases is assured, although a comparatively small
number of abuse cases actually surface in any one place at any one time. The
paucity of prosecuted cases contributes to a concept of random, isolated acts
of violence against a few, presumed stray, cats and dogs; this concept of
violence often appears to be nothing more than passing anecdotes, shocking
at first but easily downplayed and dismissed as rare occurrences.
W hile it may seem that there is little priority placed on adequately
protecting animals, results from various studies indicate that to many
individuals the idea of animal suffering creates discomfort, and psychological
mechanisms are employed to decrease the cognitive dissonance when actions
(cruelty) and beliefs (humane treatment) don’t coincide. Pious (1993) has
identified various mechanisms that are used to reconcile the ambiguities in
man's relationship with animals. The easiest approach is avoidance, which
can be accomplished passively by not seeking out animal-related information
or by actively dodging news accounts or discussions of animal-related issues.
Limiting one’s own use of animals by practicing vegetarianism or boycotting
products with animal ingredients is another tactic. Americans rarely eat parts
such as eyes, tongue or brain that are derived from the head of an animal;
moreover, Americans find it difficult to eat products that in any way resemble
the living animal and will employ various techniques to disguise the animal
part. Another adaptive strategy is to ignore intelligence in non-human
counterparts, although there can be an acknowledgment of a capacity for
pain; this mechanism is also employed when apathetically viewing the
suffering of the underclass and other oppressed masses. A more subtle but
perhaps more virulent adaptation employed is to choose language that
promotes the disassociation of humans from animals. Farm animals are
“crops" and their products are “b e e f and “veal” that is antiseptically packaged
and transformed into “cubes” and “tenders”; adoption of these euphemisms
allows and encourages consumption.
Linguistic disguises are not unique to the food industry. The Journal of
Experimental Medicine recommends the substitution of “intoxicant" for poison
and “fasting” for starving, while the U.S. Army applies the term “trained
biosensors” to dogs used in research (Pious, 1993). Even ethologists must
avoid accusations of anthropomorphism and therefore describe behaviors in
unemotional terms. Their subjects must remain nameless, as if this
humanizing action will negate the validity of behavioral findings (Masson &
McCarthy, 1995). It has been noted that these linguistic acrobatics, designed
to dehumanize or create distance have been used commonly in reference to
animals and women (Adams, 1994a).
The use of euphemisms suggests that people are affected on a
subconscious level. Employing more direct measures, public concern for
animals becomes evident in surveys: as many as 76% of respondents express
concerns over pain and suffering in animals (Gallup & Beckstead, 1988).
Compared to other countries, America scores high on surveys measuring
affection and protectionist concern for animals, but underlying ambivalence in
attitudes is revealed by a belief in the utilitarian purpose of animals, specifically
the belief in the practical value of animals or the subordination of animals for
human benefit. The strongest affections are for individual animals such as
pets or animals with anthropomorphic association (Kellert, 1993). A more
recent survey conducted for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
indicated that a majority of respondents felt animal cruelty laws should be
strengthened (80%); laws should apply to all, not just companion animals
(87% ); some cases should be treated seriously and classified as a felony
(71% ); and that neglect is as bad as abuse (70% ) (Lockwood, 1999). In a
study designed to measure adolescents’ ratings of child and pet abuse,
vignettes were presented to undergraduate students (Roscoe et al., 1986).
Results indicated that adolescents are critical of abusive acts to both children
and animals; however, abusive acts were taken more seriously than neglect.
Additional research suggests that positive feelings for animals can be
reinforced. In an experiment designed to measure the scope of justice (the
boundary for fairness), information provided to subjects about the Bombardier
Beetle was manipulated (Opotow, 1993). W hen the beetle was presented as
having a neurological system, social behavior and consumption similar to
humans, subjects were more inclined to allocate resources to the beetle than
when the beetle was presented as competing with humans for resources.
Similarly, Arluke (1996) compared the orientation to animals in two different
primate research labs. W here a philosophy of caring for the animals was
promoted, the well-being of the animals was stressed and becam e the mission
of every employee. Handlers used all opportunities to play with the primates,
even including breaks and lunch hours, and the primates were regarded as a
substitute pet. In the other lab, the animals were viewed only as a research
tool, treated roughly by the staff and afforded the minimal necessities. He
concluded that this comparison illustrated that culture can be shaped, i.e. we
can stress humane treatment and make abuse repellent.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of animal cruelty is not ephemeral but enduring. Ideally,
Francione (2000) would see a society without pets as a solution that decreases
animal cruelty, but realistically, this would not erase the practice; the abolition
of slavery did not end racism, and the abolition of pet ownership will not end
animal cruelty. Preece (1993) refines the sentiment of abolishment of pets by
only allowing human and animal relationships that are mutually advantageous.
It is both impractical and sad that abolishment of pets or purely symbiotic
relationships would be the solution to cruelty issues; the onus is upon humans
to recognize the various aspects of this problem and devise adequate
responses.
Crimes of such magnitude as crimes against animals would generally
stimulate a flurry of research, academic debate and scholarly interest,
especially within the discipline of Criminal Justice. It is, therefore, rather
baffling that there are no scholarly studies of animal abuse (Beime, 1995).
More specifically, there are no studies which focus solely on the animal as a
valid victim and worthy “unit of analysis.” Unlike corporations and government
bodies that are the main focus of animal rights arguments and are governed by
federal legislation, a criminal justice approach allows consideration of local
anti-cruelty statutes and allows personalization of the offenders and the
victims. These victims have names, and many would argue, personalities.
There is something fundamentally offensive about the betrayed trust that is at
issue with pets, and it elicits an outrage similar to that seen in child abuse
cases. The negligence of criminologists does not reflect man's deep and
complex relationships with animals or the abuses that are committed against
them. There are indications that a few academicians and practitioners are
starting to specialize in this topic, calling for a nonspeciest approach to animal
cruelty (Beime, 1999; Cazaux, 1999). Legal scholars have debated the
adequacy of cruelty laws (Francione, 1995; Tannenbaum, 1995; Tresi, 2002)
and most recently legal practitioners are dedicating themselves to animal law
and some law schools have begun to add courses on this topic to their
curriculums.
The focus on cruelty to animals from a criminal justice perspective
necessarily defines and limits this enquiry to a smaller, more discrete
population of primarily companion animals (i.e. pets). This limitation of scope
is not without disadvantages which revolve around a lack of commitment and
consistency in apprehension, prosecution and definition of this crime from
state to state, which consequently results in a paucity of data. State-wide
disinterest partly originates in fundamental legal limitations: penalties and
criminal charges assigned under anti-cruelty statutes rarely include
compensation for emotion suffering. This consideration, along with the
designation of pets as property, limits the punitive damages awarded and
consequently limits the deterrent value that a substantial fine might have
(Francione, 2000). Crimes with light penalties usually are not worth the effort
to prosecute and this further allows these offenses to remain in anonymity.
Additionally, under some statutes pet owners are exempt from anti-cruelty
laws and have the ultimate capacity to decide life or death of their “property" as
long as death is swift and comparatively painless (Francione, 2000). More
progressive language is being adopted, for instance, New Jersey is now
substituting “guardian" for “owner”; the long term effect of this change is yet to
be measured but appears to be primarily psychological since the designation
as property remains intact
Other anti-cruelty statutes are not clearly defined. Consider the
requirement that pets must have access to food, water and shelter outdoors:
this is obviously illogical in cases where the animals are outside sporadically or
for a limited duration, but at what point should this requirement be enforced?
Should time be measured in minutes, days or weeks, and should this mean a
cumulative amount of time, as if there is a scientific formula that calculates an
10
“optimum outdoor limit" after which the animal’s condition rapidly deteriorates?
W hat kind of shelter should be provided? Because no further description such
as the insulation factor is specified, a cardboard box can be supplied, but this
is clearly not what was the original intent of the statute. These types of crimes
often require the intervention of a witness because the conditions or evidence
of abuse can disappear by the time the incident is investigated, but as is often
the case, witnesses are reluctant to intervene.
W hether or not humans must rely on animals, it is clear that by choice,
many individuals have a personal relationship with one or many animals and
the need for a comprehensive exploration of this subject is long overdue. It is
easy to trivialize the human/pet relationship but that is a simplistic and
dismissive treatment of an extremely complex and complicated relationship.
Man’s relationships with animals represent extremes, reflecting the best and
worst of human behavior. They are our pets, our children, our toys, our
possessions and our objects. They are cherished, adored, abandoned,
beaten, tortured and eaten. Our actions reflect our conflicts and our laws
reflect our uncertainties. Some animals are raised as food sources with little
regard for their quality of life. Some animals are sacrificed by unethical
researchers for experiments of dubious value. Some animals are squandered
for a moments diversion and entertainment. But for all these transgressions,
man has, for the most part, placed these animals into a different category
where these lapses are acceptable. Pets are generally afforded a higher
standard of care. The acceptability of some forms of non-companion animal
11
mistreatment and the unacceptability of pet abuse hangs not on moral or
ethical precepts, but is quite simply because pets are more visible and hence
cruelty is harder to ignore. It is unpalatable to think that pets would be unjustly
victimized for no apparently good reason; however, when cruelty towards a
pet does occur, there is uncertainty about appropriate redress. Is animal
cruelty a misdemeanor or a felony; is it a predictor of serious psychopathology
or is it a meaningless stage in adolescent maturation; is it important within the
context of a pattern of criminal activity, or does animal cruelty alone stimulate
our concern for justice? As the imperative of humane treatment for pets
invades our consciousness broader questions of humane treatment for all
animals nudge us from complacency. Our bond with animals, and particularly
pets, has existed for thousand of years: our concern about cruelty towards
them is current.
Towards the Solution - A Content Analytic Approach
Although challenging, a study of animal cruelty should not be ignored
because, quite simply, whether or not it is trivialized in any particular venue, it
is first and foremost a crime. To overcome a data deficiency, this study,
exploratory in nature, content analyzed reports from print and electronic media
from a one-year period (2000). Stories about cruelty to pets and companion
animals, defined as any dogs, cats and other domesticated animals found in or
near the household, allowed the evaluation of which pets are abused and how
they are abused. Abuse included all acts, omissions or neglect that cause
12
physical pain, suffering or death; a somewhat more comprehensive definition
than is found in some states, but one that optimized the number of cases.
Information on criminal justice disposition was sometimes available, and
allowed conclusions about the criminal justice response to this crime. It was
also possible to collect information about offenders, and this information, along
with contextual details from the newspaper narratives that helped generate
clues to the motivations for the crimes, allowed construction of a typology of
offender based on these motivations. This study was relatively
comprehensive for this topic, and it was intended that this approach would
contribute a unique perspective and a substantial knowledge base, acting as a
fertile resource to stimulate curiosity and future research, and finally to fill the
void that has existed for so long.
Historical Overview
The fundamental answer to the question of why we have pets has never
been adequately answered. The facile response is that they are substitutes
for children and it is not considered coincidental that the cuter the animal, the
more likely it is to be domesticated. Contributing to the “cuteness factor” is the
tendency of many animals to exhibit behavioral “neoteny”, the retention of
juvenile or infantile behavior patterns (Serpell, 1 9 8 6 ). Cuteness may explain
part of the attraction or may be the reason we pick one pet over another, but it
cannot be the whole motivation for pet-keeping.
The attachment to different species varies culturally and unpredictably:
13
dogs have been treated within different tribal cultures, for example, both badly
and with enormous affection. Passariello (1999) states that “human and
domestication claims and behaviors and human totemic impulses are at the
heart, cross-culturally of human attitudes toward other animals.” Although
Serpell(1986) admits that pet-keeping is a largely ignored topic, he speculates
that the popularity of dogs and cats is an accident of history, nothing more, for
them, than being in the right place at the right time. It did not detract from
dog’s and cat’s appeal that they stay close without being caged, are the right
size, and compared to other species, do not soil their living area, making them
desirable as pets.
It appears that while we embrace the practice of keeping pets, we have
little interest in our motives and how this translates into good or bad treatment
of the animals that we choose to domesticate. Perhaps part of the lingering
ambivalence towards animals can be found in man’s earliest associations with
them. History paints a sometimes bizarre, oftentimes depressing, but
occasionally uplifting, tale of human/animal interactions. Recent research
indicates that the domestication of dogs occurred roughly 100,000 years ago
(Vila et al, 1997); while there is some disagreement over this date, it is
assured that man and canine have co-existed for at least 10,000 to 15,000
years. Believed to be descended from wolves, jackals and various wild dogs,
canines were first domesticated in Siberia. From there, they moved to China
where they were treated by the nobility as members of the royal family,
although the peasants and commoners had little affinity for them (Serpell,
14
1986). From China, dogs spread throughout the rest of the world. Natural
hunters, they were well equipped to form first a symbiotic relationship and then
a full partnership with man. Hanging around the periphery of camps, these
early scavengers were am enable to domestication (Hyams, 1972). The
convergence of changing ecological conditions from grasslands to forests and
the challenges of hunting large herds of animals coincided with the emergence
of these tamable scavengers (Ham's, cited in Passareillo, 1999). Further, dogs
as other social animals “have a marked tendency to support alien forms of life
which albeit intrusive are not openly hostile or dangerous" (Deuner, quoted in
Hyams, 1972).
Not initially viewed as a pet, cats were tolerated as a form of biological
control. The nomadic life of the hunter was replaced by a sedentary agrarian
existence, and food products could be grown and stored in granaries and silos.
Stored food reserves had an enormous impact on developing civilizations, but
were not without the cost of attracting unwanted pests such as rats and mice.
Cats were used as the antidote to these rodent invaders. By 4,000 BCE cats
were actively courted by humans; about 3,000 years later they transcended
the role of housepet to become a deity. Ancient Egyptians worshiped them as
manifestation of the goddess Bastet (Bisno, 1997). The seat of worship for
Bastet was the city Bubastis, where deceased cats were taken for embalming
and burial in sacred repositories. Ties to the ancient Egyptians are still evident
in current terminology; from Bast or Pasht, the word puss is derived. As
prolific as cats are, the question has always arisen as to why these animals did
15
not spread unchecked throughout the rest of the world. Hyams (1972)
suggests that Egyptians probably placed bans on the export of these sacred
animals, and when encountering them during travels, wandering Egyptians
earned them back to safer, more amenable surroundings. He notes that cats
were most likely ill-treated elsewhere and the Egyptians were seriously
committed to their care and safe-keeping. Egyptian law portrayed their deep
reverence for cats: the penalty for killing one was immediate execution, while
the death of a household cat was mourned by shaving the eyebrows of all
family members. W hen British excavators discovered the mummified cats of
Bubastis, ninety tons of cat mummies were removed and sent to England to be
spread as fertilizer (Clutton-Brock, 1981). Thus, desecration was finally
visited on these once well-guarded and exalted animals. The value of the
mummified animals as an archaelogical find did not override the general lack
of reverence and enthusiasm with which cats are usually greeted.
Various animals were represented as deified forms, their popularity rising
and falling as do current fashion trends. Anubis, the jackal or dog-headed god
was a physician and apothecary to other gods and the guardian of the secrets
of mummification and reincarnation. These early identifications with and
exultation of animals is very similar to totemic representation and reverence in
tribal societies.
Not as devoted as Egyptians, early Greeks also had great affection for
their animals. The belief in the healing power of dogs was concentrated in the
ancient Greek culture of Asklepios. Suppliants would visit the seat of this cult
16
in Epidarus, and in their sleep would be licked by dogs trained for this duty.
The notion that dogs have healing properties in their tongues has persisted to
present times (Serpell, 1986).
Ancient Hebraic philosophy noted definite distinctions between humans
and animals, but did advocate sympathetic treatment of them and a
recognition of their dignity; strangely, early Christianity made few
pronouncements about the treatment of animals (Carson, 1972). W ise (2000)
is not as charitable in his estimations of ancient attitudes towards animals. In
what he terms “teleological anthropocentricism" (the belief that animals existed
for man’s usage), W ise traces the theoretical foundation for the enduring
beliefs in the subjugation of animals to man, originating with the Greeks,
eventually passed on to early Christians and present in our current limited legal
status of animals. The origination of the philosophy expounded by Aristotle
and Plato and later imported into Christian beliefs by St. Thomas Aquinas may
have had a practical intention beyond designating humans as super-ordinate
within the natural world. Greek mythology contained many mythical scenes of
seduction between humans and animals, and these scenes were often re
enacted with actual intercourse between the two species (Serpell, 1986). The
devaluation of animals m ay have acted as a deterrent fo r bestiality, a practice
that was banned by many other societies.
There is no doubt that ancient Romans were unsurpassed in the staging
of cruel spectacles which involved both humans and animals (Carson, 1972).
One Roman Emperor, Trajanus, was credited with the public butchering of
17
11,000 animals (Serpell, 1986). These excesses lend support to W ise’s
contention that animals had never enjoyed any type of exalted position beyond
that of personal property with our most influential forefathers. Greek, Roman
and Christian ideologies were extremely successful at enduring and in
spreading beyond their original boundaries; one can only speculate whether a
more humane philosophy would have left a somewhat different legacy.
Starting around the Middle Ages (roughly 4th to 16th centuries), animals
fell into a peculiar and dubiously distinguished relationship with their human
counterparts. By what first appears, within certain parameters, to be an
almost egalitarian treatment, a number of countries m ade animals accountable
to human laws. It was not unusual for animals to appear as witnesses in trial
proceedings (Carson, 1972), both for the prosecution and the defense. This
first brush with criminal justice probably had less to do with a desire to arrive at
a fair and just verdict than it did with a need to assign blame and exact
retribution for injuries sustained by humans. Still, the act of placing animals on
trial does lead to inferences of a twisted and illogical pseudo-personification of
animals, and the appearance of accountability and the accompanying
presumption of their exercising of free will, if not freedom.
The idea of animal’s volition can be sharply contrasted with the idea of
objectification, ownership and owner’s responsibility. As mutually exclusive as
this system would appear, both philosophies seem to have co-existed.
Perhaps this bifurcated attitude is the logical culmination of polarized historical
influences arising from the intellectual distinction of man vs. beast or perhaps
18
the explanation is found in our genetic predisposition arising from some
evolutionary advantage to predicting animal behavior, thus paving the way for
our duality of attitude. It is possible that what was familiar and predictable in
animals became lovable, but what was not was rejected and not afforded
human, and consequently humane, treatment. Man has shown variability in
his attitudes towards animals, for example, through native totemic identification
where the desirable qualities of the animal are idealized or in sharp contrast,
belief in demonic possession, but the consistency in the supposed dual nature
of animals is apparent throughout histories and throughout cultures.
With the ascendancy of the Roman Empire and the subsequent
domination of Europe by the Romans, traces of ancient beliefs were subsumed
under Roman values. The church had been somewhat lenient to pagan
customs, and these customs often blurred the distinction between humans and
animals, but the ascendancy of Pope Innocent III and the subsequent
Inquisition m ade this identification with animals perilous (Serpell, 1986). Many
local pagan customs were obliterated and animals were irrevocably relegated
to a second-class status under humans. Despite the stifling of much local
input, Britain developed into a unique melting pot for early cultures, at once
isolated from the rest of Europe, but in the early stages a country easily
invaded. The mixing and solidification of different philosophies such as those
from Celtic, Danish and Roman influence allowed Britain to export this mixture
of laws and customs which became the first formal legal system and code of
laws for many New World countries.
19
One interesting and pertinent aspect of The Old English code of law was
based on Deodands. Deodand, derived from Deo dandum, means to be given
up to God, and was used to designate the value of the property that was the
instrument of death, to be forfeited to the King (Crown) in compensation for
any loss of life. This covered all deaths, whether accidental, homicidal or
suicidal; thus, the deodand often consisted of inanimate objects, such as
knives or axes and irrational creatures, such as oxen or pigs. Even in the U.S.
it has been the practice to list the value of the object or the weapon used in
assault cases; it is speculated that the purpose of recording the monetary
value of the weapon used was to allow for its’ value as forfeiture as a deodand.
W hile these laws might sound archaic, they were only abolished fairly recently
under Queen Victoria and in the U.S. at the time of the Revolution.
The provision of a deodand, and the original pious concept of offering up
to God necessitated participation of the Church in some disciplinary
proceedings and allowed the inclusion of animals, vermin and insects in
decisions of law. W here blood was extracted as a penalty, the Church was
never involved (Evans, 1906). This differentiation in penalties required a “two
tiered" or “alternative” form of sentencing, with Ecclesiastical Courts and
Secular Tribunals splitting the “caseloads” accordingly. The Ecclesiastical
Courts, representing the Church, commonly presided over hearings for rats,
weevils, vermin and locusts; in short, where it was recognized that these
beings were not under human control and a higher power was needed to enlist
their cooperation. The Church convened Judicial Proceedings and issued
20
anathemas, cursing and banning the offender from the region. Bartholomew
Chassenee, a French Jurist of the 16th century, gained fam e by his
participation in animal proceedings. In his most illustrious trial, he defended
rats for “having feloniously eaten up and wantonly destroyed the barley crop of
the provence." The rats were tried in absentia, Chassenee’s defense being
that they could not be expected to travel, risking life and limb and certain death
from roving cats: the rats were successfully excluded from their own trial. As
initially absurd as these cases appear, these trials did establish legal
precedents and Chassenee wrote scholarly legal texts.
More serious crimes, involving pigs, cows, horses and other domestic
animals, were designated as Capital Punishments and were decided by
Secular Tribunals who decreed incarceration, conviction, and usually the
execution of the offender. Pigs, for example, were often placed on trial for
homicide, mainly of babies that were mauled, trampled or suffocated as the
pigs roamed freely through the towns. Sodomy with animals was punishable
by fire, for both human and non-human partners (Evans, 1906). If this sounds
too archaic and removed from these modem times, the last animal trial was in
Switzerland in 1906; the defendant was a dog (Carson, 1972). Although
animals are not placed on trial today, they are often executed for their
transgressions. The most recent and publicized case involved two Presa
Canario dogs that were destroyed after mauling Diane W hipple to death in
California in 2001. In a modem tw ist the owners were now held accountable
(Egelko, 2003). Within the context of animal executions, Chassenee’s defense
21
of animals does not seem as farcical.
The persistent sacrifice and persecution of animals under the aegis of
religious oversight has been an enduring theme. Animals were often
destroyed by fire during celebrations that were derived from pagan holidays,
such as Celtic and Druid festivals. As Frazer (1993) concludes in The Golden
Bough, the immolation of people and animals, especially cats, probably
occurred due to a belief that these animals were the incarnation of Satan.
Frazer states: “This conjecture is confirmed by the observation that the victims
most commonly burned in modem bonfires have been cats, and that cats are
precisely the animals into which, with the possible exception of hares, witches
were most usually supposed to transform themselves.” Despite the somewhat
civilizing effect of the adoption of Christianity, pagan rituals often survived
clandestinely or were openly incorporated into Christian rituals; hence, the
sacrificial or destructive use of animals tended to persist. In general, the most
tenacious belief was the animal's capacity to be used as Satan’s vesicle; this
demonization of animals assured the Church’s participation as a disciplinary
adjunct.
The publication of the Malleus Maleficarum (The W itches’ Hammer)
authored by James Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer in 1486 made the
identification of witches easier. Their manual was a 40 volume set, brimming
with misogynistic and puritanical messages: “All witchcraft comes from carnal
lust, which is in women insatiable” or at best condescension: “W om en are
intellectually like children.” The initial targeting of women is clear, although
22
men and animals were also included in this persecution, if slightly less often.
In fact, it was too dangerous during this period for older women to have cats as
pets, as this was taken as a sure sign of the presence of witchcraft (Carson,
1972). The bestial link between animals and humans, strong under the early
Greeks, rises again as a link between bestiality and heresy (Serpell, 1986).
The destruction by fire of these Satanic incarnates was not discontinued until
“...about two centuries ago, when the growing influence of rationalism
discredited the belief in witchcraft and put a stop to the custom of burning
witches” (Frazer, 1993). Random isolated incidences continued into the 20th
Century, and in 1976 a German woman suspected of keeping dogs as
familiars was seriously injured when her house was burned and all of her
animals perished in the fire.
Although any animal could be viewed with suspicion, the main target was
cats, and this historical persecution due to linkage with Satanism may be the
reason why cats still receive more negative attention than other domesticated
animals. An alternate explanation for cat’s fall from grace has been offered by
Sue Hubbell (2001). She speculates that cats were not perfect rat-catcher:
domestication has shrunk their bodies while rats have increased in size,
resulting in a stand-off and peaceful co-existence. It is extremely likely,
however, that after the plague swept through Europe, and the origins of the
disease became known, cats became strongly identified as disease carriers.
Cats are quite susceptible to the disease, and most modem cases in the U.S.
have involved transmission from cat to human (Gregg, 1985). Even if
23
decreased efficiency, disease transmission, or modem Satanism is not
suspected, cats are still viewed by some as untrustworthy, sneaky, mysterious
and sinister, leading some researchers to conclude that these attributes are
the reason cats are more targeted for abuse than dogs (Felthous, 1981).
W riters from the Middle Ages onward have portrayed cats as having
dangerous and sensual “feminine” qualities, an idea derived from German and
Egyptian paganism (Kete, 1994). Indigenous peoples of North America,
Australia and S.E. Asia traced their origins back to the sexual union between
women and dogs, but congress between men and animals was almost never
presumed (Serpell, 1986). This early sexual linking of women and animals and
joint persecution of women and cats (and other witch’s familiar pet types),
may also provide part of the historical basis for the overwhelming support of
women for animals, with at least 70% of animal rights movements comprised
of women (Finsen & Finsen, 1994). During the evolution of the rights
movement era, animal rights and women’s rights have drawn strength and
support from each other’s cause.
Other early laws governing animals were established under the feudalistic
system. All land belonged to the King; therefore, the only thing of value that a
commoner could own was his animals. Laws were designed to ensure
restitution, in the event of theft or destruction, for the value of the animal
(“chattel”) property. Although these laws did recognize the instrumental value
of animals, they were first and foremost only property, and were not protected
from the cruelty and abuse of their owners. This also meant that there were no
24
moral or ethical judgments, only financial ones. The status of animals as
property has survived, creating debate over whether or not animals have legal
standing of their own (Tannenbaum, 1995). There should be no doubt,
especially in consideration of domestic violence cases, that animals are first
and foremost personal property. With orders of protection (synonymous with
protective orders, abuse prevention orders, restraining orders or injunctions)
personal property can be included in these orders and can be used to obtain
declaratory relief concerning possession or ownership of the animal. For many
battered women seeking asylum, the ability to remove a pet from the home
along with personal effects is sometimes the deciding factor in seeking safety
(Lem er & Zorza, 1999). In these rare instances, the designation of animals as
property benefits both animals and those seeking their protection.
The industrialization of Europe provided the impetus for a corresponding
change in the attitude towards animals and provided the foundation for the
animal rights movement. An agrarian society had held certain features
conducive to an opportunistic relationship with animals and had allowed
customs reminiscent of pagan celebrations to survive. After critical seasonal
requirements were met, landowners had few constraints upon their time and
could indulge in revelry and recovery: bacchanalias, with bull-baiting and other
animal contests were features of the farming community (Turner, 1980). The
similarity to the sacrificial pagan festivals is clear, as both types of celebrations
occurred after periods of intense labor and at certain prescribed times of the
year. Industrialization not only placed greater demands on worker’s time, but
25
also the large areas needed for these events were gobbled up by factories.
Due to advantages of climate, internal conditions, and the abundance of coal,
The Industrial Revolution occurred first in Britain and then spread throughout
the rest of Europe and the New World with similar results. There was a surge
toward modernization that left a paradoxical and nostalgic need for a
connection to the natural world. W hile man moved away from the land and to
the city, he could retain some tie to nature by contact with animals, and a new
human/animal relationship became possible. For the first time, animals could
evolve into something more than a functional necessity, and the concept of
animals as pets was introduced (Turner, 1980).
Developing along parallel lines, technological advances stimulated
increased medical research, particularly research comprised of
experimentation upon animals that had been facilitated by the introduction of a
Cartesian philosophy defining animals as nothing more than automatons. On
one hand, animals still served a functional purpose, but the concept of pets
introduced an emotional component into the relationship. A closer union with
pets allowed humans to realize the extent of animal suffering.
Pets, in the form of dogs, had been popular with the clergy beginning in
the Middle Ages. Nuns were prohibited from ownership (perhaps as a
prevention supported by earlier beliefs of intercourse) and commoners were
encouraged to view animals as an economic asset only (Serpell, 1986). By the
beginning of the 19th Century, a new type of animal economy flourished, that of
pet supplies and books about dogs (Ritvo, 1987). The British monarchy
26
favored hunting dogs while female nobility earned lap dogs (Serpell, 1986).
Dog ownership was very much an upper-class event, and France placed a dog
tax on these pets to ensure that only the privileged retained exclusive rights to
this status symbol. The scare of rabies was also overwhelming and took a
great deal of commitment from pet owners; the tax helped ensure that the
lower classes did not have animals to run free, spreading the disease (Kete,
1994). Eventually, the lower-classes availed themselves of the practice of pet-
keeping, but their pets were mongrels and not the identifiable and exclusive
breeds of the upper-classes.
If an industry catering to pets was growing, so was an industry devoted to
writing and books. Public libraries sprang up around the 1800’s, where the
poor could avail themselves of the many natural history books that proliferated
around that tim e (Ritvo, 1987). In particular, fem ale writers started to have an
impact on the human psyche. In her introduction to Animal Advocacy and
Englishwomen, 1780-1900, Moira Ferguson (1998) describes her five featured
women writers: “Collectively they used their prescribed role as protectors of
the weak to espouse the cause of animals, and link the humane treatment of
animals to a changing definition of Englishness during the era of imperial
expansion. National character and racism were popular topics at the tim e.”
Further, she writes: “Women writers not only attacked cruelty against animals
but complicated it to entwine the concerns of slaves and other subjugated
comm unities...” The impact of a growing women’s movement and their
contribution to social issues should not be underestimated. As women
27
struggled for their ascendancy into society, they carried other oppressed
groups with them, until all had a voice.
At the same time that animals and natural history made such an entry into
the social sciences, biological sciences were also evolving with new theories.
A German biologist named Haeckel proposed the most stunning finding that
ontogeny recapitulated phyiogeny, meaning that the development of the
individual went through the various stages of species development (Rom er &
Parsons, 1956). Anyone familiar with the development of the human embryo
could see what appeared to be an evolutionary presentation starting with
tadpole, developing to frog and then on to more advanced animals. The
possibility that humans were so integrally linked to animals must have caused
a tremendous amount of disquiet, and this suspicion was supported by much
of the writings in natural history, which tended to be extremely
anthropomorphic and rarely grounded in fact. Eventually, hard science
prevailed and these early non-factual suppositions dissolved, but not before
there was a general raising of new concerns and considerations about the
treatm ent and comfort of animals.
The confluence of these different events raising the status of animals
would require scrutiny of existing protection laws and promulgation of better
ones. Jeremy Bentham was influential in introducing the idea of such a law
and in 1809 Lord Erskine introduced a bill for this purpose; the bill, ahead of
it’s time, was subsequently defeated by the House of Commons (Favre &
Tsang, 1993). Britain eventually saw the passage of Martin’s Act in 1822,
28
which was an act “to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle" but
dogs, cats and other domestics weren't covered (Sperling, 1988). Subsequent
amendments in 1833 and 1835 included protections of domestic animals.
Martin followed the initial passage of the act in 1822 with meetings which
eventually formed the SPCA in 1824, thus providing a strong voice dedicated
to change (Finsen & Finsen, 1994).
The early advocacy groups developed along class lines and attacked
different issues. The humane movement was an outgrowth of the working
classes' criticism of dog-pits and bear-baiting. The upper-class Anti-
Vivesectionists had ties to the Anti-Contagious Disease Act (ACDA) and the
anti-vaccination movement. The ACDA mandated examination by physicians
of working class women suspected of prostitution; thus, oppression of animals
was once more linked to a feminist cause. The link was further strengthened
by early gynecological experimentation on slave and indigent women (Sperling,
1988). These women withstood risky procedures with sometimes little or no
anaesthetic and sometimes little or no choice, a fate that was and still is
shared by animals used in experimentation. The Anti-Vivisectionists attacked
their own social class: the educated, upper-class elite, but there was no
organized voice against other forms of animal cruelty. Despite clauses in the
law preventing multiple experimentation on any one animal, the RSPCA had
vivisectors as board members, hence no real oversight was performed.
Outraged by these events, two progressive women (Louise Lind-af-Hageby
and Liese Schartau) enrolled in the London School of Medicine for women,
29
intent on learning medicine for the purpose of exposing the cruelties of
vivisection. In particular, they recorded the sufferings of a brown terrier dog
and their accounts were eventually published, resulting in accusations and
charges leveled against the physiologist involved. The exposure and
publications of these two women irrevocably cemented the association
between all women’s suffrage movement groups with anti-vivisection, whether
the association was factual or not (Lansbury, 1985).
The first anti-cruelty law was passed in 1820 in the United States, but
the social movement that would have helped enforcement did not arise at this
time. It was not until 1866 that the first ASPCA opened in New York and
advocacy gained a platform on this continent In 1829 New York passed the
anti-cruelty law that would become the template for the other states; initially, it
was limited in scope and did not include provisions for animals other than the
horse, ox, sheep or other cattle. It was not until Henry Bergh, famous for his
formation of the ASPCA, that anti-cruelty laws were expanded to apply to “any
living Creature.” Not only was there a larger scope for the new act, but the Act
of 1867 created a special force of peace officer to enforce the law. The laws
have remained relatively unchanged since their inception in 1867 (Favre,
1993).
Along more plausible lines than previous theories, biology was again
making a contribution to the understanding of humans and animals. Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution and the publication of Origin of the Species reinforced the
theory that humans and animals were not unrelated. Lombroso imported this
30
ideology into early criminological theory where criminals appeared ape-like,
especially in brain development and facial structure (Turner, 1980). So, while
on one hand a movement championing humane treatment was gaining
momentum, other theories linking the darker side of humans, and especially
criminals, to animals was perhaps countering the positive effects of the
humane reformers. Indeed, for a long time this darker side of man was the
distinguishing characteristic of being human, for it was believed that humans
were the only species to wage war and kill their own members. Most recent
findings now indicate that our primate relatives are quite capable of intra
species violence, including murder, and their behavior may hold the clue to our
own, senseless violence (Wrangham and Peterson, 1996).
The rights of animals, then, is both a humane endeavor but is also an
opportunity for insight into the understanding of human behavior. The
possibility that humans are so closely related to animals makes our apathy as
unthinkable as our treatment of other races and genders has been. For all the
right reasons, the concern for the cruel treatment of animals seemed at its’
inception destined to succeed, but few advances have been m ade to date, and
as Piers Beime (1995) notes, after the disappearance of animal interest in the
1920’s, animals only reappeared in criminology in the 1970’s after a significant
lapse of time.
Thus, this brief historical overview illustrates the omnipresence of animals
within a criminological perspective. From early animal trials through the witch
hunts, property concerns and finally monitoring and prosecution by humane
31
agencies, animals have stood on the periphery of the criminal justice system.
A more formal application and study of the victimization of animals first
appeared in the 1970’s as an offshoot of psychological research investigating
behavioral and personality deficiencies; the interest in the development of the
aggressive personality and development of the career criminal were interests
readily imported into the discipline of criminal justice.
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
MacDonald’s observation of 1963 stimulated a flurry of research
investigating the predictive nature of the “triad" of behaviors (enuresis, fire-
setting and cruelty to animals). Based on his experiences and the histories of
100 homicidal psychiatric inpatients, MacDonald theorized that most
importantly, these three childhood behaviors were linked to adult violence.
Although cruelty to animals and fire-setting were already defined as
criminal actions, it was the unique combination of these two “markers” with
other anti-social behaviors that was of particular interest. Impetus to test this
theory was based on the supposed predictive value of this model; during the
1960’s the crime of cruelty towards animals was not a subject of interest
outside of the triad. Still, these early studies, which necessarily used forensic
subjects, would provide the basis for enduring beliefs in the link between
aggressive and homicidal adults (especially serial killers) and childhood cruelty
to animals. This very preliminary attempt to categorize offenders by specific
identifiers could be considered the genesis of a typology of offender, albeit with
limited scope and application.
As with much early research, studies were generally poorly designed and
poorly executed, for instance, operationalization of the variable “animal
cruelty” was often non-existent or superficial. At the very minimum though,
these seminal studies did regard animal cruelty as inclusive of any act
involving torture or death of the animal. This definition pales in comparison to
33
more current and precise language found in some present statutes, but similar
vagaries in defining animal cruelty do still exist in a slowly shrinking number of
states.
Research testing MacDonald’s theory, subsequent modifications to the
original triad and other logical progressions of the research model led Ariuke,
Levin et al. (1999) to define the issue under two hypotheses: the violence
graduation hypothesis and the deviance generalization hypothesis. The
violence graduation hypothesis assumes that animal cruelty is a precursor to
later violence against humans while the deviance generalization hypothesis
does not dictate a time-order for this or any other behavior. It is clear that
these two underlying hypothesis would direct research in two discreet
directions: one concerned with prediction and one targeting identification. A
third area of study, examining motivations, developed more recently.
I. Violence Graduation Hypothesis
The Triad - cruelty to animals, fire-setting and enuresis
The first statistical study of the triad theory was performed in 1966.
Heilman and Blackman conducted extensive interviews of 84 male subjects
referred from jail, parole and the courts to a psychiatric treatment center. The
subjects were divided into two groups: persons charged with aggressive,
violent crimes such as murder, assault, armed robbery and rape; and
offenders charged with misdemeanors and non-aggressive felonies such as
burglary, child molestation, theft and forgery. Cruelty was defined as the
34
torturing or killing of dogs, cats, pets or baby animals. The subjects ages
ranged from 15 to 66 years of age: 74% of the aggressive offenders had a
positive association for the triad or part of the triad vs. 28% of the non-
aggressive group and results were statistically significant. The only other
study drawing support for the triad was conducted by Prentky and Carter
(1984), and focused on male sexual offenders. Other studies with mature
males as the experimental subjects did not support the triad theory (Climent
and Ervin, 1972); MacDonald (1968) could not uncover a positive association
when he formally tested the theory. Langevin (1983) found that murderers
had a higher incidence of cruelty to animals than non-violent offenders (8%
vs. 0% ), although again the triad was unsupported. Despite initial excitement,
testing of the theory produced disappointing results and Felthous and Bernard
(1979) and Felthous (1980; 1981) observed that cruelty to animals alone
appeared to be the variable most associated with aggressive disorders,
especially among male subjects.
Felthous and Yudowitz (1977) noted that the study of sociopath females
had been neglected because of the widespread belief that psychopathology,
enuresis and fire-setting were inevitably linked with maleness: “This sexual
dichotomy can result in overlooking significant sociopathic elements in females
and an unreasonable double standard for treatment or punishment" The
authors first compared 31 assaultive and non-assaultive fem ales on a number
of variables. Psychiatric evaluations, a multiple choice questionnaire and
chart reviews were performed; the offenders were selected from correctional
35
institutions. The assaultive fem ale group had a higher incidence of parental
difficulties, along with cruelty to animals, enuresis and fire-setting than the non-
assaultive females. Although similar results testing fem ale offenders were
found by Climent et al. (1973) with the triadic element near significance, other
factors were more highly associated with violence.
Studies involving mature males or mature females were problematic for
all the reasons that generally plague retrospective studies. The logical
progression in testing this theory was to focus on children as experimental
subjects, and the first study of this type was performed by Tapia (1971). Case
studies from 18 male patients were selected from the Child Psychiatry Section
of the University of Missouri School of Medicine: etiology, symptoms and other
characteristics were analyzed. Each child, ranging in age from 5 to 15 years,
had exhibited first and foremost cruelty to animals, and other exaggerated
aggressive behaviors coincidental to the animal cruelty. Cruelty, again, was
not specifically defined but was implicitly understood from the case studies,
which included actions such as beating, choking, and killing of animals. All
patients displayed aggressive symptoms, and “a chaotic home with aggressive
parental models" was cited as the most common environmental factor. In a
follow-up study (Rigdon & Tapia, 1977), five cases could not be located and
eight were still cruel to animals, illustrating the endurance of this trait
Although the number of subjects was small, this study was able to improve
upon the pitfalls apparent with retrospective studies. A further study of six
adolescents incarcerated within the California Youth Authority led the authors
36
(W ax and Haddox, 1973) to conclude that the triad was a useful predictive
measurement. Sendi and Blomgren (1974) and Justice et al. (1974) cast
doubt on the importance of the triad while Lewis et al. (1983) found aggressive
children had higher incidences of cruelty to animals, but none of these studies,
or one by Shanok et al. (1983) found complete support for the triad. Heath,
Hardesty and Goldfine (1984) examined 204 consecutive outpatient
admissions to a child psychiatric clinic and theorized that the triad of behaviors
might be “tips of the iceberg of a more important, but ill-defined, constitutional
vulnerability,” indicative of childhood problems but not predictive of adult
violence.
One-Third of the triad - cruelty to animals
The results of research testing the association of the triad of enuresis,
fire-setting and cruelty to animals had thus far contributed mixed results.
Kellert and Felthous (1985) narrowed their investigation to an examination of
aggressive behavior and childhood cruelty to animals. This new approach
reflected an important shift in focus with a more genuine concern for animals
becoming apparent, and with the persistent impression that animal abuse and
violent behavions linked, despite clear evidence to support this conclusion. To
explore this relationship, the authors selected 152 m ale subjects from Federal
penitentiaries in Kansas and Connecticut divided into groups of aggressive and
non-aggressive criminals. These subjects were classified according to
observed behavior while in the penitentiary. As controls, 51 subjects were
selected at random from the New Haven and Topeka population. Each subject
37
was interviewed from 1-2 hours, with closed and open-ended questions. As a
means of verification, interviews with siblings or parents of the inmate were
also attempted, but this approach was problematic due to difficulty in finding
tine relatives, lack of subject consent, or relatives’ defensiveness of the
behavior. As with all retrospective studies, faulty memory and the tendency to
under-report were other unavoidable flaws.
The definition of cruelty in this study was expanded from prior studies
which had previously used “repeated torture of cats and dogs” (see above,
Felthous and Bernard, 1979) and was comprehensive. Differences between
the groups was highly significant, with the aggressive criminals having the
highest frequency of animal cruelties. The authors also made one other
extremely influential observation, stating: “The family backgrounds of many
subjects were so striking...” and “the family and childhood experiences of
many aggressive criminals were especially violent” also “domestic violence in
the families of aggressive criminals who were cruel to animals assumed many
form s... ” These observations would eventually lead researchers to focus
more selectively on cruelty to animals as part of a pattern of behaviors
subsumed under the heading of domestic violence ( thus, accomplishing the
transition of interest in cruelty to animals from the 1960’s to the 1990’s).
Felthous and Keliert (1986), using the same data as the above,
investigated whether m ale offenders with a history of substantial animal cruelty
were the most aggressive. The abusive acts of various subjects were
described, i.e. one subject “...reported throwing a cat into an incinerator when
38
he was about 8 years old...beat to death three or four cats with a clothesline
pole...several acts of cruelty to dogs including stoning, beating, and on one
occasion throwing a dog from a height to a body of water below ...killing
animals...slaughtering farm animals with hammers, guns and electric
knives,...he trapped skunks, coyotes, and foxes for the pleasure of killing
them ...hunted sparrows and frogs for the sole purpose of killing them ...H e
caught fish by the use of explosives...punished pet and livestock animals
excessively...beating his dogs, he beat hogs in the head with a board and
struck cows with an electric prod...” In all, descriptions of cruel acts were
recorded for 16 aggressive subjects and 7 non-aggressive subjects were
described in detail. Aggressive behaviors in adulthood were represented by
fights and assaults, serious injury, murder or multiple murders. The
association between a pattern of animal abuse and recurrent violence in
adulthood was statistically significant. Other studies measuring the predictive
value of childhood cruelty to animals included Rada’s 1978 study of rapists
and child molesters, the Ressler et al. (1986) measurement of sexual
murderers; and a study of pedophiles and rapists (Tingle et al., 1986) with the
results generally indicating that cruelty to animals was most often linked to the
more aggressive groups, or in the case of McClellan and Adams (1995),
cruelty to animals significantly predicted a history of sexual abuse.
In summary of the above studies, Felthous & Kellert (1987a) offer
possible explanations for the statistical differences in finding a relationship
between childhood cruelty to animals and aggressive behavior as an ad ult
39
The meaning of cruelty is not clearly defined in most of the studies, and a
careful identification of recurrent acts of personal aggression is needed to
identify the most suitable offender for consideration. Many studies relied on
chart review, which means that information that was not included was not
necessarily non-existent. Interviews were of little value if they were not
thorough. The authors made the point that although there were indications
that recurrent animal cruelty appeared to be associated with recurrent
aggressive adult behavior, prior studies on delinquency or sociopathology had
not tested animal cruelty as a variable. W ith this in mind, future research
should revolve around well designed, thorough studies with interview
schedules constructed to elicit histories of animal mistreatment.
Many of these problems were eradicated when Ariuke, Levin et al. (1999)
tested the violence graduation hypothesis. Records from the Massachusetts
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (M SPCA) were reviewed, and
153 animal abusers were identified. A control group was closely matched on
demographic variables, and state criminal records were searched for both
groups. The time of the offenses was noted to establish the sequence
between animal abuse and other criminal behaviors. Results indicated that
animal abusers were 3.2 times more likely to commit other crimes and,
supportive of the deviance generalization hypothesis, other antisocial acts
were significantly found in this group. The graduation hypothesis could not be
supported from this data. W hether explanatory or no t it is important to note
that juvenile records prior to 17 years of age were sealed and unavailable for
40
review. Lack of support for the graduation hypothesis does not exclude the
possibility that animal cruelty could originate in juveniles and escalate from that
developmental stage.
II. Deviance Generalization Hypothesis
Cruelty to Animals and Child Abuse
W hile interest in the predictive capacity of cruelty to animals in the
psycho-social development of the individual dictated the focus of early studies,
indications of an association between animal abuse and other forms of family
violence were emerging. The shift from prediction to identification of abusers
would replace studies grounded in the violence graduation hypothesis.
Deviance generalization, which was not dependent on a time-order basis,
would allow improvements in the research designs testing this hypothesis.
One early study by Deviney et al. (1983) researched the care of family
pets in 53 families involved for reasons of child abuse, with the New Jersey
Division of Youth and Family Services. Subjects were interviewed by staff
members who had observed the families in their homes and could comment on
discrepancies between responses and actual behavior. The majority of
interviewees reported a positive attitude toward their pets, but case workers
observed contradictions in 17% of the homes. W hile 25% of the subjects
admitted animal abuse, the case worker observed an additional 38% of abuse
that was down-played or not reported at all. In total, 88% of the families with
child abuse also had animal abuse. Animal abuse was defined as pain,
41
inhumane death, abandonment and lack of nutrition or shelter, confinement
and unsanitary conditions. The authors concluded that their findings lent
support to beliefs that abused pets can be indicative of other types of family
violence, but cautioned “the relationship between animal abuse and child
abuse is not a simple one. As with child abuse, most cases of mistreatment
involved either long-term neglect or relatively few instances of clearly
detectable harm.” They also stated that abusers “often report deep affection
for their victim s...” Similarly, Hutton (1983) cross-referenced interviews with
the RSPCA and records of local authorities. He found that out of 23 families
with histories of animal abuse, 19 were known to social services and 14 were
known to probation. Hutton recommended that future studies should separate
various forms of abuse, such as violence, sexual abuse, neglect and other
categories.
In an attempt to measure the later effects of abusive childhood
environments and animal cruelty within families, Miller and Knutson (1997)
performed a data analysis on responses to a questionnaire administered to
299 inmates of a prisoner classification center 84% were male and 16 %
were female, with sentences ranging from under 2 years to life. The
investigators classified the inmates according to initial charge, not conviction:
crimes were classified as homicide, violent sex offenses and other. Cruelty
was defined as witnessing or participating in killings or participating in harmful,
painful or sexual acts and an animal cruelty scale was correlated with Poor
Peer Relations (a teasing/victimizing pattern of relations with peers during
42
childhood) and the Negative Family Atmosphere (verbally acrimonious
interactions among members of one’s family). Correlation was only significant
at the .05 level, and the authors concluded that “...there was little shared
variance between animal cruelty experience and being reared in a negative or
punitive environment.” Scales also measured correlations between animal
cruelty and physical or sexual coercion in dating, marital or cohabitating
relationships and these scores also did not approach statistical significance.
The authors concluded that their findings “cast doubt on the notion that there is
a strong link between animal cruelty and physically abusive childhoods” but
warn “...it would be inappropriate to embrace the largely null findings in the
absence of a parallel study with a general population sam ple.” They did find
that the base rate of some exposure to harm of animals was rather high. In an
attempt to measure exposure to animal cruelty in the widespread population, a
survey of university students was undertaken. Again, exposure to animal
cruelty was widespread (more than two-thirds of the sample); however,
prevalence of exposure was mostly in the males. In conclusion, Miller and
Knutson stated “The findings of the two experiments do not provide any
support for the hypothesis that exposure to animal cruelty is importantly related
to engaging in criminal activity in general or violent activity in particular” and it
is unlikely that “mere exposure to animal cruelty is importantly involved in the
ontogeny of antisocial behavior or that it is a critical feature in the ontogeny of
various psychopathologies” although they cautioned that few subjects reported
multiple or extremely severe acts, which may be related to antisocial behavior
43
or extremely punitive childhood backgrounds.
The importance of the severity of childhood punishment was the next
logical step for researchers, and Flynn (1999) investigated the relationship
between corporal punishment experienced as a child and abusive acts towards
animals, defined as killing a pet; strangling, hurting or torturing to tease or
cause pain; sexual touch or intercourse. Two hundred and sixty-seven
undergraduates under 25 years of age completed questionnaires, with 49%
exposed to animal abuse. Nearly 18% of participants had actually committed
any cruel act, and of those nearly half were teens. Males were four times more
likely to have been aggressive to animals, and a relationship between
punishment of the child and subsequent animal abuse by the child was
observed, most particularly the father’s punishment of sons. Flynn remarked
that the findings were “significant because the relationship was found not for
abusive violence toward the preteen child, but for what many would term
‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ violence, i.e., spanking” and “that this association was
found not among troubled youths or aggressive criminals, but among a non-
clinicai sample of college students.”
While animal abuse exhibited by children or the developmental effects of
exposure to animal abuse had been the primary focus of studies until this time,
the link between animal cruelty, battered women and domestic violence has
become a more recent concern, as have the dynamics of family relationships
within psychology, social work, and criminal justice disciplines. The above
studies by Hutton (1983), Deviney et al. (1983) and Miller and Knutson (1997)
44
are a product of increasing awareness about the inter-relatedness of all forms
of violence and abuse. Cases of animal abuse are viewed as symptomatic of
deteriorating inter-personal relationships and family dysfunction. A multi
disciplinary collaboration by family workers, law enforcement, humane workers
and veterinarians is urged to increase apprehension of offenders, and the
similarities of violence towards children, violence towards women, violence
towards elders and violence towards animals has been duly noted (Lockwood
& Hodge, 1986; Lockwood, 1989; Arkow, 1992a, 1992b; Loar and White,
1992; Boat, 1995; Adams, 1994b; Rosen, 1995; Ritter, 1996; Arkow, 1996;
Lockwood & Church, 1996).
Cruelty to Animals and Battered Women
Legislators have been urged to upgrade violence towards animals to
felony-level; this would allow for prosecution to proceed in domestic violence
cases where the victim recants (McDonough, 1999). In domestic violence
cases, incidences of companion animal abuse occur exceedingly often
(estimates ranging from 40% to 85%) but tend to be under-reported due to fear
on the part of the battered woman (Lemer, 1999).
The behavioral triad of fire-setting, bed-wetting and cruelty to animals has
been replaced as a research concern with the relatively neglected question of
animals abuse within the context of domestic violence. In 1998, Ascione
included components of pet abuse to intake interviews administered to women
seeking refuge at a shelter in Utah. The questions were designed to elicit
information about the prevalence of pet ownership in abusive households, the
45
actual harm to pets, and any incidences of animal abuse by the women’s
children. Pets were found in 75% of the homes, 71% of women had
experienced threats to their pets and 57% of pets were actually harmed. Of
the women with children, 32% reported child mistreatment of a pet. The
abuses by spouses were far from benign: animals were killed (i.e. a spouse
“pouring lighter fluid on a kitten and igniting it") and even the children
committed abusive acts such as “pulling a kitten’s head out of its socket, and
sodomizing a cat.” Concern for the pet had prevented 18% of women from
seeking refuge earlier. Two women admitted to harming their own pets,
examples of redirected anger which can also be directed towards the woman’s
own children.
III. Cruelty to Animals and Motivation
A third discreet collection of studies concerned with cruelty to animals
explored the motivational aspect of this crime. In what is probably a smaller
number of cases, the death of a pet might be attributable to the declining
mental condition of the victimizer. The demonization of the p e t the attribution
to the animal of supernatural capabilities, or a perceived threat from the animal
are described by Felthous (1984) in his study of three psychotic defendants.
Felthous, in a prior study with Kellert (1985, see above) had described nine
motivations for the abuse of an animal: to control an animal; to retaliate
against an animal; to satisfy a prejudice against a species or breed; to
express aggression through an animal; to enhance one’s own aggressiveness;
46
to shock people for amusement; to retaliate against another person;
displacement of hostility from a person to an animal; and finally, nonspecific
sadism. In a subsequent re-working of the data (Felthous & Kellert, 1987b) the
authors concluded that cats, dogs and small wild animals as opposed to large
farm animals and small pets were most often abused: the methods most often
used were beating, stoning and shooting. Confirming earlier studies, cats were
most often and in the greatest variety of ways abused, supporting what the
authors term a “cultural anti-cat prejudice.” Abuse of dogs was second to cat
abuse in frequency and variety. The authors concluded that patterns of abuse
bear some relationship to the type of animal and is not based on the perceived
dangerousness of the animal (these findings elaborate on the nine motivations
presented previously). W hile these results were particularly enlightening, more
questions are raised than are answered, especially, do these findings also
explain or account for motivation in non-incarcerated offenders, and do
incarcerated offenders offer selective details that might overemphasize some
abuses such as beating, and underemphasize other abuses such as bestiality?
An attempt to develop a theory of animal abuse within the confines of
established social, psychological and criminological theories was attempted by
Agnew (1998). His model of animal abuse used three sets of factors that were
influential. The first social position, encompassed age, gender, race,
education, occupation and urban or rural location. The second set of factors
integrated individual traits, socialization models, strain/stress, social control
and the nature of the animal. The third (motivational) set of factors covered
47
ignorance, beliefs and perceived costs/benefits. In turn, the first set of factors
(social position) had an effect on the last set of factors, and all three factors
influenced animal abuse.
Vermeulen and Odendaal (1993) created a typology of animal abuse for
companion animals (dogs, cats or horses) based on a one-year sample of
records from the SPCA in South Africa. Abuse was divided into two
categories: physical, defined as active actions such as shooting, drowning,
etc.; passive neglects such as lack of food, water, shelter or care; or
commercial exploitation such as over breeding, fights, etc.. Mental abuse
consisted of active maltreatment such as instilling fear, or passive neglect such
as withholding affection. A total of 1,863 cases were reviewed, but only 468
cases (25.1 %) fit the criteria of abuse and only 63 (3.4% ) were charged, with
181 (9.7% ) of animals confiscated. Abuse to dogs was most commonly
reported (79.8% ), followed by cats (8.3% ), horses (2.3% ) and all other animals
(9.6% ); restriction, abandonment and lack of food were the most common
abuses.
A similar study was conducted by Ariuke & Carter (1997) coding records
from 1975 to 1996 from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA). The study was designed to elaborate on the
Vermeulen and Odendaal study by evaluating cruelty within an American
context, considering the background of the abusers, and measuring the
responses of the criminal justice system. Approximately 80,000 cases were
reviewed but only 268 (0.3% ) of all complaints were prosecuted. The authors
48
also used a much narrower definition of abuse, which did not include
mental/psychological components of mistreatment. As in the previous study,
abuse to dogs was most commonly reported (57.8% ), followed by cats (26.9% )
and wildlife (5.2% ). Horses were less commonly abused (1.1% ) here than in
the South African study, and the distribution of abuse between dogs and cats
was different. Because this study only evaluated physical cruelty, the most
common forms of abuse were beating, shooting and stabbing (32.1% , 25.6% ,
and 10.8% , respectively); however, with more descriptions of the abusers
available, some interesting relationships became apparent. Adolescents were
more likely than adults to beat an animal (71.4% vs. 46.2% ) while adults were
more likely than adolescents to shoot an animal (53.8% vs. 28.6% ).
Adolescents were more likely to harm animals when in groups; adults acted
alone. Data on sentencing was particularly dismal: only 43% were found guilty
in court, and punishments assigned were extremely mild. The most common
sentence was a fine (33% ) but the mean dollar value was only $132;
sentences were similar to what would have been received for a misdemeanor
offense.
In summary, cruelty to animals has been of interest at least peripherally,
since MacDonald’s 1963 observation of the behavioral triad. This theory was
tested from its’ inception in 1963 until the 1980’s, with mixed results. Starting
in 1985 with the study by Kellert & Felthous, a subtle shift away from interest in
the triad and towards a single behavior, specifically cruelty to animals as a
predictor of violent behavior, led researchers in a new direction. A second
49
group of studies beginning with Deviney et al. (1983) and Hutton (1983)
established the relationship between cruelty to animals and domestic violence.
The third wave of studies which began with Felthous (1984 & 1985 with Kellert)
and more recently including those of Verm eulen & Odendaal (1993) and
Arluke (1997) focused foremost on the crime of cruelty to animals and from
there began to summarize these events into patterns of behavior explaining
motivation or developing a profile, or typology; to date, many of the previous
studies have taken an ideographic approach, often beginning with a case study
of a violent individual and developing a theory based on an individual history.
The studies of Vermeulen & Odendaal (1993) and Arluke (1997) have made
an important contribution to the topic of animal cruelty; however, both were
problematic for a number of reasons. Both studies relied on data from the
SPCA, which is limited. Arluke(1997) described differing patterns of abuse
between adolescents and adults, but did not describe the context within which
the abuse occurred. The typological analyses have not been well-developed
and have given only the most cursory information, and neither study was able
to include motivational components of the crime, which would have made a
significant contribution to the understanding of this offense.
50
Chapter 3
Method
This study consisted of constructing a typology of offender based on
motivations; at the same time it was also possible to examine the crime, the
victim and the criminal justice response to animal cruelty.
The overwhelming and underlying difficulty with research in this area
was a severe and paralyzing shortage of data. Accessibility to and availability
of a sufficient number of cases dictated a choice of approach that would
accommodate both of these concerns. After considering a number of options,
it was decided that the best approach was to perform a content analysis of
newspaper stories about animal abuse for the year 2000. These stories
provided such information as the disposition of the sentence, type of crime and
victim, and situational and dispositional information about the offender. W hile
this method offered both a rich and seemingly bottomless data pool, content
analysis of media communication is not without some problems and limitations
which must be acknowledged.
A content study, first and foremost, says something about a media
process. The presentation of these stories can allow for conclusions about
what readers are exposed to or allow for inferences about news decision
makers (Stempel, 1989), and it must be realized that these stories have
passed through an editorial sieve reflecting a selective process before
presentation for public consumption. In a sense, then, our data pool was
diluted because it did not reflect all cases of animal abuse but only those that
51
had been selected by an editorial staff. W hile this perhaps falls short of
perfection, it does not mean that the contextually rich and abundant stories
that are available for analysis should be ignored. It could be argued that this
shortcoming parallels the primarily uncontrolled “experiments” characteristic of
criminal justice research; for example, the three main division of criminal
justice agencies (policing, courts and corrections) have also been likened to a
sieve, with attrition of subjects at each level.
The other major criticism of this data source is that newspaper stories
have been mined for sensationalism, although it appeared that these stories
represented the bulk of animal abuse cases which have reached the status of
a criminal offense. The possibility of a selection bias on the part of the media
was verified in two ways. First, The Associated Humane Societies prints a bi
monthly magazine called Humane News which is informational and
educational in content Stories in this magazine were compared with those
articles which were retrievable from a news search. W hile not all the stories in
Humane News appeared in newspapers, this seemed to be less a factor of
story content than reduced newspaper coverage in smaller communities;
Humane News covers a smaller area and is more local. A second means of
verification involved monitoring animal-related issues posted on websites. For
example, In Defense of Animals (http://www.idausa.org/alert) allows interested
parties to join the listserv. A weekly newsletter and special time-sensitive
announcements are forwarded to subscribers. Topics range from interests of
domestic pets to the plight of wild animals on this continent and occasionally
52
from other parts of the world. Domestic issues often revolve around impending
or recent court decisions, including cruelty cases to companion animals.
Contact information for prosecutors or legislators is often provided for cases
with positive and negative outcomes, and this contact information allows
interested subscribers to comment on the events or advocate on the part of the
animal. The inclusion of contacts adds an air of legitimacy to the stories
featured, and the presentation of both positive and negative proceedings or
decisions provides a balance that is often missing in the publications of other
advocacy groups. Stories featured on this website were either the same or
very similar to the stories carried in newspapers, and had the added feature of
being verifiable within the criminal justice community.
Crimes against animals are not well represented within the criminal justice
system; usually extreme samples, and even those, rarely, stimulate a
response. This point was reinforced by an inspection of ASPCA cases. After
negotiations with the Humane Law Enforcement Division of the ASPCA in New
York City, a review of cases for the year 1997 was performed. Despite the fact
that thousands of complaints were investigated, fewer than ten were
prosecuted. Other researchers have discovered similar problems: Arluke and
Carter (1997) found 268 prosecuted cases from a potential 80,000 cases
spanning 21 years and Vermeulen and Odendaal (1993) found 63 cases
where a charge occurred out of a potential 1,863 cases from a one-year
period. W ith eleven investigators for the state of New York, it is not surprising
that the ASPCA had difficulty assigning time and energy required for
53
successful prosecution. Collectively, all ASPCA Chapters might have had a
substantial number of cases, but it was not practical or feasible to visit each
branch office. Additionally, the needs of the ASPCA to document and record
their investigations did not necessarily coincide with a researcher’s interest in
uncovering psychological motivations on the part of the offender. As with
much criminal justice research, the disjuncture between available data and
research interest was apparent.
The possibility that police arrest data might be more substantial was also
explored. A computer print-out for the years 1996-1997 was obtained from the
New York Police Department (N .Y.P.D .) with the following results: only two
offenders were arrested for animal torture or cruelty as the top charge while
five other offenders retained the animal cruelty charge from second to fifth
place order in a list of other charges. These results supported the low
apprehension rate that was found at the ASPCA, and were probably the same
cases found in the ASPCA records. The results also illustrated that a charge
of animal cruelty is oftentimes, within any one jurisdiction or city, the lesser
and secondary charge that might evolve almost serendipitously, and does not
m ake a large contribution to the number of cases entering the criminal justice
system.
Content analysis of newspaper articles, then, represented a resource
uniquely suited to this type of study: there were a large number of cases
available, the cases had reached an adjudicatory level, and there was usually
sufficient detail explicitly stating motivation or allowing for inferences of
54
motivation. This method allowed sampling from a wide geographical area,
thus increasing generalizabiiity, and regional differences such as lack of
funding for monitoring agencies or lack of aggressive enforcement did not
affect the entire sample. Newspaper articles were not only an adequate
source of data but an excellent source of data for the purposes of this study.
Research Instrument
LEXIS-NEXIS, which is an online database provider, was used to gather
newspaper articles from across the country. LEXIS-NEXIS provides access to
the full text of newspaper articles primarily through a connection to DIALOG
(Nelson, 1997), which is an online database provider subscribing to over 75
major newspapers from the larger U.S. cities. LEXIS-NEXIS also supplements
this resource with additional coverage; for example, The San Antonio Express
is included in LEXIS-NEXIS searches but not in DIALOG searches. The
searchable database for LEXIS-NEXIS is quite extensive and all geographical
areas are well represented.
Many newspapers are now online and accessible over the Internet; as an
example, California has roughly 200 newspapers available and Texas has
roughly 70. This search method includes newspapers representing smaller
cities with more limited coverage, thus, it is possible to expand available
resources infinitesimally. For the purposes of this study, a one-year electronic
search of LEXIS-NEXIS articles provided adequate coverage. It is recognized
that LEXIS-NEXIS did not provide every printed story of animal abuse,
55
however, it did provide stories that were representative of cases from across
the country.
Sample Selection
A one-year review of newspaper coverage of animal abuse incidents from
the year 2000 was performed. There was some advantage to relying on a
relatively current selection of newspaper articles since new legislation
penalizing animal abusers is constantly evolving, thereby increasing the
number of cases treated by the criminal justice system. With more cases
passing through criminal justice agencies and consequently more cases
available for publishing, the chronic data shortage could be alleviated. Many
criminal justice agencies such as police or the courts were the source of much
of the factual information about these cases; hence, these stories contained a
good portion of usable data embedded in their narratives.
Since the newspapers stories collected were viewed through a criminal
justice perspective, a consistent and unifying method for the definition of
animal cruelty was needed. It was decided that a logical approach was to use
definitions employed by a major criminal justice agency, specifically the police
department of New York City. From their Operations Order dated March 14,
2000 the following definition was extracted: “Torture’ or ‘cruelty’ includes
every act, omission, or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering
or death is caused or permitted. ‘Companion animal' or ‘p e f means any dog
or cat, and shall also m ean any other domesticated animal normally
56
maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such
other domesticated anim al.” This definition, it its’ more abbreviated form, was
derived from the Agriculture and Markets Law (Article 26) which defines and
sets the penalties for this group of offenses (offenses against animals). It was
not expected that there would be a great degree of variability in the definition
of cruelty or pet amongst the different states, although definitions may not be
as clear or well-defined as this one. It was also anticipated that penalties
would also vary depending upon designation of the crime as a felony or
misdemeanor.
The advantage of using a sophisticated resource such as LEXIS-NEXIS
became most evident at this phase of the study. W hile some of the smaller
newspapers on the Internet had searchable archives, many required the
presentation of single word or a single phrase to complete the search. LEXIS-
NEXIS uses Boolean logic, thus minimizing the number of individual and
discrete searches required. By the use of connectors such as AND, OR and
NOT and by truncating words, searches are more easily performed and are
more thorough. The challenge, then, is to arrive at the best phrase and word
combination to retrieve the optimum number of cases: a search that is too
broad retrieves an unmanageable number of articles, many not pertinent to the
topic, and of course, a search too narrow does not provide enough material.
To begin the process, a one-week period between October 10, 2000 and
October 17, 2000 was searched initially with the term “cruelty to animals”. At
the time the cases were gathered, the LEXIS-NEXIS database was divided into
57
four sections: Midwest Regional, Northeast Regional, Southeast Regional and
W estern Regional, and each section had to be searched separately. The
preliminary search was not productive, with only a total of 15 articles retrieved,
many of which were not pertinent. From this point on, various combinations
were tried: sometimes using single descriptors such as dog or cat, puppy
(pup!) or kitten (kit!) or horse (horse!) etc., or other terms such as arrest
(arrest!) or charge (charg!) or neglect (negle!) or suffer (suffer!) or abuse
(abus!). Different combinations of these terms were also used to try to weed
out extraneous material, and all the results were compared. Although a time-
consuming process, this step was necessary to arrive at the simplest and most
comprehensive search term. Using the search term pet! OR animal! AND
arrest! OR charg! OR negle! OR cruel! OR suffer! a final search was
performed. This term was found to be the most complete and efficient and a
one-week search from October 10, 2000 to October 17, 2000 yielded 19
cases. Again, it is was desirable but not necessarily mandatory to retrieve
every case, but it was important to ensure that some cases were not included
or excluded on a systematic basis.
Based on these results, it was possible to estimate that roughly 1,000
cases would be available for analysis. By conservatively cutting this number in
half, this left 500 cases, which was still adequate for this study. It was
important to ensure a method that would yield a substantial number and variety
of cases to overcome the short-comings of past research. With this in mind, it
is still important to consider that stories of animal abuse might be affected by
58
coverage of other media events. In an election year such as 2000, particularly
an election with controversy, decreased space and fewer stories about animal
abuse, especially around the election event, might be a consideration.
Another factor to have an effect on number of cases might be redundancy of
information: it is not unusual for a few different newspapers to cover the same
story. Closely related to this problem is the coverage of one story over a
period of days, weeks or months. W hile extensive coverage is desirable from
an information gathering prospective, it tends to inflate estimates of the actual
number of cases available.
Searches can be performed in a number of ways: daily, weekly, monthly,
and yearly, etc.. Yearly searches can produce a lot of material at one time and
are slightly unwieldy, and for this reason a weekly search method is preferable
since it retrieves the same information but the stories are easier to track.
Another aspect of this method is the ability to search prospectively and
retrospectively for all articles written about a particular case, so while we were
generally confined to articles from the year 2000, we found that sometimes a
story had originated in 1999 or the final coverage of a story was in the year
2001. This feature added a new step to the method and additional, case
specific searches were performed. As an example, the name of the offender
was often printed, so it was possible to use the name as a search term,
expanding the search over a few years. This step allowed retrieval of initial
articles about the case, and continuing articles that often supplied background
and information on the final disposition of the case. Many cases that were
59
adjudicated in 2000 originated in 1999 or earlier, or many originating in 2000
were adjudicated in 2001.
To exemplify the process, three cases were chosen from the initial search
covering October 10, 2000 to October 17, 2000; case specific searches for
Arnold Hotz, John Zeits, and two unnamed adolescents were performed to
augm ent these narratives. The following are verbatim descriptions.
Case Number One
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sink, 2000a)
A Town of Vernon man who killed his neighbors’ dogs with antifreeze-
soaked meat was ordered to pay $7,500 in punitive damages under a jury
verdict issued Thursday that the disappointed dog owners vowed to appeal.
The dogs’ owners, Jane Schuster-Kartes and Christine Fabry, had urged the
jury to impose $100,000 in punitive damages.
They said after the verdict that they will appeal an earlier ruling in the case.
Waukesha County Circuit Judge Kathryn Foster ruled that in Wisconsin, pets
are considered property and, therefore, pet owners are not entitled to
damages for emotional distress if their pets are intentionally maimed or
killed.
“I’m shocked,” said Schuster-Kartes, who said she wanted a stiffer penalty
imposed on her next-door neighbor, Arnold Hotz, 64, who was convicted in a
separate case involving the dog deaths. “He still hasn’t gotten the message,”
she said.
Hotz’s attorney, Terry Johnson, said his client who did not comment, was
disappointed that damages were awarded but is uhappy it wasn’t any
higher than it was.”
uHe wishes and hopes this is all over,” Johnson said.
But Fabry, a Waukesha County sheriffs deputy who called her dogs and other
pets “her children,” said she would be contacting the Animal Legal Defense
Fund and a dog owner in the La Crosse area who was already working to
change state law.
“W e’re going in uncharted territory,” said Fabry, who called the $7,500
award low and “nowhere near” what she wanted. “Hopefully we’ll do
something good for other pet owners,” she said.
Johnson said the judge had made the right decision and he had no concerns
about the appeal.
“The law says that this is a rational process —not an emotional process,” he
told jurors in his closing arguments. ‘You are to free your minds of emotion,
60
sympathy."
Johnson said the issue to be decided was whether Hotz should be punished
in the form of financial damages beyond the restitution he already had paid to
replace the dead dogs.
"He has been punished in spades," Johnson said. “He has been taught his
lesson big time."
Hotz was convicted of three felony animal abuse charges in 1997 for killing two
re-heelers, owned by Shuster-Kartes, and a beagle, owned by Fabry who, with
her dog, briefly lived with Schuster-Kartes.
Johnson said Hotz has endured media coverage of his case and had
problems in his marriage after he first lied and claimed innocence but later
admitted his crimes after a jury found him guilty.
Johnson said Hotz had to serve nine months in jail, was still on probation, paid
about $8,300 in restitution and performed required community service work.
He accused the dog owners and their attorney of being on a crusade based
on animalrights, and said Schuster-Kartes and Hotz were feuding neighbors.
“This is the last act of a blood feud," Johnson told jurors.
Hotz, who did not testify in his criminal trial, took the stand in his civil trial and
testified that he was tired of dogs running onto his land and “doing their jobs"
everywhere.
Schuster-Kartes’ attorney siad Hotz “enticed" the dogs onto his land in the first
place with a “scrap pile’ onto which he threw fruit peels, eggs shells and other
food.
Hotz also admitted that he used a shotgun to shoot Schuster-Kartes’
Russian blue house cat. Cinder, when he found it sitting at the bottom of his bird
feeder looking at birds on Easter Sunday 1995 —one month after Schuster-
Kartes moved in.
The dogs, poisoned in 1996, suffered long painful deaths before being
euthanized, the two women testified.
The jury found that Hotz did not kill a second cat that he testified he
kicked at in his garage before Schuster-Kartes found it dead on her property.
In addition to the $7,500 in punitive damages for the dog and cat deaths,
jurors ordered Hotz to pay Schuster-Kartes $100 for Cinder, the cat he shot He
already has paid for the value of the dogs.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sink, 2000b)
Despite having strong attachments to their pets, two women whose dogs were
killed by a neighbor cannot collect damages for emotional distress, a judge said
Tuesday.
Waukesha County Circuit Judge Kathryn Foster, ruling before the start of a
trial on a lawsuit over the dogs’ deaths, acknowledged that many people
consider pets part of the family. But she said damages for emotional
distress can be obtained through a civil lawsuit only if a human being is killed or
injured.
She noted that state law considers pets and other animals property.
61
“This is not to say that people cannot become extremely distraught over loss
of property,’ including pets, the judge said. ’Many pet owners treat their
animals like children.’
Some parents treat their animals better than they treat their children, she said,
noting that animals often give their owners ’ unconditional love.’
‘But all of that aside, there has to be a human relationship,’ Foster said.
The judge ruled, however, that the trial could continue with the pet owners
seeking punitive damages for animal cruelty or death.
The two women whose dogs were killed by their neighbor in the Town of
Vernon, Arnold Hotz, said they would urge legislators to change the law to
acknowledge the bond between pets and their owners.
Jane Schuster-Kartes, who lost two cats and two dogs, said: ‘The laws need to
be changed. It’s not a piece of property. Those puppies didn’t have a chance.*
Christine Fabry, whose beagle Vixen died after being poisoned by Hotz, said
her pets were her family.
A Waukesha County sheriffs deputy, Fabry said that she and her husband -
a West Allis police officer - decided not to have children because of their
occupations.
‘My animals are my kids. We both find solace in our pets,* she said. ‘We
have a menagerie. Vet bills are just the same as doctor bills to us.”
But Foster cited a state appeals court decision from June that dismissed as
frivolous a Racine woman’s lawsuit for emotional distress against a Racine
police officer who said he shot and after it attacked the officer’s dog. The
woman said emotional trauma from the shooting caused her to collapse two
days later and require medical attention.
She denied her dog attacked the officer’s pet.
The appeals court said the law was clear that the victim must be related to the
injured party as ‘spouses, parent-child, grandparent-grandchild or siblings’ - not
as pet owner.
Lisa Rowe, attorney for Fabry and Schuster-Kartes, argued that the law may
not apply in cases of intentional infliction of distress.
Hotz was convicted in 1997 of intentionally killing two dogs owned by
Schuster-Kartes and one dog owned by Fabry by leaving antifreeze-soaked
meat in a bowl on his Town of Vernon patio. He later admitted that a year
earlier he had shot and killed one of Schuster-Kartes’ cats and kicked a
second, which later died.
He did not testify during his criminal trial.
But on Tuesday as the civil trial started, he took the stand and admitted he
initially lied to police, saying he accidentally left the poisoned meat out on his
porch.
‘I intentionally poisoned them because I was sick and tired of having those dogs
in my yard - doing jobs all over,’ Hotz testified.
He said he got the idea of antifreeze poisoning from a co-worker. ‘He said
antifreeze will take care of animals on your property,’ Hotz said.
He said he left the bowl and hamburger meat out “for about a week* in the
winter of 1996. ‘All I thought about was getting rid of those dogs,* he said.
‘I did a dumb thing. I know it I shouldn’t have done it.’
Hotz, who served nine months in work-release jail and remains on probation
for the killings, said he thought the dogs would die ‘immediately.”
62
The owners’ attorney told jurors in her opening remarks that the dogs
suffered and died a “long, slow, painful death."
Hotz testified: “I didn’t think they were going to go into all that suffering and
stuff. That hurt me more than anything."
Hotz testimony will continue today.
Rowe, the women’s lawyer, told jurors that she would ask for $100,000 in
damages "to send a message’ to Hotz and others.
From this article, it was apparent that there had been prior articles on
Arnold Hotz so a search spanning 10 years was performed and a total of 12
more articles surfaced. W hile most of these stones reflected public
controversy surrounding the case, they did not necessarily help explain
motivation for the crime. The most useful information from four longer articles
was extracted:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sink, 1997a)
Deputies accused Hotz of providing inconsistent statements on how the

antifreeze got on his porch.
Deputies say Hotz told them that he felt he was being framed by neighbors who
have battled with him for years.
He said that in 1994, his neighbors blamed him for shooting two cats, killing
one, which he denies. He said he paid for the cats’ veterinary bills just to get
neighbors off his back.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, (Sink, 1997b)
An attorney for a man accused of fatally poisoning three dogs said Tuesday
that a sheriffs deputy conducted a shoddy investigation, and raised the
possibility that the defendant’s wife or grandson could be responsible.
Deputy Alan Sill told jurors he thought Hotz was lying when he gave
conflicting explanations for the meat and antifreeze. Sill testified that Hotz first
told him he had been working on his car in the garage and used the bowl to
catch antifreeze. But Hotz said he didn’t know how the meat got into the bowl
and how the bowl got on his patio.
63
Siil said that in a later interview, Hotz said he had spilled some antifreeze on
his garage floor and used the bowl to clean it up. He said his wife asked him to
dispose of some meat, which he put in the bowl, and set out to bury it in his yard
but forgot it on his patio.
Kurt Schuster asked Sill whether Hotz could have been lying to protect
someone else. Sill said he believed Hotz was protecting himself.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sink, 1997c)
Sheriff Detective Steven Pederson told jurors that when he confronted

Arnold Hotz, 61, about conflicting explanations Hotz gave for a bowl of
antifreeze-soaked meat found on his patio, Hotz became defensive.
“He said that he thought he was getting framed, that he gets blamed for
everything,” Pederson testified.
Hotz went on to recount an incident in 1994 involving cats owned by his
neighbor, Jane Schuster.
ttOne died, and one was shot,” Pederson said.
Hotz denied any involvement in the cats’ deaths, Pederson said.
“But (Hotz) said he paid the veterinary bills to get Jane Schuster off his
back,” Pederson testified.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sink, 1997d)
Hotz did not testify at trial and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
But according to a sentencing report submitted this week by his attorney, state
Sen. Lynn Adelman, Hotz now admits with deep remorse the he “negligently”
killed two re-heeler dogs and a beagle in February and March 1996.
The report quotes Hotz as tearfully telling psychologist Kenneth Smail: “If I
would have known what would happen, I would have never left it (the
antifreeze-soaked meat) out. I would have buried it.”
‘ I've come to realize that you can’t do that. I would never think of doing that
again. I feel sorry for the dogs...what they went through (and ) Jane,
too...and the kids.”
The lengthy report also acknowledges that Hotz admits that in 1994 he killed
two cats owned by Schuster-Kartes. He shot one and kicked another,
which bled to death.
The report says that Hotz thought the cats were wild, and he killed them
when they strayed onto his property. He said he was fed up with cats
entering his yard and killing his birds.
Case Number Two
St. Petersburg Times (Varian, 2000a)
A 12-year-old faces charges, and deputies want to question an 11-year-old as
64
well.
The cat’s name was Frisky, and his owner said he was so friendly that he
readily approached strangers. Now, Citrus county sheriffs deputies think two
preteen boys used that sweet nature against the 5-year-old black cat.
First, they lured Frisky into a home they had illegally entered through a
doggy door, according to an arrest report. Then, one of the boys held the cat
down as he bludgeoned him with a fireplace poker.
Finally, Frisky was fitted with a black rope and flung by his neck into the
kitchen walls before being thrown over a fence outside, the report said.
Frisky died. On Thursday, deputies arrested a 12-year-old boy after hearing
that another boy had bragged about the attack on a school bus. They are still
attempting to reach that other child, who is 11, according to the boy who was
arrested.
“I'm so sorry to even know how he died,' said Barbara Barger, Frisky’s
owner, during an interview. “It wouldn’t hurt so much if I didn't know another
human being could do that to an animal."
The Citrus Times is withholding the names of both boys because they are
juveniles.
It was the second time in two months that a child was charged with animal
cruelty after the death of a pet. Last month, a 15-year-old girl pleaded
guilty to a cruelty charge after she admitted burying alive the mixed-breed dog of
a neighbor in August. She was ordered to undergo counseling and perform
community service at an animal shelter.
Deputies initially responded Thursday to a report of a burglary to an unoccupied
home at North Julia Way and East Van Ness Road. An exact address was not
provided in sheriffs reports.
They met with the owner to get a key, found the back door unlocked and saw
blood in the kitchen area and several holes poked in the walls, the reports
showed. While they were there, the 12-year-old showed up, saying he was
looking for a black cat.
Earlier that day, Barger said, the boy had knocked on her door after hearing
that she was looking for Frisky. She lives on North Julia.
The cat had been missing since Tuesday. The boy offered to jump fences to
find the cat and said he would bring it back even if he found it dead, she said.
He said it twice, which Barger said she found odd. Still, she gave him a can
of cat treats and told him to shake it if he saw Frisky. The cat would come right
away, she said. She said she thanked the boy, calling him “sweetheart."
Deputies asked the boy whether he knew anything about the cat or the
burglary. According to the arrest report he said he and a friend maintained
a “fort" behind the house. Two days earlier, the other boy had shown him how to
enter the home through a doggy door. They returned Wednesday, with the
other boy climbing through first and then opening the door for him.
The other boy said he wanted to lure the neighbor's cat into the house, and
he did, the report said. Once the cat was inside, the 12-year-old boy said the
other boy held the cat down and struck him with a fireplace poker in the leg.
Frisky hissed, he said.
He hit the cat again, this time in the back, and then told the 12-year-old to do
it, the report said. The older boy told deputies he kicked the cat lightly, then
hit it with a rod from a fireplace brush.
65
The 12-year-old boy said the other boy struck the cat in the neck and poked
at its eyes. Still the cat remained alive, and the other boy tied black rope
around its neck then began flinging the cat around the kitchen into walls. He
also poked holes in the wall, the 12-year-old said.
Finally, he said, the other boy threw the tools and the cat out a window and
over an outside fence. It all took place before dark, but after school, the
report said.
The 12-year-old boy’s mother, whose name is also being withheld to protect
his identity, said the other boy threatened her son to get him to participate in
beating the cat.
“He had the poker," she said during an interview. "He was afraid if he could
do it to the cat, he could do it to them."
She said her family owns five cats, and her son takes good care of them.
The mother of the other child has refused to let deputies talk to him outside
her presence. He has not been arrested and is still considered a suspect,
sheriffs spokeswoman Ronda Hemminger Evan said. The 12-year-old
boy’s mother said she is upset that her son has been arrested and the other
child hasn't.
Evan said deputies intent to talk to the other child and are still investigating the
matter.
The 12-year-old boy is charged with burglary, cruelty to animals and criminal
mischief. He was released to the custody of his parents.
"I don't wish any harm to anyone," said Barger, Frisky’s owner. "I can
forgive the boy because so can God."
Deputies turned the body of the cat over to Barger's son, Tom Moynihan, who
was Frisky’s original owner. He dug a hole 4 feet deep in Barger’s back yard
and buried Frisky there.
Another two similar stories were also retrieved, along with the following:
St. Petersburg Times (Varian,2000b)
The juveniles pleaded no contest to the charge. They were ordered to

undergo any psychiatric counseling that is recommended.
Two boys accused of killing a neighborhood cat with a fireplace poker were
ordered Tuesday to undergo psychiatric evaluation, perform community
service and visit an animal shelter.
The second of the two boys, who is 12, pleaded no contest to charges of
animal cruelty and burglary on Tuesday. The first boy, 11, had pleaded no
contest to the charge. He read a letter to Barbara Barger, the owner of the cat
named Frisky.
“I am writing to let you know how truly sorry I am," the boy wrote. ‘I truly
apologize for the trouble and pain I caused you."
Barger hugged the boy and said she accepted the apology.
Circuit Judge Patricia Thomas withheld adjudication in the case, meaning the
66
children were neither found guilty nor innocent, though the charges could
resurface if they get into more trouble. She accepted the plea on the
condition that both boys undergo psychiatric evaluation and follow any
counseling or treatment that is recommended. “People who do stuff like that,
that’s a forewarning to other things that can happen* she said to one of the boy’s
parents.
The second child also was ordered to write Barger an apology letter.
Both boys are accused of breaking into an unoccupied home on North Julia
Way in Hernando through a doggy door then luring Frisky inside. There they
reportedly held the cat down, beat it with a fireplace poker then swung it by a
rope tied around its neck.
Barger, who attended all three hearings in the case, said she was satisfied with
the outcome, if still saddened by how Frisky died.
“Frisky’s loss is never going to be forgotten." she said. ‘But if his death is
meant to save two people, maybe it’s worth it."
Case Number Three
The Capital (Annapolis, MD) (Collins, 2000)
County Animal Control officers yesterday charged an Odenton man with three
counts of animal cruelty for slitting his dog’s throat after the animal bit his 16-
month-old daughter in the face last week, county police said.
John Zeits, told police that the 1-year-old golden retriever, Max, bit Heather
Zeits at 12:30 p.m. Oct. 2 when she tried to hug him at their home at 319
Eagle Landing Court.
Mr. Zeits told police he cut Max’s throat with a knife and dumped the dog in
a wooded area nearby, police said. He and his wife. Dawn, then took
Heather to North Arundel Hospital in Glen Bumie.
She was treated and released that day, a hospital spokesman said. Police
described her wounds as a puncture and several scratches.
Later that day, someone found the badly wounded animal and took him to
county Animal Control authorities, who have put Max in protective custody,
according to Tahira Thomas, the agency’s administrator. She would not
identify the dog’s rescuer. “I’m surprised this dog’s alive,” Ms. Thomas said.
Mr. Zeits is charged with animal abandonment, causing unnecessary pain and
suffering and animal mutilation, all misdemeanors, Ms. Thomas said. The most
serious charge, animal mutilation, carries a maximum $5,000 fine and three
years in jail, she said.
Meanwhile Max underwent surgery Oct. 2 and remained at a veterinary
hospital until this week, when he was transferred to the Animal Control
shelter in Glen Bumie, Ms. Thomas said.
‘He’s just as playful as ever," she said. ‘He doesn’t seem to be in any
discomfort’
Mrs. Zeits recently asked to get the dog back to give to her father, but she was
refused.
“They’ve abandoned him, so we've taken custody," Ms. Thomas said.
67
Most dogs recovered by Animal Control that are involved in biting incidents are
not put up for adoption. But Ms. Thomas said she will be looking for a new
owner forMax because it wasn’t clear from the investigation of the incident
whether he was provoked.
She expressed dismay at the dog’s prolonged suffering and the way the
situation was handled.
‘The proper approach if anyone’s animal bites you is to bring it to u s/ she said.
‘This was definitely not the answer/
The family told county police they had taken in the stray dog about a month
before the attack. Mr. Zeits declined to comment, but Mrs. Zeits said their
daughter is recovering.
‘She’s going to have a scar on her cheek, but she’s going to be fine/ she said.
At this point it became evident that a prospective search was needed:
The Washington Post (Hernandez, 2001)
John Zeits knows people think of him as the dog slasher. He's got the hate
mail to prove it. Ever since he was accused of cutting the throat of a dog and
dumping the animal in the woods to die, the 23-year-old Odenton man has had
to grapple with public outrage, and his own fear of being sent to jail after
emerging from a past clouded by drug problems and crime.
Zeits, whose animal cruelty trial was postponed Friday, faces three charges
related to an Oct. 2 incident in which he is accused of mutilating a dog. Max,
and leaving the animal in the woods outside his house. The dog, who had
bitten Zeit’s 16-month old daughter, was found alive and placed in the care of
Anne Arundel animal control authorities.
Max has completely recovered from the attack, and several people have
offered to adopt him, according to Tahira Thomas, animal control
administrator. She said he won't be allowed to leave the county’s animal
shelter in Millersville until after Zeits’s trial.
Zeits faces up to three years in jail and a $5,000 fine if he is convicted of
animal mutilation, the most serious of the charges. ‘ I want to be able to take
care of my family, and I can't do that if I’m in ja il/ Zeits said in an interview
after the postponement
State Prosecutor Michael Dunty told Glen Bumie District Court Judge Paul
Hackner that Zeits’s attorney, Perry Becker, wasn't at the trial because Zeits
had failed to pay him. Zeits said the issue was being worked out and asked
for a postponement. Hackner agreed to the request over Dunty’s objection,
saying that Zeits deserved to have legal representation since the charges carry
a severe penalty.
Dunty said the trial has not been rescheduled yet, but it was likely to take
place in mid-to-late April before a different judge.
The attack has stirred strong feelings. Dunty, who describes himself as a dog
lover, said, ‘I find what he did to be disgusting/ but said he wouldn’t
press for the three-year jail sentence, opting instead for probation and anger
68
management counseling.
Zeits said he would like to be known as someone who has overcome a past
marred by drug addiction and crime, a hard-working family man who takes in
stray animals and nurses them back to health.
The young man described a life which had gone astray, but which he was
beginning to piece back together.
Zeits started drinking and using drugs at the age of 13 and dropped out of high
school when he was 15. “I did acid, marijuana, cocaine, pharmaceuticals, just
about anything I could get my hand on to pass the time away,’ He said. ‘ I was
a waste of flesh.’
He was twice charged with second-degree assault, but did not serve
significant jail time. The low point came in 1998, when he was forced into
North Arundel Hospital because his mother feared he would commit suicide.
Shortly after getting out of the hospital he met his future wife, Dawn. ’It was
with her help that I was able to stay away from the drugs and everything
else,’ he said. They were married 10 months ago and he has worked
steadily as a private contractor.
Zeits said he often rescued stray animals and then gave them to friends. He
took Max, a mixed-breed dog, into his care about two weeks before the
slashing incident. Zeits said that Max ’ knew what he was doing” when he
attacked his daughter, Heather, who still bears a small scar from the attack
beneath her left eye. ’He wasn’t provoked, he just did it out of jealousy,” Zeits
said, noting the he had been planning to give the dog to his father, John Sr., the
next day.
After being charged, Zeits was forced to give his other pets - a cat and two
ferrets - to his father.
Zeits expressed fear that his wife wouldn’t be able to fend for herself and their
daughter if he is convicted. ’ I’m scared to death,* he said. ’ I’m not scared for
me, I’m scared for my daughter."
These three cases provide a good illustration of the types of searches
that it may be necessary to perform. It becomes quite clear that gathering all
available articles helps provide a more complete ’ dossier” for each case. The
third case, featuring John Zeits, also shows how information might be
considered incomplete if it is obtained from a single search only; there is an
apparent explanation of the motivation but the final disposition is still evolving.
Before beginning a discussion of the analytical procedures that were used, it is
necessary to include a final caveat about sample selection.
69
It is obvious that the construction of the offender typology must exclude
anonymous acts of cruelty, even though these acts were often reported. It is
also believed that abandonment crimes were possibly under-represented,
since this can include nothing more serious or newsworthy than leaving behind
animals that are quickly adopted by neighbors without much fanfare or
newspaper coverage. More serious cases of abandonment were reported and
occasionally the offenders were traced. Other cases excluded from this study
were animals used in experimentation or factory farms, which were outside the
purview of the local criminal justice agencies.
Analytical Procedure
The analyses of the crime, victim and criminal justices responses were
uncomplicated, straightforward and limited by the amount of data available;
however, a significant amount of information was submerged in the text of the
newspaper narratives. The construction of the typology of offender based on
a content analysis bears some elaboration about the theoretical underpinnings
of this type of research and the practical considerations of this type of
methodology.
A content analysis should be both qualitative and quantitative; these two
approaches are not mutually exclusive (Stempel, 1989). To build a typology of
offender from newspaper accounts, it is necessary to use an inductive process
in the initial development of the theory; that is, theoretical predications evolve
from the study of the phenomenon. This process allows the development of a
70
theory that is grounded in the data, or, a grounded theory that is “...discovered,
developed, and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and
analysis of the data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection,
analysis and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does
not begin with a theory, then prove it Rather, one begins with an area of study
and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge” (Strauss and Corbin,
1998). In content analysis, the narrative can be viewed as a reflection of a
deeper phenomenon (Berelson, 1952). According to Berelson (1952), it is
important to look at the Gestalt, not just the narrow piece of information that is
one’s primary interest.
Coding
The newspaper narratives provided above serve to exemplify the content
analytic and coding process. A first reading of the articles presented some
initial impressions: all the offenders were male, there was a seemingly
significant difference in ages and all the animals were killed. These details
might be labeled the manifest content of the story, obvious but not necessarily
unimportant variables to be included in the construction of the typology. The
method of killing was also clearly stated, and with considerations about the
importance of this information to the construction of a typology and the
classification of these acts to discrete categories, the process of thematic
content analysis and the inductive procedure becomes apparent F irst the
relationship of the method of the abuse to the motivation is questioned: would
71
this be an important variable to include and why? Again, returning to the
cases, a starting point was to look at commonalities and differences: Case
Number One appears to be premeditated, and Cases Two and Three
appeared spontaneous. Case Number One could be considered goal-oriented
and Cases Two and Three were not. It became clear that this is was an
important piece of data and it was possible to select upon a variable which
separated these cases into, for example, expressive (emotive) or instrumental
(goal-oriented) behavior. Having begun a classification schema, it was further
possible to assess whether or not this adequately defined the acts and if it was
sufficient; at this point it appeared to be a broad classification that needed
further refining.
Returning to the articles, the method of offending was considered. In
Case Number One it could be hypothesized that poisonings require planning.
In the third case, the beating was spontaneous; these distinctions seemed to
naturally fall within a larger category of expressive or instrumental behaviors,
yet carrying the analysis into the more latent content of the articles provided
additional definitions that enriched the motivational profile. It was then
possible to classify these actions as planned (Calculated) and spontaneous
(Impulsive). Considering Case Number Two, a noticeable feature was the
apparent spontaneity of the crime and this could be included in the
construction of the typology. Through subsequent testing, this sub-category
would either become part of the typology or would be replaced with a more
suitable classification. Evaluating the third case in a similar manner allowed a
72
further distinction to emerge: it appeared that this act was an isolated incident,
not part of a pattern. This seemed to be another important piece of
information, and it was easy to imagine, in contrast, an offender exhibiting
chronic behavior. Again, these distinctions were imagined in a larger category
(Expressive/Instrumental). It was then possible to see that these sub
categories were interchangeable, meaning that Case Number Two could be
defined as Impulsive; and Cases One and Three could be categorized as
Chronic and Isolated, respectively. Further, these definitions illustrated a
unique aspect of the crime. These definitions were adopted as viable
variables in the construction of the typology.
It became apparent that attempts to describe an action became
multidimensional as it got broken down into various components. Up until
then, aspects of motivation, but not the motivation itself, had been touched
upon. It was then necessary to begin to assign motivations to the abuses
beginning with the three cases. Case Number One appeared to be a case of
retaliation: not only did Arnold Hotz vent his frustrations on his neighbor’s
dogs but it emerged that he also had a history of conflict with neighbors and
neighbors’ pets. He stated that he was fed up with animals entering his yard:
he subsequently planned a poisoning. Despite his later “sad feelings” he
wasn’t interested in trying to find a compromise at the time. The animals
trespassed on his property, he was angry, and his solution was perm anent
we classified this motivation as retaliatory. At this point we had to consider all
cases that w e would classify as retaliatory and ask if this classification scheme
73
would be sufficient? From the small sample of three cases, it was indicated
that Case Number Three could also be a retaliatory act although Case Number
One and Three were palpably different Case Number Three was most
characterized by the intense reaction. Although the punishment was out of
proportion to the dog’s transgression, it was interesting that this action was
understandable within the context of the offender’s history: assault, drugs and
suicide attempts, indicating a high degree of impulsivity in his character that
was again exhibited here. Although this act could have been classified as
punishment, that classification should be reserved for acts which are designed
to teach or train an animal. If a dog’s throat is slit, there is not attempt to train
it for the future: capital punishment is final. It became evident that the
variables that were proposed earlier could provide a satisfactory solution:
Case Number One could be coded as Retaliatory - Instrumental, Calculated
and Chronic. Case Number Three was Retaliatory - Expressive, Impulsive,
and Isolated. These proposed categories were validated through the analysis
of additional cases, and all additional categories were developed in this
manner.
Assessing the motivation for Case Number Two was especially
challenging. Superficially, this appeared to be part of a pattern of delinquency:
breaking into and defacing the house and killing the cat were all part of the
same a c t There were further points to consider, first one boy lived in a
household with many cats, and treated them kindly; second, the judge did not
m ake a ruling. It can be speculated that the judge did not m ake a ruling
74
because these children had not been in trouble before; this was an isolated
incident and not part of a pattern of delinquent behavior. This behavior could
be classified as Thrill-Seeking, with Expressive, Isolated and Impulsive
elements.
Other variables important to the analysis and development of a typology
were available from the newspaper narrative. Knowing whether or not the
offender acted alone or with others was significant in the identification of a
pattern. In the above cases, the adults acted alone but the children did not
and we might expect that peers significantly influence non-adults. Knowing
whether or not the animal was killed is significant in uncovering the true
motivation of an offender, for instance, someone with a disciplinary motivation
would be abusive but refrain from killing the animal. Conversely, claims of
discipline that involved the death of the animal must be viewed suspiciously.
The content analysis and development of a coding schema are integrally linked
in studies of this type.
It is recommended by Stempel (1989) that the researcher return to earlier
articles and recode them as a reliability measure. After the first 150 cases
were coded, the initial 50 stories were recoded. As another reliability check,
an outside coder was incorporated into the study. The second coder was
given 50 stories as a practice and the results were reviewed and the
problematic areas were assessed. The second coder was only responsible for
coding the motivation. One area (Profit) was problematic and the definition in
the codebook was re-written as a result The coder read an additional 350
75
stories, with very few disagreements. The second coder then read almost all
the remaining stories, this time knowing the original designation. This step
was not necessary, but provided a means of double-checking the original
coding. The disagreements were usually easily resolved by discussion,
increasing confidence in the validity of the construction of the codes.
Another set of variables were collected at the same time as those for the
cluster analysis, and these variables defined the crime, victim and criminal
justice response. W hile not all the stories had comprehensive coverage, there
was usually sufficient detail to allow some descriptive analyses.
Statistical Analysis
The second phase of constructing the typology required the choice of a
statistical method for organizing the data into meaningful groups. A number of
techniques for arriving at a taxonomy are available; in this study the goal was
exploration. The most appropriate method for exploratory research is to
perform a cluster analysis (Norusis, 1990). Cluster analysis is a means of
imposing order on the data, but The key to using cluster analysis is knowing
these groups are ‘real’ and not merely imposed on the data by the method”
(Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). Thus, it is helpful to have a sense of the
possibilities of the data before the analysis is performed.
Clustering can consist of partitioning or clumping the data. The final
number o f clusters that would be used was not known in advance, and an
agglomerative hierarchical analysis was selected as the most appropriate
76
clustering method for the data in this study. Before clustering begins, grouping
methods and proximity measures must be chosen and we were guided by the
following considerations: single linkage grouping methods are criticized for
being lax, forming long and stringy clusters, while complete linkage grouping
methods are considered too rigid, forming extremely tight groupings (Sneath
and Sokal, 1973). Certain statistical procedures are dictated by the type of
data; this study converted information from the newspaper narratives resulting
in a database of nominal variables that were binary coded. The use of
nominal variables excluded some grouping procedures such as W ard’s and
those that rely on mean or median values. The hierarchical agglomerative
method chosen for this analysis was within-groups linkage which avoided the
above pitfalls. The choice of proximity measures is also partly dictated by the
data and by prior indications; with these considerations Sneath and Sokal I
was chosen, with the advantage that double weight was given to matches.
This method was desirable because non-matches were not necessarily
significant and could have been accounted for by data that was not reported in
the narratives. With these considerations, it was preferable to place more
emphasis on positive matches.
A statistical package (SPSS, Version 7.5.1.) initially organized these
cases into 591 clusters, progressively joining cases until all cases created one
large cluster. The cut-off point for the clustering depends partly on prior
indications: there should be enough categories to provide a comprehensive
typology but not enough as to render the data meaningless. The final analysis
77
and descriptions of the emerging types relied on theoretical suppositions
emergent in the content analysis; hence, the process closely followed
recommendations and comments offered by Stempel (1989); Strauss and
Corbin (1990,1998); and Berelson (1952). The content analysis and the
coding process had revealed patterns before the statistical analysis was
performed. In addition, there were 14 motivations, and while some of the
narratives were coded with more than one motivation, it was expected that the
clusters would be most meaningful with a cut-off point close to this number.
Clusters may be chosen by “subjective inspection of the different levels”
(Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). Evaluation and analysis of the clusters
started with 20 clusters, and at each successive joining the results were
checked to arrive at cohesive grouping that did not sacrifice meaning. On this
basis, 10 clusters were eventually identified.
78
Chapter 4
Results
The results are organized into the following sections: I. Crime and Victim,
which discusses species and numbers of animals victimized and how this is
affected by the gender of the offender, along with the different modalities of
abuse; II. Criminal Justice Response, which lists the incidence and
prevalence of penalties; III. Offender Characteristics, including demographic
information and criminal history; IV. Motivation, describing the defining
characteristics and prevalence of the 14 traits; V. Results of the cluster
analysis, defining the ten clusters of offender types; and V I. Criminal justice
disposition by cluster, describing penalties assigned to each offender type.
I. Crime and Victim
It is important to analyze the type of crime and the various types of
animals that are victims of cruelty, in addition to measuring the numbers
injured. Without this information, it is impossible to get a sense of how
widespread is the problem of animal abuse. It is also noteworthy to mention
that the volume of animals in this study approached 15,000 while the cases
totaled 717 (591 cases with an identifiable offender and 126 anonymous
cases). As a reminder, this study does not measure all animal abuse cases for
the year, but is a selection of a representative sample found in newspaper
accounts for a one-year period.
The results, found in Table 4.1, are presented for crimes where there is
79
Table 4.1 Distribution of type and number of animal victimized by offender
Offender # Offender # Total Total

known animal unknown animals cases animals
(n=591) (n=126)
Dog 377 4769 66 226 61.6% 4995

Cat 119 1841 28 252 20.5% 2093
Horse 71 66 10 22 11.3% 683
Poultry 34 3420 14 475 6.7% 3895
Birds 33 531 6 9 5.4% 540
Reptiles 25 378 2 5 3.8% 383
Small 45 1438 3 36 6.7% 1474
domestic
Medium 44 578 3 7 6.6% 585

domestic
Small 7 86 0 0 1.0% 86
wild
Medium 14 69 3 5 2.4% 74
wild
Large 10 67 3 24 1.8% 91
Wild
an identified offender and where the offender is anonymous. W here there is
an identifiable offender, the largest number of cases involve dogs, at 63.8%
(377 cases); when the anonymous cases of abuse against dogs are added in,
the total percentage of dogs victimized falls slightly to 61.6% . Cats rank
second in prevalence of abuse cases, at nearly 20% in both categories
(offender known and combined known and unknown groups). The third
largest number of abuse cases are comprised of horses, with total cases at
11.3%; the remaining categories of species have relatively low instances of
reported abuse, all under 10%.
Despite the fact that poultry are only 6.7% of the number of cases, there
are a disproportionate number of animals involved. The number of poultry can
be accounted for primarily by chicken farms. On a smaller scale, roosters
(cockfights) are also included in this number.
In addition to poultry, other birds (i.e. ducks, swans), small domestics (i.e.
guinea pigs, rabbits) and medium domestics (i.e. goats, pigs) make almost
equal contributions to the total number of cases (5.4% , 6.7% and 6.6% ,
respectively).
The following tables divide the 591 known offender cases into three
categories: females, males and mixed partners. These categories were
chosen partly because there were noticeable patterns that appeared gender-
dependent during the construction of the motivations Male offenders (427)
outnumber fem ale offenders (104) and mixed gender partners contribute 60
cases. The mixed partners may be related genetically, through marriage, or
81
Table 4.2 Species victim ization by gender of offender
Female Male Mixed

offender offender (male & female)
(n=104) (n=427) (n=60)
% of % of % of % of % of %of
females cases male cases mixed cases
Dog 72.1% 19.9% 61.4% 69.5% 66.7% 10.6%

Cat 46.2% 40.3% 3.6% 48.7% 21.7% 10.9%
Horse 17.3% 25.4% 9.1% 54.9% 23.3% 19.7%
Poultry 5.8% 18.2% 5.9% 75.8% 3.3% 6.1%
Bird 7.7% 23.5% 4.4% 55.9% 11.7% 20.6%
Reptile 1.9% 8.0% 4.9% 84.0% 3.3% 8.0%
Small domestic 14.4% 33.3% 5.9% 55.6% 8.3% 11.1%
Medium domestic 8.7% 20.5% 6.6% 63.6% 11.7% 15.9%
Small wild 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 85.7% 1.7% 14.3%
Medium wild 1.9% 14.3% 1.9% 57.1% 6.7% 28.6%
Large wild 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
82
the association could be less defined as in a friendship or business
partnership.
Table 4.2 present two sets of percentages within each gender category:
the first set of numbers describes the percentage of species-specific offenses
within that category. The second set of numbers describes the relative
percentage of species-specific offenses over the three categories of female,
m ale and mixed partners. It should be noted that the percentage of ownership
in each gender category totals well above 100% because of the practice on
the part of many offenders of multiple pet ownership. As an example, 72.1%
of females own dogs and 46.2% own cats, 17.3% own horses and so on; if
totaled, this column is 176% , which means that females generally own
combinations of pets, specifically, just over three-quarters of females (76% )
own more than one type of animal. In the same vein, 58% of mixed partners
and 17% of males were multiple pet, or more precisely, multiple species,
owners. Stated another way, males appear to be more consistent in their
animal preferences.
The disparity of the size of the male category compared to the fem ale
and mixed partner categories makes the relative percentages somewhat
misleading when viewed alone. The popularity of dogs is reflected in the
distribution of crimes that surface: of the 104 cases of fem ale abusers, 75
(72.1% ) were charged with offenses against dogs, followed by 262 of the 427
males (61.4% ) and 40 of the 60 partners (66.7% ). The relative contribution of
these two smaller groups belies their participation in dog related crimes; of
83
Table 4.3 Modality of abuse by gender of abuser
Abuse Female % F Male % F Mixed % F

modality offender offender male & female
Abandon 4 3.8% .631 16 3.7% .022 10 16.7% .000*

Bait 0 0.0% .000* 67 15.7% .000 1 1.7% .009
Beat 6 5.8% .022 67 15.7%. .000* 0 0.0% .000*
Bum 2 1.9% .557 16 3.7% .807 3 5.0% .462
Confine 2 1.9% .401 18 4.2% .638 3 5.0% .720
Drag 0 0.0% .139 12 2.8% .126 1 1.7% 1.000
Impact 1 1.0% .150 20 4.7% .052 1 1.7% .715
Mutilate 2 1.9% 284 22 5.2% .107 1 1.7% .499
Neglect 66 63.5% .000* 89 20.8% .000* 41 68.3% .000*
Poison 2 1.9% .662 7 1.6% 1.000 0 0.0% .609
Shoot 2 1.9% .000* 63 14.8% .000* 1 1.7% .009
Slash/stab 1 1.0% .482 13 3.0% .127 0 0.0% 381
Starve 28 26.9%. 016 54 12.6% .000* 25 41.7% .000*
Suffocate/
Hang 4 3.8% .802 23 5.4% .284 1 1.7% .345
"Chi-square p<001
84
the total number of dog abuse cases (377), females contributed to 19.9% of
the crimes, with males and mixed partners contributing 69.5% and 10.6%,
respectively.
Both females (17.3% ) and mixed partners (23.3% ) have a high incidence
of cruelty to horses, but overall only males make a significant contribution to
the percentage of total cases involving horse cruelty (54.9% ). A large number
of females abused cats (46.2% ) and females accounted for 40.3% of the total
cases of cruelty to cats, surpassing male cat abusers (13.6% ) and close to
male participation of total cat abuse cases (48.7% ).
Males are most likely to abuse reptiles (84.0% ) and small, medium and
large wild animals (85.7% , 57.1% and 100.0% , respectively) because it is most
likely that males would come into contact with these animals, either
accidentally or intentionally, through outdoor activities.
Neither females or mixed partners abused larger wild animals, and male
participation was minimal (2.3% ). Two separate cases involved bears;
obviously these types of cases are more likely to occur in isolated areas which
decreases chances of apprehension. Abuse involving small domestic animals
such as mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits would probably also be difficult to
detect.
Table 4.3 shows among males predominant modes of abuse are neglect
(20.8% ), baiting and beating (15.7% each), shooting(14.8%) and starving
(12.6% ). Female animal abusers or mixed partners tend to be involved in the
less physically violent offenses of neglect and starvation, and some couples
85
Table 4.4 Distribution of sentencing alternatives by category of offense
Felony Misdemeanor Unknown

(n-146) (n=198) (n=247)
%cases Range Mean %cases Range Mean %cases Range Mean
Dismiss 8.9% - - 10.6% - - 19.4%
Seizure 48.6% - - 51.0% - - 59.2%
Prohibit 5.5% - - 16.2% - - 6.1%
Mental 10.3% - - 11.6% - - 4.9%

Health
Community 8.9% 0-1000 hrs. 246 hrs. 15.6% 0-500 hrs. 154 hrs. 5.3% 0-600 hrs. 133hrs.
Service
Suspended 2.7% 0-96 mo. 53 mo. 6.1% 0-24 mo. 6.7 mo. 1.2% 0-12 mo. 8 mo.
Sentence
Probation 17.8% 0-120 mo. 34 mo. 26.8% 0-120 mo. 26 mo. 6.9% 0-120 mo. 34 mo.
Fine 27.4% 0-29115 S3722 35.8% 0-203300S7597 12.9% 0-16500 S3286
Incarcerate 24.0% 4-60 mo. 35 mo. 23.7% 0-36 mo. 35 mo. 8.9% 0-23 mo. 5 mo.
86
have been involved in abandonment offenses.
Males show more versatility in the method of abuse, with representation
in each category. Dragging, slashing and poisoning are the least prevalent
methods of abuse, however, it should be noted that many of these methods
are used in combination.
II. Criminal Justice Response
The results of the criminal justice response to the cases of animal cruelty
for the year 2000 are presented in the following pages; however, it is
important to note a few considerations. It is possible that after initial reporting
these cases were not followed and therefore final disposition of the case is
missing and only the preliminary charges are recorded. It is common within
the criminal justice system to have roughly 75% of cases resolved by plea
bargaining; at least 35% of the cases in this study resulted in some type of
charge. The possibility that the final outcome is not reported must be
entertained, but does not preclude the value of measuring at least the initial
criminal justice response to animal abuse.
Analyses of the criminal justice response in this study must be considered
extremely tentative. At best it is difficult to report on sentencing unless there
is an abundance of cases from which to choose. W hile this study has a
respectable number of cases, they are scattered throughout jurisdictions so
only the most general conclusions can be drawn. Table 4.4 describes 146
felonies, 198 misdemeanors and 247 cases where the initial charge as a
87
felony or misdemeanor is unknown; thus, the initial charge is known in only
58% of the cases.
Charges Dismissed
Referring to Table 4.4, all 3 categories had cases of the animal cruelty
charge being dropped, but this does not mean that no action resulted. As an
example, in the felony category, 13 cases (8.9% ) of animal abuse were
dismissed but there were three cases with other concurrent charges which may
have been prosecuted. The animals were seized in six cases and one case
was referred for mental health counseling. Only 5 cases had no further action
reported and of those one case was an accident. Within the misdemeanor
category, more cases were dismissed, but as with felonies, animal seizures
and other charges did occur. The unknown category has similar results. It is
important to consider sentencing on other charges when animal abuse cases
are analyzed and although substituting other charges for animal cruelty does
not dignify animal abuse within the criminal justice process, it may be the best
way to gain some type of punitive response for offenders.
Animals seized
The seizure of animals was either explicitly stated in the reported account
or could be inferred but this may not have been true of all cases and so this
action might be under-recorded.
Seizure of the animal depends on imminent danger to the animal,
88
seriousness of the abuse, and the capacity of the community to house the
animal for an interim period. Animal cruelty charges are sometimes dropped if
the offender signs over the animal to the arresting agency, for instance, the
ASPCA and other types of humane law enforcement often attempt this
strategy and are often best-equipped to house, rehabilitate and adopt out
confiscated animals. There may also be mental health counseling provided to
offenders which helps them reunite with seized pets. Of the 71 felony cases
(or 48.6% ) where there is a clear indication that the animals were seized, 14
cases or nearly 20% included a mixture of dead and living animals; the
seizure was for the remaining survivors. Misdemeanors had 34 dead animals
(34% ) and the unknown category had 19% dead, with 101 and 124 seized
respectively. By percentage the seizure of animals was similar in all three
categories, and was close to 50%.
Pet prohibition
A surprisingly low number of cases included a prohibition against further
pet ownership. Again, misdemeanor charges were most likely to result in a
stipulation against owning pets in the future. It should also be noted that
prohibitions against pet ownership have a variable range which may most likely
be at the judge's discretion. A sentence may be for two, five, ten or an
indefinite number of years. It is extremely questionable whether this sentence
is, realistically, enforceable. Pet prohibition seems to be imposed most in
cases of collectors and where animals are a business or an illegal means of
89
profit; these cases accounted for 70% of the pet prohibition sentences. Every
case that had a pet prohibition also had some other penalty.
Mental Health Intervention
In some states it is mandatory to have a mental health evaluation and
interview in cases of animal abuse. This requirement was usually made in
conjunction with other sentencing decisions, but a number of these cases did
not have further information. It is possible that in these cases the offender
may have been found mentally deficient in some way and perhaps the charges
were eventually dropped. Mental health screening or counseling is usually
seen with a prohibition against owning animals. Counseling is the preferred
method when the ASPCA is involved, and the ASPCA may have its own
counseling services. There is usually some indication in these cases that
outside services are needed (i.e. mental health providers); these cases often
involved offenders with some type of mental or emotional problem that was
objectively verified, such as stress over the breakdown of relationships,
stressful family situations or with psychopathological conditions such as
animal hoarding.
Community Service
Most community service sentencing was given in conjunction with other
sentences. The most popular other sentence with community service was
fines (68% ), while only 7% of cases received a suspended sentence, the least
90
popular additional sentence. Only 3% of cases received community service
only. These results indicate that community service by itself is not considered
a serious penalty for animal cruelty convictions. Table 4.4 shows the longest
sentence of 1000 hours involved only one felony case, and the most popular
amount of time was between 100 and 300 hours. Obviously community
service necessitates the cooperation of other agencies and institutions where
the offender can be placed, and might be a less viable alternative in small
communities not set up to accommodate these alternative means of
sentencing.
Suspended sentence
Suspended sentences are the least prevalent penalty in animal cruelty
cases; Table 4.4 records 2.7% , 6.1% and 1.2% for felony, misdemeanor and
unknown cases, respectively. The longest suspended sentence length was in
the felony category. W hile it may appear that a suspended sentence is not
punishment at all, in this case a sentence of 96 months was suspended but
there were other penalties involved, including a substantial fine and some short
jail time. This case included various species of animals bred for sale, and it
may be more punitive and more productive to fine the offender and to keep the
suspended sentence as a secondary means of punishment; often the
suspended sentence is resurrected if the other forms of sentencing are not
fulfilled. A greater number of misdemeanor cases had the sentence
suspended (6.1% ), and for both misdemeanors and unknown categories there
91
were other penalties involved beside the suspended sentence. All these
offenders did serve jail/prison time and they also had fines imposed. In total,
only 19 offenders had part of their original sentence suspended.
Probation
Misdemeanors are the most likely to receive probation, with nearly 27% of
these cases probation eligible. The majority received a 12 month or greater
probationary period; of 53 cases receiving probation, 49 were for 12 or more
months. These cases also had jail time (19 cases) and fines (32 cases)
imposed along with the relatively long probationary period. Felonies were less
likely to receive probation; only 17.8% . A large number, 22 out of 26 cases,
received 12 months or more probation. A relatively small number of cases
were fined (9 cases) or received a jail sentence (10 cases) with probation over
12 months. The unknown category had the lowest percentage of probationers,
at 6.9% ; of these seven received jail sentences and 12 were fined with
probation sentences more than 12 months. All the cases in the unknown
category were for 12 months or more. It would appear that probation is a more
likely outcome in misdemeanor charges.
Fines
Fines included all costs levied against the offender these could include
the costs of treating the animals in addition to amounts imposed by the courts.
Total costs were impossible to separate because the court would often
consider claims of treatment as part of the sentence. There was a tremendous
92
range of variability of the fines and again, misdemeanors were most likely to
receive this as part of the sentencing. From Table 4.4 the largest fine of
$203,300 was also levied in the misdemeanor group. This extremely large
amount was incurred by a breeder and included costs of treatment. At least
half of these fines were over $1000. Misdemeanors incurred fines over $1000
in 35 cases and the unknown category incurred fines in 24 cases. It is not
known whether these fines were paid or whether the severity of the fine was
meant as a warning. There is no discemable pattern to the amount of the fine,
that is , there was not an increase due to the death of the animal, or because
the animal was not the offender’s own property. As with the other sentences,
fines may be a based on a number of factors.
Incarceration
It is important to examine these cases in conjunction with suspended
sentences and probation. As stated above, any cases of suspended
sentencing did require a portion of the sentence to be served. As expected,
felonies incurred the long sentences. Overall, the rate of incarceration for both
felonies and misdemeanors was only 24% ; the unknown category was lower
at 9% . The longest felony sentences were 60 months and there did not seem
to be any consistency in the 60 month felony sentences; some animals were
killed, and one case involved bestiality with horses. Only five cases received
this longest sentence and three of those cases involved the death of the
animal which in itself was not unique, or a criteria for incarceration. Within the
93
Table 4.5 Offender characteristics and criminal activity by gender of abuser
Male Female Mixed

(n=427) (n=104) (n=60)
Offender characteristics
Adult (over 21) 77%* 95%* 90%*
Juvenile (under 21) 23%* 5%* 10%*
Offender acted with partner 24%* 10%* 100%*

or group
Offender acted alone 76%* 90% 0%*
Adult alone 64%* 88%* n/a

Adult with partner 12%* 7%* 90%*
or group
Juvenile alone 12%* 2%* n/a
Juvenile with partner 11%* 3% * 10%*
or group
Age (n=358) (n=89) (n=34)

Mean age 34.97 45.03 40.21
Standard Deviation 15.35 14.70 14.08
Range 9-80 13-85 17-67
Criminal activity
Other charges concurrent with 28%* 10%* 15%*
animal abuse charge
Prior convictions 10% 13% 13%
* Chi-square p < .001
94
felony charge, 68 cases (47% ) involved the death of an animal. These cases
were also not the cruelest, so it is a consideration that other factors may have
influenced sentencing.
To summarize, roughly less than 20% of cases initially charged with
cruelty to animals had that charge dismissed. About half the time, animals
were seized independent of any formal charges. Only approximately 25% of
offenders actually served any time incarcerated, and many sentences were
derived from a combination of sentencing options, including fines, probation
and community service. There was a tremendous range in severity of the
penalties which appeared to be dependent on the discretion of the court.
III. Offender characteristics
The next section provides simple statistics for offender characteristics,
both demographic information and other criminal activity, where available.
Before presenting the descriptive statistics, all crimes where the offender was
unknown were removed, reducing the database by 126 cases. Separation of
offender into the three categories of female, male and mixed partners was
continued; this organization highlights important differences between the
offenders and hints at patterns that may later emerge in the clustering. The
distinctive characteristics found in the three groups are best appreciated by
comparing certain selected variables.
Numerical age values were binary coded into over 21 (adult) and under
21 (juvenile); cases that originally were missing information about age were
95
Table 4.6 Prior and concurrent charges by gender
Male Female Partner

Prior (n=44) (n=13) (n=8)
Animal abuse 46% (20) 77% (10) 50% (4 )

Non-violent offense 23% (10) 15% ( 2) 38% (3)
Violent offense 23% (10) 0% ( 0) 13% (1)
Substance abuse 25% (11) 8% ( 1) 0% (0)
Concurrent (n=118) (n=11) (n=9)
Animal abuse 3% (4) 0% ( 0) 0% (0)

Non-violent offense 51% (61) 73% ( 8) 89% (8)
Violent offense 29% (34) 18% ( 2) 11% (1)
Substance abuse 25% (29) 9% ( 1) 11% (1)
easily included with this modification. If more than one age was given in the
newspaper account, an average was taken. Males committing animal cruelty
were generally younger than offenders in the other two groups; Table 4.5
shows that the youngest offender (9 years) was in the male category and the
oldest (age 85) was among females. Juvenile offenders were
disproportionately male (23% compared to 5% fem ale), and tended to commit
crimes with other juveniles in 11 % of the cases.
Males are twice as likely as the partner group (28% vs. 15%) and three
times more likely than females (28% vs. 10%) to receive additional charges
with that of animal cruelty, indicating that the cruelty appeared to be part of a
pattern of criminal activity. It is also possible that more animal cruelty was
detected during the apprehension of other crimes. Prior convictions were
evenly distributed over the three groups.
Prior convictions and concurrent charges were further differentiated into
animal abuse, non-violent offenses, violent offenses and substance abuse.
Some offenders had current and prior charges and some offenders had
multiple types of charges. Table 4.6 shows that prior charges were recorded
for 65 offenders as compared to concurrent charges for 138 offenders.
Most prior convictions were for animal abuse, which would support the
belief that most animal abusers tend to repeat their crimes, specifically,
fem ales were by percentage the largest group of repeat animal offenders
(77% ). The largest category of concurrent crimes were non-violent i.e.
loitering and m ischief, accounting for 56% of all charges. The category of
97
Table 4.7 Distribution of offender motivation, in rank order
# Percentage
Motivation for offense of cases of cases
Profit 166 28.1%
Thrill-seeking 132 22.3%
Indifference 130 22.0%
Altruism 53 9.0%
Substitution 50 8.5%
Self-absorption 36 6.1%
Defense 33 5.6%
Accidental 31 5.2%
Punishment 28 4.7%
Retaliatory 24 4.1%
Dominance 22 3.7%
Sadism 19 3.2%
Non-conformity 19 3.2%
Sexual 5 0.8%
98
mixed partner had the largest group of non-violent offenses (89% ), which
would include animal breeders with concurrent charges such as licensing
irregularities. It should be noted that while the percentages sound impressive,
in actuality this information is drawn from few cases as Table 4.6 illustrates.
The results do, however, draw some distinctions between the three categories
with males leading in animal, violent and substance abuse offenses for both
prior and concurrent charges.
IV. Motivation
Simple statistics were performed for the variables that describe the
motivational component of the offenders actions. Table 4.7 lists them in rank
order, and there follows a description of each motivation. It should be noted
that although there were 591 cases, there were entries for all distributions,
indicated that there was often more than one motivation discemable in each
narrative.
1. Profit
Profit was the most prevalent motivation to abuse animals in this study.
This group of offenders (28% ) was involved in using animals to earn
remuneration; this could be through both legal and illegal means. Animals
may produce income in a number of ways, such as in entertainment, breeding,
racing and fighting, but the issue of cruelty evolves when owner/investors do
not follow humane standards in the pursuit of profit. Most commonly, the
offense consists of inadequate nutrition, poor housing, over-breeding and lack
99
of medical attention. These were prevalent strategies designed to decrease
cash outlay and maximize profit.
2. Thrill-seeking
The cruelty of animals defined as motivated by thrill-seeking covers acts
that were enacted for the pleasure of the individual or groups of individuals.
The abuse of the animal would produce excitement and result in a satisfying
experience by providing entertainment and as a relief from boredom. This
motivation was adjudged to occur in 22.3% of the cases.
3. Indifference
There were 130 instances of what we classed as indifference (22% ),
ranking this as the third most common motivation. Indifference was
characterized by a general lack of empathy for the animal as exemplified by
failure to provide adequate housing, medical care, or nutrition but without any
visible motive, such as to control costs. The cruelty can be described as
passive; it is not what was done to the animal, but more what was not done for
the animal that distinguishes this motivation.
4. Altruism
This category describes a genuine desire to care for animals, but abuse
arises because the offender becomes over-extended as a result of low
finances or too many animals or a combination of both. The motivation to save
animals requires a strong emotional com m itm ent but this commitment does
not necessarily translate into behavior that ensures adequate living conditions.
This motivation is probably the most recognized, but represented only 9% of
100
the cases.
5. Substitution
Animals within this group are dealt with as substitute targets and
recipients of displaced anger. The anger is usually in response to an
altercation with another human, but there may be a series of events leading up
to the abusive incident and the actions can be either spontaneous or planned.
The animal is not the cause of the anger, and the action towards the animals
does not result in resolution of the problem. There were 8.5% of the offenders
involved in conflict with another person or persons and took the anger out on a
pet.
6. Self-absorption
There was a group of offenders who did not seem to have any real
motivation to abuse their own or others’ pets, and 6.1% of the cases fell into
this category. Although ultimately the offenders were responsible for not
finding a means of caring for the animals, it was clear that initially, at least,
they did not intend to abuse or neglect the animals in question, and events
were beyond their control. The members of this group were unable to
overcome adverse conditions and became paralyzed or overwhelmed by
circumstances.
7. Defense
A number of offenders claimed the need to defend either themselves or
family members from an animal. The belief of being in imminent danger may
have been justified, as when injury had occurred, or fear may have been
101
exaggerated, but the offenders did express their desire for protection from the
animal. Only 5.6% of offenders claimed this as a motivation.
8. Accidental
The offenders did not have a clear motivation to abuse the animals
involved; however, the circumstances were somewhat in their control. W hile
events were accidental, the offenders exercised poor judgment in these
events. There was not a malicious intent to cause harm, and these accidental
cases consisted of 5.2% of the group.
9. Punishment
In 4.7% of the cases, the offenders had a clear intention to teach the
animal a lesson. The abuse was designed to be punitive. In many cases, the
offenders did not see their own behavior as inappropriate or exaggerated.
10. Retaliatory
This motive defines a conscious desire to harm the animal; there was not
an attempt to teach a lesson, but to seek revenge. This motivation usually
involved a great degree of anger and the offenders were unconcerned at the
(usual) lethality of their actions. This group constituted 4.1% of the cases.
11. Dominance
This definition refers to the offender's desire to exert a sense of control.
The offender was most often trying to preserve a sense of integrity for his
personal space, but this was also manifested in situations or events where the
offender tried to take control, in 3.7% of cases. This offender was not
concerned with defense or a perceived threat from the animal, rather with
102
Table 4.8 Motivation of offense by gender of offender
Category of Female % F Male % F Mixed % F

motivation offender offender (male-female)
Accidental 5 4.8% 1.000 23 5.4% 1.000 3 5.0% 1.000

Altruism 32 30.8% .000* 16 3.7% .000* 5 8.3% 1.000
Defense 2 1.9% .097 31 7.3% .002 0 0.0% .039
Dominance 2 1.9% .398 20 4.7% .052 0 0.0% .153
Indifference 24 23.1% .795 81 19.0% 005 25 41.7% .000*
Nonconformity 6 5.8% .122 5 1.2% .000* 8 13.3% .000*
Profit 29 27.9% 1.000 117 27.4% .542 20 33.3% .364
Punishment 2 1.9% .201 26 6.1% .009 0 0.0% 100
Retaliatory 1 1.0% .099 22 5.2% .034 1 1.7% .497
Sadism 0 0.0% .034 19 4.4% .003 0 0.0% .243
Self-absorption 12 115% 021 18 4.2% .004 6 10.0% .247
Sexual 0 0.0% . 592 5 1.2% .329 0 0.0% 1.000
Substitution 4 3.8% . 079 44 10.3% .008 2 3.3% .216
Thrill-seeking 2 1.9% .000* 126 29.5% .000* 4 6.7% .001*
•Fisher exact test - probability < 001
103
controlling the environment These cases accounted for 3.7% of the total.
12. Sadism
This was a true desire to see the animal suffer in a particularly brutal
fashion, solely for the joy of it and could combine elements of entertainm ent
alleviation of boredom, etc.. This included the most egregious cases of animal
cruelty with the most amount of suffering (3.2% )
13. Non-Conformity
The non-conformists in this group (3.2% ), allowed pets to live in
unsanitary conditions, however, they also tended to live in these circumstances
themselves. They had an unconventional approach to their living
arrangements. Animals tended to be otherwise well-cared for, but these
offenders did not subscribe to general societal values, such as stability and
cleanliness.
14. Sexual
A small group, (0.8% ) were driven to obtain sexual satisfaction from the
use of animals. The offenders generally believed that the sexual acts with the
animals were consensual.
Chi-square statistics were performed for category of motivation by sex of
offender but some ceils did not have the requisite number of cases. Fisher
exact test is preferable in these instances, so 2x2 tables were constructed ana
analyzed. One advantage of Fisher’s test is that the exact probability is
calculated. The results did in fact mimic the original chi-squares (designating
significance).
104
Table 4.9 Result of cluster analysis
Violent Hapless Career Disciplinarian Schemers ar

Aggressor Abuser Abuser Con Artists
(n=15) (n=29) (n=29) (n=49) (n=51)
Male 100.0% 96.6 % 55.2% 100.0% 0%

Female 0 3.4 31.0 0 7.8
Mixed 0 0 13.8 0 92.1
Alone 100.0 93.1 79.3 93.9 7.8
Over 21 73.3 82.8 100.0 95.9 94.1
Concurrent 100.0 100.0 0 6.1 13.7
Prior 6.7 0 100.0 6.1 11.7
Other Violation 100.0 100.0 100.0 12.2 23.5
Animal 0 0 100.0 0 0
Drug 6.7 6.9 0 0 0
Non- violent 0 82.8 0 2.0 19.6
Violent 100.0 17.2 0 10.2 3.9
Baby 13.3 0 27.6 30.6 23.5
Lethal 66.7 51.7 58.6 36.7 23.5
Own 33.3 3.4 96.6 51.0 96.0
Calculated 53.3 41.4 96.6 40.8 96.0
Chronic 20.0 13.8 100.0 14.3 86.3
Instrumental 46.7 82.8 75.9 36.7 88.2
Abandon 0 0 0 2.0 19.6
Bait 0 0 3.4 2.0 0
Beat 40.0 13.8 0 48.9 0
Bum 20.0 3.4 0 4.0 1.9
Confine 6.7 6.9 0 2.0 3.9
Drag 0 3.4 0 2.0 2.0
Impact 13.3 6.9 0 10.2 1.9
Mutilate 6.7 0 3.4 10.2 0
Neglect 0 3.4 89.7 0 74.5
Poison 0 0 0 0 0
Shoot 0 44.8 0 10.2 0
Slash/stab 0 10.3 0 6.1 0
Starve 0 0 34.5 0 47.0
Suffocate 13.3 10.3 0 8.1 1.9
Accidental 0 3.4 0 4.0 3.9
Altruism 0 0 27.6 0 1.9
Defense 0 44.8 0 8.1 0
Dominance 0 20.7 0 0 0
Indifference 0 6.9 27.6 6.1 45.1
Non-Conformity 0 0 0 0 21.5
Profit-seeking 0 10.3 58.6 0 33.3
Punishment 13.3 0 0 38.8 0
Retaliatory 13.3 3.4 0 30.6 1.9
Sadism 6.7 0 6.9 6.9 0
Self-absorption 6.7 3.4 6.9 4.0 11.7
Sexual 0 0 0 8.1 0
Substitution 80.0 10.3 0 8.1 1.9
Thrill-seeking 0 6.9 3.4 0 0
Table 4.9 Result of cluster analysis
Thrill- Control Racketeer Collector Neglectoi

Seeker Freak
(n=52) (n=56) (n=88) (n=102) (n=120;
Male 90.4% 91.1% 98.9% 17.6% 97.5%

Female 3.8 8.9 0 78.4 1.7
Mixed 5.7 0 1.1 3.9 0.8
Alone 34.6 82.1 48.9 90.2 90.0
Over 21 19.2 87.5 64.8 96.1 89.2
Concurrent 36.5 5.4 27.2 15.7 19.2
Prior 13.5 8.9 6.8 3.9 4.1
Other Violation 48.1 12.5 31.8 17.6 22.5
Animal 1.9 0 3.4 1.9 7.5
Drug 7.7 1.8 21.6 1.9 0
Non- violent 38.4 7.1 8.0 13.7 7.5
Violent 1.9 1.8 5.7 2.0 9.2
Baby 9.6 10.7 21.6 20.6 17.5
Lethal 75.0 85.7 31.8 28.4 43.3
Own 0 5.4 73.9 93.1 89.2
Calculated 50.0 75.0 92.0 87.3 84.2
Chronic 15.4 21.4 72.7 86.3 67.5
Instrumental 21.2 82.1 79.5 52.9 93.3
Abandon 0 1.8 1.1 4.9 10.0
Bait 3.8 0 71.6 0 0
Beat 30.8 16.1 3.4 8.8 3.3
Bum 13.5 1.8 5.7 0 1.7
Confine 1.9 1.8 0 1.0 11.7
Drag 0 1.8 2.2 0 5.8
Impact 1.9 12.5 3.4 0 0.8
Mutilate 15.4 0 4.5 2.9 2.5
Neglect 0 0 2.2 66.7 49.2
Poison 1.9 12.5 1.1 0 0
Shoot 36.5 44.6 2.2 0 1.6
Slash/stab 5.7 1.8 3.4 0 0.8
Starve 0 0 4.5 25.5 35.0
Suffocate 3.8 5.4 3.4 3.9 5.0
Accidental 0 7.1 0 2.9 15.8
Altruism 0 0 0 43.1 0
Defense 1.9 25.0 0 0 0.8
Dominance 0 28.6 0 0 0
Indifference 0 12.5 2.2 22.5 50.8
Non-Conformity 0 0 1.1 3.9 2.5
Profit-seeking 3.8 7.1 73.9 25.5 2.5
Punishment 0 3.6 0 4.9 0.8
Retaliatory 0 5.4 0 0 1.6
Sadism 17.3 1.8 3.4 0 3.3
Self-absorption 0 0 0 12.7 9.2
Sexual 0 0 0 0 0.8
Substitution 5.7 30.4 2.3 2.9 5.0
Thrill-seeking 90.4 0 87.5 0 4.2
Table 4.8 illustrates some importance differences between the genders:
females are most motivated by altruism (30.8% ) and this is the type of display
that translates into animal hoarding. Females are not represented by sexual
motivation, retaliation or sadism, which conforms to general stereotypes of
fem ale offenders. Males are most motivated by thrill-seeking (29.5% ) and
profit (27.4% ) and often these two motivations are combined in such activities
as animal-baiting.
Partners are also profit-driven, but the largest percentage of couples are
indifferent (41.7% ); these two motivations are often combined in cases of
animal breeding. Partners are not represented in all categories of motivation,
which may be due to the relatively small representation within this study (60
cases).
V. Results of the cluster analysis
The following presentation provides a short definition of ten clusters
described in Table 4.9. The largest group was comprised of 120 cases and
the smallest group had 15, with the other eight clusters averaging around 50
cases. The results are presented in ascending order of size, and illustrative
vignettes are provided.
Violent Aggressor (n=15)
This is the smallest group, and is characterized by extreme violence
(100% ) which is displayed concurrently (100% ) with the animal abuse charge.
107
The animal is not the focal point of the rage, but acts as a substitute for the
intended human victim ((80% ) and the offenders actions are lethal in 67% of
the cases. These offenders are all male, always act alone and for the most
part are mature (73.3% ). The method of abuse is violent, including beatings
(40% ) and burning (20% ). There are a high number of arson-related incidents,
but these offenders tend to experience one explosive episode. The charges
were so severe that most were incarcerated and therefore only 3 were free to
re-offend. Concurrent domestic assault charges are common, but co-worker,
friend or stranger arguments that escalated to violence were also represented.
W hile the attack on the animal might be considered spontaneous and the
result of a volatile and unpremeditated interaction, at least half the time
(53.3% ) the abuse of the animal is calculated to inflict optimum damage on the
intended human victim.
One case involving a husband and wife was typical and representative of
the examples in this group. An altercation between the man and woman
escalated into a physically violent confrontation. Sometime during the course
of the argument, the husband poured rubbing alcohol on the floor of the living
room, attempting to ignite the liquid; he also physically restrained his wife,
threatening her with a knife to the th ro at W hen the physical threats to the
woman did not diffuse his anger, the offender chased the family dog down the
street, hitting and kicking it until it was near death. It appears that the
argument with the wife was the catalytic event leading up to the spontaneous,
enraged outburst and the response of the offender was extremely violent and
108
disproportionate to the situation. The explosive rage seen in this incident was
characteristic of this group.
Attempts to start a fire or actual fires were common within this group, and
were seen as a method of total annihilation of the victim and all property of the
victim. Sometimes the inclusion of pets in the destruction is arbitrary; at other
times, pets are the focus but the use of fire is a means to destroy animate
along with the inanimate. It would seem that most of these volatile outbursts
are spontaneous and immediately connected to a precipitating event, but that
is not always the case. In one instance, a man, concerned that his neighbor's
dogs were a threat to his own animals, set the neighbor's house on fire.
There was no indication the burned dogs had ever, in actuality, been a threat.
Four of the five animals were killed and the house was completely destroyed;
the owner survived because he was absent at the time of the fire. The
offender claimed that he had tried to extinguish the fire, but was seen walking
to and from the property four times in attempts to get the fire going. An
observer further testified that the yard was completely fenced in and the dogs
were usually inside, thus posing little threat. This offender’s actions were
therefore not truly defensive or designed to preserve his own personal space,
and required him to trespass to complete his mission.
The choice of fire clearly extends beyond a simplistic solution and is a
way for the offender to gain omnipotent power over his victim. Other methods
of destruction, while as deadly or as unjustified, are more controllable and
limited in the damage that is created. Fire must, therefore, satisfy an
109
extremely violent and destructive impulse that goes beyond simple annoyance,
fear or hatred of an animal.
The capacity for violence towards both animals and humans makes this
group one of the most destructive.
Hapless Abuser (n=29)
The hapless abuser makes up a small group most characterized by a
skewed perception of events or ineffective problem-solving. As a whole, they
are petty criminals with virtually 100% participation in relatively minor
violations; they are not the violent criminals seen in other clusters. The animal
cruelty often arises as a consequence of concurrent criminal activity, for
instance during burglaries or assaults these offenders attack pursuing police
dogs. A large portion (44.8% ) of these motivations were, therefore, defensive,
made up of efforts to etude capture. In addition to self-defense, they may be
attempting to defend property but the measures used often backfire, such as
efforts to curtail wandering animals that escalate into more violent
confrontations with the owners. More than half of the abuses by these
offenders are spontaneous, and 82.8% of their actions are designed to remedy
a situation. There are no incidences of repeat or chronic animal offenses in
this group, supporting the observation that once the particular incident is
corrected, they no longer participate in crimes against animals.
One “hapless” offender was charged with cruelty to animals when a
random shot fired from his gun wounded a dog located in a distant backyard.
110
The offender and a co-defendant were involved in “gunplay” during which a
couple of shots were fired from a handgun, one shot accidentally hitting the
dog a few streets over. The two were arrested on charges of criminal
possession of a weapon, reckless endangerment, prohibited use of a firearm,
possession of a controlled substance and cruelty to animals. Clearly, while the
shooting of the dog was accidental, the other crimes were not. These
offenders apparently combined stupidity with a very real potential for harm with
no motivation to harm the animal but with consequences nonetheless.
Another offender whose plans backfired victimized a cow, but again the
death of the cow occurred accidentally while he was in the midst of his criminal
activity. The offender had stolen a blind cow, tying it to the back of his pick-up
truck in an attempt to lead the cow behind him. He didn’t know the cow was
blind, and the cow slipped and fell at one point, strangling itself with the cord.
The thief panicked and cut the cow free from his bumper and fled the scene,
losing control of the vehicle and crashing it into a pond. The offender later
claimed that when he left the cow was alive. Eventually, the partially
submerged vehicle was found and the rope attached to the bumper matched
the rope around the cow’s neck; both clues led investigators to the offender.
W hen arrested, he claimed that he was only working part-time and had been
hungry (it’s not clear if he wanted the cow for milk or to slaughter it). The
offender was charged with theft, cruelty to animals, leaving the scene of an
accident and operating a motor vehicle after license suspension.
There is a sense of the absurd found in these narratives. The tragic part
111
is of course the injury to the animals involved, but the incompetence of the
offenders, or the ludicrous situations that they orchestrate would almost make
their circumstances comical. The members of this group are a mixture of
sincerity and stupidity; themselves, victims of events as well as victimizer.
Career Abusers (n=29)
The designation of career abuser denotes first offenders who, like career
criminals, have assimilated this behavior into their lives as a vocation but also
secondly as a trait consistent over time. This group of offenders is part
gentleman farmer, part animal hoarder, a mix that usually results in the
collection of a large number of mainly farm animals with, quite often, attempts
at reaping an income from the venture. This group has the second largest
group of profit-oriented individuals, at 58.6% . They are markedly distinguished
by being repeat, mature animal abusers (100% ), indicating that this group is
extremely resistant to change and unconcerned and impervious to the
suffering of the animals involved. Starvation and neglect are the main means
of the suffering.
These offenders often have a licensed animal business and all the
offenders in this cluster have a history of animal and other non-violent
violations that revolve around the business. These owners keep animals
primarily to make money and are serious about that pursuit and within this
category women are noticeably represented, at 31% of the total offenders.
Within this cluster is a sm aller group whose intention it is to save and shelter
112
animals and sometimes these two goals are not mutually exclusive: rescue
and rehabilitative shelters are representative of both a nurturing and
profiteering orientation. Many of these offenders do have an affectionate bond
with their animals, however neglect is common and repetitive admonitions by
regulatory agencies do little to change it. In contrast to episodic and
spontaneous displays of cruelty associated with rage, the abuses in this group
are insidious and occur over long periods of time.
Types of animals favored by this group are the kinds of animals that
function well out of doors, such as farm animals, or other animals which are
not the usual type of pet, such as deer and llamas. The variety of the species
seems to lend a particular appeal and many collections were referred to as
menageries. One fairly typical case involved wolves, bobcats, foxes , monkeys
and so on: “one deer’s collar was so tight that its ligaments had been rubbed
raw and gangrene had set in.” Despite the obvious uniqueness of this type of
collection, the animals suffered extreme abuse: “...rotting, fly-infested
carcasses on the grounds...” The owners claimed to love their animals, but
after refusing an order to feed and water the animals, the collection was
seized by the county. Due to the costs involved with caring for so many
animals, the county was anxious to return them and did so. Not surprisingly,
the animals were seized again a short time later because of the continuing
sub-standard conditions. Light sentencing and non-existent penalties help
contribute to and encourage the propensity to be abusive.
Some of the farms were more seriously dedicated to profit Like many
113
other of the offenders in this study who tried to earn a living by their animal
ownership, it was in a sense incomprehensible that the owners believed that
sickly, neglected or starving animals could be an asset. One story did, in fact,
mention the complaints by the various neighbors who viewed the abused
animals, and it was stated that an investigation was launched due to
complaints by neighboring ranchers. A rancher with 52 “emaciated” animals,
41 cattle carcasses and 36 deer carcasses on his ranch seriously viewed
these animals as his livelihood. As other offenders in this group, this rancher
was a repeat offender his original charges four years earlier were identical.
Apparently, he had received warnings, because he stated that he had “... been
working with the county for two or three months” and had “...been meeting the
guidelines.” and in his opinion, the cattle had been “gaining weight.” From the
condition of the animals, it was clear that he had not been following guidelines
and the animals were not gaining weight. Again, this is very similar to the
above case of the couple refusing to feed and water their animals. These
offenders are extremely resistant to change and to correcting their behavior.
W hile many of the other clusters in this study were characterized by a
somewhat spontaneous response, these offenders show a chronic disregard
for animal suffering.
The extreme disregard for the welfare of animals in their care is

%
disquieting when the owner operates a wildlife rehabilitation center. Not only is
there the possibility for the owner to collect animals on his own, but the
rehabilitator will also receive animals from a number of sources, all delivered in
114
good faith. One offender, defined as both the owner of a wildlife
rehabilitative center and petting zoo operator, was found in violation during
inspections twice in 1998, once in 1999 and again in the year 2000. Indeed,
these charges appear underreported since he was in business for 22 years,
five years before the last charges animals were seized by the local humane
agency. During the last round of inspections, workers came forward to testify
about his treatment, stating that he ran a “death camp for animals.” He was
accused of a variety of cruelties: placing a baby fox with a broken leg in a
trash bag and then placing it in a cooler to slowly die; shooting a goat in the
mouth for jumping out of the pen; drowning baby raccoons; burning a snake,
and the list runs on and on. One volunteer took a turtle to the vet at her own
expense; the turtle had been left to starve and die and was so ill that it had to
be euthanized. The owner, of course, disputed all accusations, claiming that
animals sometimes had to be euthanized, a job he claimed that he did
because other people wouldn’t. Problems at the center stemmed from lack of
money, he rationalized. In the process of disbanding the center, the offender
decided to send the animals to slaughter, despite many offers from people to
adopt them. In particular, referring to the center’s popular pet pig Elmo, the
offender’s comment was: “It’s not the slaughterhouse, it’s little piggy went to
market.” One volunteer responded that he “...knew I loved Elmo. For
someone who claims to do everything he does for the love of animals, that’s
an awful way to show i t ” This comment seems to sum up much of the
perceived ambivalence of these offenders. The sam e sentiments were echoed
115
by the Constable involved in the above starving cattle case where he said:
“...you don’t neglect to feed your animals. If we can’t feed’ em, we sell 'em’."
O f course, for a rancher this would be appropriate, but for a wildlife
rehabilitator it is not, especially when there are offers to adopt. Despite the
protestations of love or claims of doing the best for the animals, the treatment
is glaringly cruel and has been well illustrated by all the discussed offenders.
The offenders refused to accept responsibility for their actions by denying the
existence of any problems. By defying orders to clean up, care for or feed
their animals, they could negate the accusations of cruelty, despite evidence to
the contrary.
Disciplinarian (n~49)
This cluster is comprised entirely of mature males and this group is
defined by their attempts to punish an animal for serious or annoying behavior.
The punishment is characteristically disproportionate to the animal’s offense,
causing death in nearly 40% of the cases. There is often concurrently or
separately a retaliatory element to the initial disciplinary intention, and this
group displays varying degrees of anger in their actions, contributing to the
mainly impulsive nature of the act. About 30% of these animals are young and
the punishment often revolves sometimes repetitively around training issue.
This group victimizes their own pets and the animals of other people in equal
proportion. The method of abuse is usually extremely physical, such as
beating, slamming or mutilation (70% ), which lends some support to the idea
116
that impulsivity and rage are predominantly associated with this type.
Responses ranged from extremely volatile, angry reactions to well-
planned and calculated solutions. Transgressions by the victims also ranged
from the mundane (disobedience) to the serious (biting). The first offender in
this group was a seemingly colorful character who wore capes, carried animal
skins, and was described by friends as an intelligent free spirit. At the time of
the incident, he was living in a school bus with 11 ( or 18, reporting varies)
other dogs. The dogs were all similar in appearance and apparently had
histories of biting behavior; one of the dogs had bitten a small boy, initiating a
visit from the local animal inspector. The “character'’ assured the agent he
would handle the problem, and proceeded to club the dog to death, writing to
the boy’s m other “ I regret your son was bitten. The dog responsible is now
dead by my hand. I thought I could kill him with a single blow to the back of
the head, but I was wrong. It took many blows to the head and the dog
screamed in agony several seconds until it finally expired.” The offender called
the animal inspector to pick up the dog’s brains (to test for rabies), and not
surprisingly this resulted in an eventual police confrontation with the dog
owner, during which he threw the skin of the murdered animal from the bus
window. This offender actions are both rational and irrational: a need to
chastise the dog for biting combined with an exaggerated and inappropriate
method of punishment. The letter to the mother is meant as proof that the
dog had been amply punished, even, through it’s “screams of agony”, that the
dog had paid an extra price for its bad habit. There is a general sense of
117
volatility and impulsivity in this man’s behavior; part of the sentencing required
anger management sessions.
The punishment or discipline of the animal, especially when it was lethal,
often masqueraded as an altruistic act. This was illustrated in a case involving
a police officer who shot and killed a neighbor’s dog after it mauled his
daughter. That the daughter suffered some injury is not in dispute since she
needed 18 stitches after the attack; however, it was debatable whether or not
she had provoked the animal. The two parties lived in adjoining duplexes and
the dog was chained up outside. The daughter fed and petted the dog on
occasion, but was attacked on this day. The owner claimed that the girl had
grabbed the dog’s neck, causing the bite. The dog was removed after the
incident and placed under observation with a local veterinarian for 10 days; on
the 11th day, when it was returned home, the dog was shot by the father.
There was no animosity between the dog owner and the offender, and the
owner had intended to euthanize the dog the following day. A few elements
of this story are especially interesting: the police officer claimed that he had to
kill the dog because it was a “ticking bomb” and while there is a certain amount
of veracity in this defensive position (attributable to the stitches his daughter
received) the offender’s contention that he shot the dog to “protect his family
and the community” are somewhat suspect since the dog was always tied up.
The police officer also expressed frustration with animal control for not
destroying the animal, and he may have vented some of this frustration onto
the animal. Concern for others and defense of his family might have had some
118
motivating power, but fences and leashes are generally used as a means of
keeping dogs away from people; there are no provisions to keep people away
from dogs. Cases such as these serve as reminders that victims also have a
responsibility to practice common sense. Although the police officer was
acquitted at his trial, administratively he was ordered to take classes in conflict
resolution and anger management.
The desire to punish elicited a disproportionate response in many, but
not all, offenders in this group. Not all of the cases resulted in the immediate
death of the animal and the offender’s cruelty may have appeared at times to
be somewhat benign, at least initially. One case involving cat-napping seemed
to lack the brutality evident in many of the other stories. Annoyed with the
animal’s chronic trespassing and bullying of his own cat, one offender lured the
roaming cat onto his property and drove it miles away from his home,
abandoning it in the woods (in the North-East) one November night. The cat
was finally found nearly two months later and 20 miles away from home,
suffering from exposure, dehydration and roundworms. The cat, reunited with
it’s owner, was happy but did not improve physically, and within a few days of
the reunion, died from ingesting antifreeze while astray. The offender
admitted that he had taken the cat to retaliate because his own cat had been
attacked. W hat may have started out as a seemingly harmless solution had
devastating consequences, not only for the cat but for the grieving owner who
lost a pet. Many of the offenders within this group appeared to lack the ability
to anticipate the consequences of their actions; while they often expressed
119
regret and sometimes surprise at the results of their actions, the
consequences were never evaluated in either well-planned or spontaneous
acts of discipline.
There is, of course, a range of emotions involved in any one course of
action, and the following exam ple illustrates the more volatile extreme. In an
attempt to discipline an animal, an extremely angry reaction was initiated
immediately in response to the animal's rather mundane behavior. One
offender abused his 2- year old dog on two separate occasions. The first
abuse was in reaction to the dog defecating in the baby’s bedroom; the
offender claimed the dog bit him after he yelled at it, and he kicked the dog
“hard enough to send it flying from the porch.” W hen it limped the next day, he
took it for medical treatment. A week later when the dog repeated it’s
behavior, the offender threw it one night over the fence of the local humane
society. It was found the next day, with it’s pelvis broken in three places. The
offender claimed that he had disposed of the dog in this way because he had
to protect his family. Many of the offenders in this cluster tried to justify their
actions as purely defensive and necessary means of dealing with the animals.
Schemers and Con Artists (n=51)
This group has the largest concentration of mixed partnerships (92.1% )
who act in concert in the animal abuse. There is a tendency for this group to
be extremely mobile; they often leave animals behind (19.6% ) while they skip
out on overdue ren t At other times they seem to pick up and leave
120
surroundings to avoid impending or ongoing legal investigations. Their ties to
the community are marginal, and while they often had a history of prior
violations they seemed to be able to disappear before more serious charges
were leveled.
These offenders seem to operate on the fringe of society, trying to make
a quick dollar where they can; sometimes this involves operating puppy mills
or other revenue-generating business (33.3% ), and in other instances they try
to profit from court proceedings by counter-suing for unrealistic amounts of
money. They have very low emotional attachment to their animals, and while
only 4% are spontaneously physically abusive, the cruelty arises from extreme
neglect characterized by filthy living conditions, lack of medical care (74.5% )
and inadequate nutrition (47% ). Only 4% of the cases involved animals
belonging to other people; this group abuses their own. This group lives in the
same filthy conditions as their animals and often their unconventional lifestyle
includes children. Many of these cases also had pending child endangerment
charges and/or placement of children by social services.
The offenders running puppy mills were knowingly selling a faulty product,
but the emphasis in this category was the fast sale. This group of offenders
could not be considered as successful as their counterparts who seriously
profited from animals either legally or illegally, for it is, in the long run, costly to
be constantly on the move. W hile legitimate breeders can also be guilty of
animal cruelty , the offenders in this category were differentiated by their
extreme abuse; in addition to neglect, they tended to starve the animals and
121
submitted them to the most severe conditions. The health and longevity of the
animal seemed to be unimportant, leading to the conclusion that these
businesses tended to be transitory and fast- profit enterprises; less a business
than a get-rich-quick scheme. One story illustrated a number of these points.
A couple was convicted of animal cruelty after a number of dogs (205) were
seized from their property. At the time of the seizure, 15 were already dead
and an additional 25 had to be euthanized, and officials feared that an
unknown number of dogs were buried under ice and snow since the
investigators found paws sticking out of the frozen ground. The dogs in the
worst condition lived in pens at the rear of the property, but customers only
visited the pen at the front of the house. Conditions were described as
“...woefully inadequate shelter, sanitation and medical care, dogs had their
intestines hanging out, broken bones sticking through their flesh and pus-
oozing sores” and “...lack of food and water and frostbitten toes.” The
owners, who had prior charges related to animal violations (cruelty was not
stated explicitly) was able to reopen their business after an imposed
probationary period was avoided when they moved a distance of 25 miles
across state lines. Through many twists and turns including judicial
improprieties and apparent incompetence of the defense attorney, the final
sentence was minimized into something quite lenient, requiring the owners to
pay a small fine and to observe federal standards for dog breeding kennels.
Despite the fact that they had emerged relatively unscathed from what could
have been a severe sentence, the couple proceeded to sue the county for
122
“alleged police misconduct” during the raid, which deprived them of property
amounting to $210,000. The offenders also claimed $105,000 for the
emotional suffering of their son, and $1.5 million for the loss of their own
privacy and reputation. Transience and opportunistic schemes were recurring
themes in this group.
The quasi-business ventures that existed allowed couples to work from
home or cover for each other when outside the home, thus controlling
exposure and limiting the chances of discovery. One couple opened a dog
grooming business that was a front for a puppy mill. The grooming room had
only one can of coat oil and one brush, but in back a soundproof room had
been built and cages were stacked within it. W hen police raided, only five
animals were found; two kittens, two sick puppies and one dog in poor
condition, “ they had food and water, but they looked just awful” and in garbage
bags, four dead puppies. One of the kittens later died. Dog feces was piled
up and the smell of urine burned the eyes. W itnesses claimed to have seen
many animals loaded from the store into a van. The investigation started only
after a client complained that the puppy she bought had died. The couple had
previously held a license to sell animals in another state, but had lost it and
moved to a state where no license was required. Again, sentencing was quite
lenient requiring them to avoid animal breeding or selling in the future.
It was not only canines that presented business opportunities. Another
couple abused their horses, and an investigation was launched in response to
neighbor’s complaints. The horses were housed on property that was in
123
essence a junkyard, with scraps of metal, car parts, lumber and nails lying
around, making the ground unsafe. There was no shelter for the animals, and
the water they had was frozen. Fifteen horses lived on this plot; five of the
horses were underweight and malnourished and one had ulcerated eyes. A
previous visit from the Sheriffs Department had resulted in recommendations
for the care of the animals; the seizure of the six horse in question was the
result of a follow-up visit determining that circumstances had not improved.
The couple claimed that they had followed all the recommendations and that
the animals were, in fact, not starving. The horse-owners accused authorities
of taking the horses because they were registered (and presumably more
valuable), and threatened that they were going to sue. The horses were
eventually returned and the case was plea-bargained, one of the conditions
being that the couple had to pass periodic inspections.
The marginality of this group is further exemplified by inferior living
conditions which are oftentimes shared with the animals. The presence of
children in these unsanitary households often bring additional charges of child
neglect. One couple and their teen-age son were evicted from the home they
rented, leaving behind 49 cats. Police had to ventilate the home for three
hours because of the smell; inside were two dead cats and feces all over the
floor, a foot deep in the kitchen. The family had lived in those conditions for six
months, according to the mother. There had been a previous conviction of
abandonment three years prior. Penalties in this case were quite severe,
including $76,400 restitution to the owner of the house; of course, it is
124
unknown if it was paid.
The largest number of abandonment cases happen in this category of
offender. This group, which may collect large numbers of animals or single
pets, seems to lack the emotional attachment that is apparent in other groups.
W hen one landlord went to collect overdue rent, he found that the apartment
was a mess and the renters had left. On the balcony was a 10 month old
puppy, who had survived for two months by drinking rainwater and eating the
bedding inside his cage and even his own feces. He had a thick metal towing
chain around his neck that kept him on the balcony in subfreezing weather.
W hen he was found, he could not walk or make any sound.
Story after story echoed these circumstances: thirty -five cats and one
dog abandoned in a “dilapidated" apartment, not found for three weeks but the
owners did not return to claim or feed them. A goat placed in a box without
food and water and abandoned in a mobile home, the owner hoping to recover
damages for the trailer’s condition. Another case of a mobile home destroyed
by fire, the animals chained up outside burning with the home but three
children under age 10, at home alone, escaping. Two-time offenders found
living in filth with 13 dogs, a feces-covered floor and bags of trash inside, along
with two children ages 11 and 12. A mother found with 5 children, 12 dogs (2
dead) in a home with “a toilet backed up with human feces, flies and maggots,
and trash that was knee-high is some areas. A mattress in one bedroom was
covered with cockroaches". A couple with 2 sons , one cat and 5 dogs, in a
house with “animal waste on a decomposing floor, rotting food, boxes of junk
125
piled to the ceiling..." etc.; the stories are all quite similar.
Possibly these offenders have marginal intelligence and resulting cruelty
to their animals is a repercussion of their own limited choices; or, these stories
may reflect voluntary choice of an unconventional lifestyle. The partnerships
and relationships that are formed by these offenders seems to allow them to
satisfy emotional needs that might be diverted to the animals, and the
partnership also provides support and cover for their behavior.
Thrill-Seeker (n=52)
This group is predominantly m ale (90.4% ) and over 80% are under 21
years of age. The members of this group are similar to other delinquent
groups with almost half of the members acting in concert with peers. They
generally have a string of other violations (48.1% ), often commit animal
offenses at the same time as the other offenses (36.5% ), and there is a link to
drug and alcohol-related offenses (7.7% ). Other violations typically consist of
gun violations (BB guns or parent’s guns) which helps to account for the large
number of shootings in this category (36.5% ). When offenders use guns,
animals tend to serve as target practice.
These offenders never victimize their own animals, instead they choose
others’ pets or semi-domesticated wild animals. Their crimes are generated
out of a sense of boredom and an attempt to entertain (90.4% ) and are often
discounted as mischief. These offenders lack maturity and perspective, and
the animal crimes often border on the sadistic (17.3% ), with the animal’s death
126
a relatively common occurrence (75% ). It is the smaller group of sadistic
offenders who cause the most concern.
One typical case involved two teen-agers who released a pair of pigs into
a high school, an event classified as a “prank.” The teens had apparently
answered an advertisement that promised free pigs to a good home, and they
picked up three. The boys took the pigs to a party where they gave the pigs
alcohol, then took them to the local high school where the pigs spent the night.
Two pigs were found the next morning, one wandering the halls and one
locked in an elevator. The third pig, which had been uncooperative and hard
to handle, was found clubbed to death on the railroad tracks. Although it was
clear that drinking probably contributed to the teens behavior, the only charges
were burglary and animal abuse. The offenders did not threaten or terrorize
anyone else, and had it not been for the clubbing death of one pig, they might
have emerged from the incident with less formal charges. Beating was a very
common method of abuse, the act usually starting out as some type of game
that escalated to extreme violence culminating in the acute suffering or death
of the animal.
Swans, ducks, horses and other semi-domesticated animals were popular
targets; these animals are often quite tame and are almost always outside and
in the path of bored teens. Animals victimized in this category were most
often shot and shooting was a way of passing time and relieving boredom.
O ne 16-year-old male was charged after shooting a pregnant thoroughbred
horse. The teen, one of three charged in the case, initially denied involvement,
127
but finally told police that on the day of the shooting the three boys had gone to
one of their homes and had been drinking beer and using drugs. He said they
had “nothing to do” so they took the gun that belonged to the parents’ and
bought ammunition and rode around until they saw the horse; she was killed
with one shot. The boy claimed to be sorry, but said that he couldn’t “..give a
good reason” and “the alcohol and drugs may have clouded my judgment, but
that’s no excuse." All three also faced charges of another horse shooting in a
different county. One of the two other teens claimed that he did not know they
were going to shoot a horse, and that he believed that they were going hunting
for squirrels and doves. This statement emphasizes an important distinction
with this group of offenders, and that is the belief that as long as they are not
injuring a pet, they are not doing anything wrong. This was the only group that
did not harm their own pets and tended to treat their own animals quite well. In
a way, this tends to echo societal expectations that drinking, drugs, and
“pranks” such as the pig episode and hunting with guns (including less lethal
ammunition as pellets or buckshot) are a function of adolescence. Teen
agers experim ent and the animal cruelty exhibited by this group is anchored in
that experimentation. Unfortunately, these offenders are unable to
differentiate between protected animals and endangered species and many of
the offenders in this group killed egrets, rare ducks and endangered whooping
cranes.
The cases presented thus far demonstrate experimentation with drugs,
alcohol, and hunting; it is in character that this is also a time of
128
experimentation with alternative religions. The following case featuring two
boys aged 15 and 16 is presented because it is an interesting example of this
phenomenon. Besides animal cruelty, the two boys faced charges of grand
theft, petit theft and burglary, but the community was particularly upset by
these two offenders because of the curious and experimental aspect of their
behavior, best described by a teacher reporting that one of the offenders
“....w as fascinated with paganism and white separatist politics” and he had
“...used a knife to threaten other students at school.” The two boys were
“...accused of taking a local woman’s cat, barbecuing it and eating it." The
defense attorney defended her client’s interest in the ancient W icca religion
and white separatism as consistent with his thirst for knowledge, especially of
offbeat subjects.” One boy was aware of the effect of his actions, since he
stated at his trial “ I’d get down on my knees and apologize”, (to the cat’s
owner). As with many of these offenders, there was an absence of rage or
hatred directed towards the animals that they victimized, instead, the cruelties
were within the context of having fun, experimentation, or alleviation of
boredom.
Animal abuse among juveniles has traditionally been viewed as a
precursor of more serious pathology, but it is clear from many of these cases
that there are a number of reasons why juveniles abuse animals. To be sure,
it is criminal for both adults and youthful offenders, but the motivation involved
in this group often lacks the malicious intent or sadism that is seen in the other
groups. W hen there is a hint of sadism, or something dark and mysterious like
129
Satanism, the anxiety level of onlookers rises; it is important to remember that
there can be a real cause for concern when evaluating juvenile animal
abusers, as the following case illustrates: a dog was found tied up in the
backyard of the owner around 10:00 A.M. one morning. The dog had severe
bums on it’s face, body and in it’s mouth and the dog was in sever shock when
the Animal Control Officer investigated. The officer stated that it was one of
the worst bum cases he had seen, and it was apparent that someone had
used a flammable liquid on the animal. A 13-year old was accused of the
crime and went to trial. Another teenager testified that the night of the incident
the boy and a friend had called him over when he was returning home around
2:00 A.M., and that he saw a flash and “...heard the dog hollering about 10 or
15 minutes.” (The timing is important because the dog was discovered around
10:00 A.M, which means that the dog was suffering for approximately 8 hours).
The identity of the offender was not immediately known, so he was not
arrested and attended school in the normal fashion. The teacher testified that
he was telling the other kids in class about setting a dog on fire and she
thought it was a distant event so told him she did not want him talking about it.
About a month later, the boy restated to the teacher “ Yeah, I killed that dog
and you can’t do anything about it because you can't prove it.” The teacher
also heard him say that he and his friend had been throwing beer bottles at the
dog after they set it on fire. During his trial, he denied his involvement in the
crime, claiming instead that he had been telling other kids what had happened:
“The next morning I was telling people about it They were laughing, I was
130
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
laughing.” The offender was found responsible, but when it came time for him
to be returned to his mother, she asked the court to keep him, stating that he
needed more therapy and more help. This story is particularly interesting
because it presents a vivid portrayal of this type of offender. The animal’s
injuries were not minor and the dog was euthanized shortly after the Animal
Control Officer picked it up. The callousness of the act is exaggerated by the
amount of time that the animal was left to suffer and by the offender’s
amusement and delight in the incident (“I was laughing....”). The offender was
13 years old, but was out at 2:00 A.M.; his mother didn’t know where he had
been because by her own statement she was deaf and thought he was inside
in bed but could not be sure. The friend he was with that night was 18 years
old, and it is possible that the beer bottles they threw at the dog was the beer
they were drinking. It appears quite likely that the mother recognized that her
son’s problems were serious; she did not want to take him back home and
unlike many other parents in these cases, she was not particularly defensive or
protective of him.
Control Freak (n=56)
This group of offenders is characterized by attempts to gain or maintain
control of situations, places or of another person, through the manipulation of a
pet. These offenders almost exclusively use others’ animals (95% of the time).
There is a fair amount of planning involved in these crimes (75% ) and this
group has the largest numbers using poison (12.5% ), indicating the degree of
131
planning and commitment dedicated to maintenance of surroundings. This
type also has the highest number of shooting crimes at 44.6% ; these methods
of animal control tend to be quick and lethal. The offenders in this group
generally operate within the realm of their own personal space or territory.
This group is largely male (91% ), single (82% ) and mature (87.5% ).
This group’s attempts to control were most noticeable in domestic or
intimate situations. In these situations, the animal was often victimized during
the course of an argument. The offenders did not concurrently physically
abuse their human partner, thus differentiating themselves from the violent
aggressor category. The abuse of the animal appeared to be usually
spontaneous, and may have been the culmination of mounting tensions
between the partners. Many of these incidents arose while the offender was
intoxicated, and though not a formal charge in the case, alcohol seemed to
have a dis-inhibitory effect. One case involved a young male who twisted the
neck of his girlfriend’s kitten while drunk. The animal abuse arose after she
found him drinking at home; her anger at his condition precipitated a fight. He
responded by breaking things and killing the kitten. W hen she reported the
incident to the police, she reported that by his actions, her boyfriend had tried
“...to make her upset and angry for starting an argum ent" The suspicion of
coercion and control by the boyfriend became more evident when police
caught up with him; he claimed to have run over the cat accidentally, and his
girlfriend, also present at the time, parroted his claims that the incident was
indeed an accident Only when police advised her of penalties for filing a
132
false report did she return to her original account.
The control of another person may be realized through real or implied
physical threats, but of primary value to the controller is the psychological
manipulation that occurs. The psychological impact can span tim e or
geographical distances. One recently divorced husband and wife were sorting
out their property and living arrangements. The ex-wife was awarded the
house in the divorce settlement, but allowed the husband use of the
accommodations until she was scheduled to return a few months later. She
left her cats with the offender they had been married for nine years and had
jointly cared for the animals in that time. O ne night, after a drinking binge, he
took the cats to the pool and drowned them . The cats were clearly symbolic
substitutes for his wife and a focus for his sense of anger and loss. The
geographical separation from his wife did nothing to diffuse his feelings
towards her although he himself had some attachment to the animals. He
subsequently was taken for substance abuse and psychiatric evaluation.
W hile the animal victims in the cases of intimate partnerships may act as
substitutes, the motivation behind the abuse is not primarily to find a safe
outlet for anger but is best understood in terms of the offender’s attempts to
gain control of a person, situation or possession.
Not all of the abusers in this category were male, although typically
violence in intimate relationships is generally assumed to be based on gender
inequality. In another confrontation precipitated by alcohol, an irate mother
shot and killed her daughter’s two dogs after the daughter informed her o f
133
plans to move out of state with the husband and four children. The mother
stated: T m going to make sure your kids are taken from you” and following
the shooting of the dogs: “You won’t have your kids tomorrow.”
Of course, the whole scene seems to be somewhat surreal because of the
alcohol, nonetheless, the dogs were euthanized because of the severity of the
injuries and there is an implied threat to the children if the moving plans
proceed.
The control of personal space was a common theme in this group of
offenders and in a good number of these cases the actions were planned. A
typical story involved two adjoining neighbors. One neighbor was an avid bird
watcher, and had made his yard particularly appealing to birds. The other
neighbors owned a dog that used to run freely through the neighborhood and
was often in the bird-watcher’s yard. Annoyed with having to clean up dog
waste, he set out a bowl of poisoned hot-dogs which the dog ate. The dog, too
ill to be saved, died and the owners pursued the incident through legal
channels. A third neighbor, living on the other side of the bird-watcher and
also a dog owner, attested that the man was a good neighbor, kept to himself,
and did not have a problem with his dog, only the one that wandered onto his
property. The offender himself stated “ It’s not that I don’t like dogs, I don’t
like having my property rights violated.” The offender received a suspended
90-day sentence, a $100 fine, $2,500 restitution, and 40 hours community
service. Although he did express remorse, he stated that “I do wish I could
take it back. I would use that fine to build a fence.” Despite the penalty, the
134
integrity of this offender’s personal space did not lose importance for him. This
theme was present in many accounts, emphasizing an important and
identifiable need for many individuals of an inviolable personal space or
refuge.
Racketeers (n=88)
This group is almost exclusively male (98.9% ), and it’s members can be
designated as racketeers because many of them use animals for illegal profit-
oriented purposes. The group is mainly made of up animal baiters (71.6% )
whose activities primarily consist of dog and cock-fighting, but baiting can also
involve less organized, informal pitting of two animals. Money, guns and
drugs are highly associated with this group and 21.6% of the cases are also
charged with drug possession. Three-quarters of the offenders in this cluster
experience a profit from the animal-baiting activities, but it should be
emphasized that the reward can also be enhanced status associated with
owning a “winner”. Training equipment for both dogs and birds are commonly
found as evidence in the home, along with equipment to weigh drugs,
indicating that the illegal activities are generally well-planned, organized and
linked to animal fighting. The use of animals as exciting entertainment
occupies 87.5% of this group, making this one of the most well-defined traits in
this study.
The lifespan of these animals is questionable, and intimates that in many
instances the bonds between owner and fighting animals must at best be
135
tenuous. Especially for dogs, if they don’t die in the ring, they are certain to be
euthanized if seized by police or humane agencies, since they are not good
pet candidates. A fairly typical case involved the seizure of five fighting dogs;
police found syringes and drugs believed to induce aggression in the dogs. In
addition, small amounts of cocaine and marijuana were found, along with a
gun. The raid was the culmination of a long investigation initiated by neighbors
complaints about traffic at the house.
Apprehension of these offenders is often difficult because there is a
lucrative combination of gambling, drugs and firearms promoted by habitues
of this underworld. A raid on a “dogfight gambling den” produced one injured
dog in the ring, two other dogs in cages inside the building, and 12 more dogs
waiting outside. In addition to marijuana, other drugs, four handguns and
$13,000 were seized. Admission charge to the fights was $20, and dog
owners came from other states, indicating that this was a highly-organized,
wide-spread venture. W hile the dogs involved are in a sense disposable, they
are also a means for the owners to achieve status. Dogfighting becomes a
lifestyle choice, involving traveling and participation in matches across the
country. The gathering of enthusiasts provides a convenient venue for selling
and trading of guns and drugs, and as such is very similar to other “gangster”
or gang-related activities. There is money to be made, but there is also a
camaraderie available to those in the group; videotapes seized from the raid
showed that while two dogs fought for 45 minutes, spectators placed bets and
bought beer and liquor from a man carrying a cooler. W ere it not for it’s
136
illegality and obvious misuse of the animals it would be like any other sporting
event, especially with the common practice of taking young children to watch
the matches. Not only is the practice abusive to animals, but the effect on
children is questionable.
It is not necessarily the dogs fighting that are the only victims in these
situations. Often, other animals are used as training bait. One account
concerned an investigation that started with a hospital report of a dog bite.
The man’s finger had been amputated on the end and police followed up the
hospital report; however, the man was uncooperative. Police returned to the
address after neighbors complained of a live goat taken into the house; when
police investigated no goat was found, but there were goat hairs around.
Additionally, in the basement there were bloodstains and dogs with bite marks
and eventually their search led to drugs. In another case, a raid led to the
seizure of five pit bulls, with bite marks and about a half-dozen poodles and
Shis Tzus used to train the fighters. In this case the fighting dogs were in poor
condition, suffering from infections and covered in ticks and fleas. Oftentimes,
these animals are emaciated and quite ill, which underscores their
disposability.
Within this cluster there are also the owners of fighting birds, but
cockfighting, although similar to baiting dogs, does have some important
differences. Mainly illegal, a few states do allow the sport, which tends to
impact on the perceived seriousness of the crime. Cockfighting is also very
popular in some other countries and it is a cultural tradition that is often
137
imported into this country. The group that fought birds in this cluster did not
seem to have the heavy involvement in drugs and guns, although wagering
was part of the scene. One fight promoter in his 70's considered it good family
entertainment, stating that there was no drinking and fighting on his premises.
His saw himself as a business man, bringing in thousands of dollars of revenue
for the state he operated in. Nonetheless, the animals trained to fight were as
expendable as fighting dogs, and when seized were also considered ineligible
for reintegration into normal bird populations.
Within this cluster also fell purveyors of semi-pomographic materials with
animals, specifically crush films. A somewhat recent phenomenon whose
enduring popularity is yet to be tested, these movies involve woman squashing
small animals underfoot. This type of offender, although rare in this study,
helps to illustrate the other aspects of animal abuse that are underground,
illegal and undertaken as a source of illicit money. W hether or not this
offender also had a fetish is not clean however, his attempts to cater to and
cash in on this demand precipitated his creation of hundreds of videos.
Generally he would hire “actresses,” but was known to dress up on occasion
and stomp the animals himself. Pornography, prostitution, guns and drugs are
all roughly part of the underworld trade, and hence the inclusion of this
offender in this cluster. Further analysis would, no doubt, underscore
significant differences between purveyors of pornography and dog-baiters
despite the common, opportunistic goal of using animals to enhance pleasure
and profit monetarily.
138
Collector (n=102)
This is the second largest category of offenders and the most recognized
type of animal abuser. The highest concentration of females, at 78.4% , is
found in this group. These offenders also tend to be mature (96.1% over 21
years of age) and tend to act alone (90.2% ). Not only do these offenders act
alone, but often are also alone in life, and the animals substitute for family.
This group claims tremendous emotional attachment to their animals, yet
92.2% of the animals are either starved or severely neglected. This type of
offender is usually motivated primarily by an expressed desire to save the
animals from humane society shelters, often taking in strays; just under 50%
of the cases can be accounted for by well-intentioned motives. A small
percentage (25.5% ) maintains some type of animal business, such as
breeding, but the emotional attachment strengthens to the point that it may
inhibit sale of the animals. Their abuses tend to be of long duration and these
offenders are resistant to change, although they often realize that they
accumulate more animals than can be humanely handled.
Many of the women in this group start with a few strays which quickly
reproduce, swelling the numbers of animals found in their homes; the
numbers of animals that they house are often extraordinary. One offender was
found with 60 cats living in her bungalow. The home was filthy, and the District
Attorney stated: “I understand she took in strays. If I were a stray, l‘d rather
take my chances on the freeway.” O f course, the 57-year-old woman did not
139
see it the same way. She said: “ I like animals, and I was just trying to find
them homes. I never meant to create the chaos that I did.” There is an
incongruous combination of clarity and unrealistic expectations found in many
of these offenders. They believe that they can care for the large number of
animals that they “hoard” but when they are apprehended they are not
delusional about the circumstances in which they are living. W hile they
recognize that living conditions are uncontrollable, they fail to see the harm
that they are inflicting on the animals in their care.
One offender, a teacher, was known by the community as a kind-hearted
woman who would never harm a cat or dog and was dubbed the “Florence
Nightingale of the canine world.” By the time her home was raided, she had
over 80 dogs and cats. Carcasses were strewn all over the yard with rats were
feeding on them and there were 2-3 inches of excrement caked on the bottom
of cages. Many animals were sick and malnourished, with skin and ear
infections, and it was determined that nearly 30 needed to be destroyed. The
teacher insisted that there was nothing wrong with the animals, and that the
officials raiding her house were responsible for many of the deaths. The
woman had dedicated her free time to cleaning up after the animals, and spent
all her money on food and veterinary bills, and in her mind, she had taken
good care of them. The prosecutor summed it up: “I don’t think she intended
to cause these animals harm. W hen it happened, she was unable to see the
harm she was doing.” This was a theme found throughout many of these
cases; despite unacceptable conditions, malnourishment and disease, the
140
offenders could not recognize their own actions as contributing to the suffering
of the animals in their care. Because they had no evil intent, because they had
an emotional attachment to the animals, they appeared to use this as a shield
against the unpleasant reality of the actual conditions. They viewed their
situation through a distorting carnival mirror, where there was suffering they
saw care and compassion; where there was starvation they saw contentment;
and where there was disease they saw well-being. Once the illusion is
disrupted, they are able to recognize the conditions as they actually are: the
first offender, not meaning to create chaos, and this teacher, wanting to move
on: “I want to teach. I want to put all this behind me. I’m OK. I’ve come a
long way. I’m really looking forward to going back to work.” In many ways,
official intervention has the effect of snapping them back into reality.
Although this cluster had the largest concentration of fem ale offenders,
there was a small percentage of males who exhibited hoarding behavior. A
male in his early 40’s was found with 90 cats in his apartment. Animal control
officers were called to the scene, but were only able to enter for short periods
of time despite the use of gas masks. This offender and ail others lived side
by side with their animals, oblivious to the filth and stench, and quite likely
experienced a gradual desensitization to the conditions. His comments about
the conditions were that the animal control officers “...w ere exaggerating about
the smell. Another part of m e says maybe I was acclimated to it and the cats
were acclimated to it ” This male was fairly typical of animal hoarders:
mature, single with no family nearby, and few friends, eventually thinking of
141
the animals as family. He did not intend to collect animals, and started with
two strays, but was then unable to limit the numbers that he housed. W hen
they had kittens, he kept them all because he felt that “there was just no way I
would do with them what we do to each other - just tear up families.” As with
the others in this group, he claimed that the cats had been well cared for most
of the time. Many of the offenders in this cluster experienced a precipitating
event that they blamed for the deterioration of conditions; in this case he
received an eviction notice and lost his job because of time spent fighting the
eviction. Then money became tight and he could not afford cat litter. O f
course, this is all true, but the individuals in this category cannot see past the
immediate tragedy and understand that the problem started when the number
of animals became exaggerated. Again, he, like the others, could recognize
that the situation had become problematic and had a great deal of insight
about the conditions: “W as it a livable environment? I have to say yes. W as it
an environment I wanted to continue living in? No.” There is almost a sense
of relief, that once freed from the overwhelming task of caring for the animals,
these offenders are anxious to get back to a more “normal” existence. In light
of these descriptions, many hoarders begin amassing animals again within a
relatively short time.
Some of the members of this group became collectors inadvertently. A
portion of this group started out as breeders, but developed an inability to part
with the animals. Others chose animal-related industries in which to work: a
former Director of the local humane shelter was found with approximately 30
142
animals in her home. At her trial, she was prohibited from future animal
ownership, and she realized that she could no longer take in strays or accept
animals from other people. ul couldn’t turn people down," she said. As much
as these people victimized the animals they tried to help, they were often, in a
sense, victims themselves. They become easy marks for pet owners looking
to unload their animals; the owners leary of shelters and hoping to place the
animal with a loving person.
In many of these cases the attempt to enrich the lives of the animals
extracted very high prices from the collectors: they were ruined financially and
their reputations were tarnished; they lost their jobs and they themselves lost
a good quality of life, living in filth and discomfort. In the end neither they nor
the animals derived any benefit from the relationship.
Neglector (n=120)
This group, being the largest, shares many traits with the other types in
this study. As a whole, there was little emotional investment in the animals,
and although a quarter of the offenders in this group tried to use animals for
profit, the approach was disorganized and might be indicative of either an
inability of the owners to run a successful business, or attempts to use
animals as an afterthought to ownership, that is, trying to find a use other than
the emotional fulfillment of bonding with a pet.
This cluster has the largest incidence of dragging an animal behind a
vehicle (5.8% ) and abuses revolving around inappropriate confinement
143
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(11.7% ); these modalities were on the whole not used punitively by this
group. This type also has the highest number of accidents that compromise
the well-being of the animals (15.8% ), but the most distinguishing feature of
the group of offenders characterized by neglect is their indifference to the
suffering of the animals, whether or not that abuse occurred accidentally or
through their own negligence. W hile a fair number did not feed their animals
properly (35% ), many fed their animals adequately but did not provide medical
care when needed, or did not provide for additional comforts. Half of their
animals suffered from this type of neglect, and it may have been attributable to
such factors as ignorance, boredom and/or a lack of empathy for the animal.
Many humans do not seek medical attention for themselves; either
choice or necessity dictating a need to self-medicate, and this may explain
some of the negligence that was experienced by the animals. A rodeo
cowboy dragged his horse to death behind the horse trailer after he tied the
animal to the back of the vehicle. Upon questioning, the cowboy explained
that his horse had a “gut ache” and that he had tied the horse to the back of
the trailer, hoping to get him moving and make him better. At his trial, he told
the judge that “...I truly did not intend to cause any harm to my horse.
However, in the process of trying to help my animal, I actually caused him
injury when he repeatedly fell and was dragged behind my horse trailer.” The
horse left a four mile bloody trail, and was found dead when the owner pulled
into a gas station. W hile it is quite likely that the cowboy did not intend to harm
his horse, there was a mix of ignorance and lack of empathy for the sick
144
animal. The horse owner did not deny responsibility for the death of the horse
and such an admission tends to lend credence to his claimed intention of trying
to aid the animal. One can assume that oftentimes there is no animal hospital
or veterinarian nearby, leaving owners to administer their own curatives which
may not work in all cases.
The contradictory interplay between care and neglect was exemplified by
one man who had taken his puppy to the clinic to be spayed. After receiving
reports that the 61-year-old man had transported the dog to the vet in the trunk
of his car, the Sheriffs department placed surveillance cameras outside the
animal hospital. The owner picked up the freshly spayed puppy, placed the
pup in the box and the box in the trunk. This case reportedly occurred in a
Southwestern city during the last days of May, so it was, no doubt, quite warm
and therefore considerably dangerous for the puppy. On one hand there is
evidence that there is a degree of care afforded the animal and a measure of
responsible pet ownership, but on the other hand there is the negligence by
confining the dog in a box in the trunk; the box compounding the effects of
the trunk. There is often a strange mix of solicitude and neglect in many of
these cases.
A fair number of these offenders, recognizing their inability to care for
pets, left unwanted animals at kennels, stables or adoption centers and a
number of abuse cases came to light in this way. As an example, it is
common for greyhounds to be placed for adoption when they are retired from
racing, and the owner of 10 older dogs placed them with an adoption group.
145
The dogs, many with untreated injuries, had further deteriorated en route;
when they reached the adoption agency, they were so dehydrated that they
were drinking water “a quart at a tim e” and it was possible to “count the ribs”
due to emaciation. W hile not all racing greyhounds end their days in good
homes, this owner had tried to increase his dog’s chances. On the other hand,
the greyhounds had been neglected before reaching the adoption agency, and
there was not sufficient emotional attachment for that owner to keep and care
for them. They were only, ultimately, a business accessory.
Other accounts further delineate the motivations of some of these
offenders and portray a more accurate picture of this cluster. A radio disc
jockey was charged with cruelty to animals after throwing a chicken out of a
window. He had urged listeners to bring small animals down to the station,
saying that they would be let loose on the local highway and if they survived
there would be an early spring. One listener did, in fact, take a chicken to the
station, and the DJ polled listeners about whether or not it would survive being
thrown from a window. His intern threw the bird from the second-story window
and there was a play-by-play announced over the radio, with the chicken
surviving the fall. At this point, the DJ claimed that he argued with the intern
about releasing the chicken from the third story, with the DJ against it but with
the intern prevailing. After the second drop, a listener went to the station and
saved the bird from further damage. This was a somewhat juvenile stunt
designed to entertain his listeners; however the DJ was 33 years old and
additionally, it was radio and no one could really see what was happening, it
146
is also hard to imagine that he could not control his intern, who was probably
quite a bit younger and had less standing at the radio station. At his trial he
argued whether or not the incident had, in fact, caused pain, saying: “I can’t
tell that a chicken feels pain. How do you tell?” The chicken did suffer injuries
to it’s leg and foot, but recovered. This DJ also said that he “has a house full
of pets, including three dogs, and would never harm them." and admitted
“W hat I did was stupid." It is hard to argue with that statement, and it sums up
the actions of many of the offenders in this cluster. There are two possible
points to consider with this offender, either he did not include chickens as
worthy of the same care as traditional pets, or he really did not realize that
chickens do not fly very well. The first consideration would indicate
indifference while the second would indicate ignorance. The offenders in this
cluster often combine both possibilities.
VI. Criminal Justice Disposition bv Cluster
The distribution of criminal justice disposition by cluster provided
additional information about the initial charge and the final disposition of the
10 groups.
Table 4.10 shows that each cluster had a mix of felonies and
misdemeanors (and of course the group where the initial charge remains
unknown). This latter group in most cases was quite large, for instance the
initial charge in the Violent Aggressor cluster was not known in 60% of the
cases. It is, therefore, difficult to speak in anything less than general terms,
147
Table 4.10 Criminal justice disposition by cluster
Violent Hapless Career Disciplinarian Schemers and

Aggressor Abuser Abuser Con Artists
(n=15) (n=29) (n=29) (n=49) (n=51)
Felony 13.3% 27.6% 10.3% 42.9% 11.8%
Misdemeanor 26.7 27.6 41.4 26.5 33.3
Unknown 60.0 44.8 48.3 30.0 54.9
Dismiss 6.7% 13.8% 10.3% 10.2% 23.5%
Seizure - 10.3 79.3 32.7 84.3
Prohibit - - 24.1 8.2 5.9
Mental 6.7 3.4 6.9 20.4 2.0

Health
Community - 6.8 6.9 20.4 4.0

Service
Suspended - 3.4 3.4 2.0 2.0

Sentence
Probation 6.7 17.2 27.6 20.4 9.8
Fine 6.7 20.7 27.6 34.7 3.7
Incarcerate 13.4 24.1 10.3 38.8 11.8
Table 4.10 (continued) Criminal justice disposition by cluster
Thrill-seeker Control Freak Racketeer Collector Neglector

(n=52) (n=56) (n=88) (n=102) (n=120)
Felony 30.8% 32.1% 50.0% 8.8% 13.3%
Misdemeanor 23.1 37.5 22.7 46.1 40.8
Unknown 46.2 30.4 27.3 45.1 45.8
Dismiss 3.8% 26.1% 9.1% 14.7% 18.3%
Seizure 3.8 10.7 64.8 76.5 59.2
Prohibit 1.9 3.6 4.5 21.6 9.2
Mental 23.1 3.6 1.1 12.7 4.2

Health
Community 9.2 9.9 6.8 11.8 8.3

Service
Suspended 3.8 1.8 3.4 23.5 4.2

Sentence
Probation 9.2 10.7 12.5 22.5 16.8
Fine 11.5 9.6 18.2 25.5 24.2
Incarcerate 25.0 17.9 11.4 15.7 16.7
but there are still some interesting observations to be made. The mix of
felony and misdemeanor charges in each cluster reflects the different
classifications by the different states, and is in itself an indication of the lack of
consistency by which this crime is adjudicated. The total dispositions in each
cluster does not equal 100% because information is missing or there are
combinations of dispositions assigned to one offender. It is not uncommon to
have seizures, pet prohibitions, community service and fines assigned alone or
in combination.
The highest percentage of felony offenses was in the Racketeer group
(51.1% ) and was most likely attributable to the association of animal cruelty
with guns and drugs. The lowest number of felony cases were 8.8% for
Collectors, which tends to support general beliefs that this is not treated
seriously by criminal justice agencies.
A relatively large percentage of Schemers and Con Artists had their
crimes dismissed (23.5% ), and were closely followed by Neglectors (19.2% ).
These percentages are in sharp contrast to Thrill-Seekers, who were the least
likely group to have their crimes dismissed (3.8% ), but this group is
incarcerated one-quarter of the time and receives mental health counseling
most often (23.1% ), a result that is somewhat surprising.
The seizure of the animals was a common disposition, and rates of
seizure were generally extremely high. Schemers and Con Artists lost their
animals 84.3% and Career Abusers followed closely (79.3% ). The Violent
Aggressor's did not have any animals seized, which is supportive of their
150
generally violent behavior animals were either immediately killed or their
violence was directed towards another person and the animal was not the
focus of the violence. More likely, this group was too small to be well
represented (n = 15) and was the only cluster that did not receive community
service, suspended sentences, pet prohibitions or pet seizures. Additionally,
as mentioned above, the disposition was unknown in 60% of the cases, and
this contributed to the low distribution of sentencing alternatives.
Prohibitions against future animal ownership were again highest in the
Career Abusers (24.1% ) and Collector (22.5% ) groups, and these two groups
were also often penalized by probation and fines. Probation was the highest
for the Career Abusers (27.6% ); Collectors (22.5% ) and Disciplinarians
(20.4.4% ). The highest incidence of fines were awarded to 34.7% of the
Disciplinarians; 27.6% of Career Abusers; and 26.5% of the Collectors.
These three groups, then, receive the bulk of the sentencing, but this does not
necessarily mean that the penalties were severe. If incarceration is added,
Disciplinarians are disproportionately represented, at 38.8% . Thrill-Seekers
are incarcerated 25%; ail other groups receive this sentence less than 25% of
the time.
Community service was generally low for all clusters, again.
Disciplinarians were disproportionately represented (20.4% ) and Thrill
Seekers closely followed at 19.2%; all other cluster were under 13%.
Collectors received the highest number of suspended sentences, at 3.9%; all
other group’s sentences were suspended less than 3.9% of the time.
151
Chapter 5
Discussion
W e must start by recognizing that statistical distributions of offenders and
offenses are likely to vary over time and place with varying social conditions.
For example, we found a large number of poultry offenses which were
comprised of bankruptcies and dissolution of a few chicken farms; this may
have been an anomaly for the year 2000. Certainly, there could be
contributing factors such as drought driving up the cost of feed that introduce
an unpredictable element to some of the victimizations; however, only the
resulting cruelty is an issue and in this light, it is safe to say that in any one
year there will most likely be business or farm failures resulting in starvation
and neglect to those animals. Additionally, some crimes would usually be
handled by other agencies, such as the USDA and would not normally appear
in this type of study. It is only in extreme cases where the state, and not the
federal agency, is able or willing to assume responsibility for prosecution that
these types of cases would be represented in a study measuring statewide
anti-cruelty violations. With this in mind, it is likely farm abuses are
underrepresented in this sample.
The visibility of the animal has an effect on the likelihood that abuse will
be detected. W hile dogs are a popular pet, accounting for the large number of
abuse cases, it is also more likely that dog abuse is less easy to hide than
abuse to other species. Cats are also popular, but appear to experience
proportionally few er cases of abuse but if the proportion of cats that are
152
abandoned was accurately represented, it is believed that these cases would
rival or surpass that of dog abuse cases. As a crime, abandonment is easier
to hide, especially abandonment of cats. The large numbers of feral cats
attest to the large number of actual abandonment cases. Also undetectable
are the abuse cases of small domestic pets such as rodents (hamster, guinea
pig, rats) and lagomorphs (rabbits); this study did show some instances
although the real prevalence of these cruelties is unknown. Similarly, detection
of crimes can be low for wild animals such as wolves, bobcats and other
medium-sized species; these types of wild animals are most often hunted and
shot.
The impact of guns and violence towards animals has not been
considered in the debates of gun control. Shootings contributed to a relatively
large proportion of abuses by males in this study. While it is debatable
whether or not the limited availability of guns would reduce some, especially
defensive, crimes against animals, gun control could conceivably reduce the
lethality in some cases. In the cases where animals were used as target
practice, gun control would have an effect. There is, however, a problem with
the socialization of males into hunting practices, and this was reflected in
distinctions drawn between acceptable shooting at squirrels and unacceptable
shooting of pets; it is not recognized that gratuitous killing and wounding of
any animal for reasons of entertainment constitutes either a misdemeanor or
felony in definitions of cruelty to animals.
The type of crime may fluctuate depending on changing statutes. W hen
153
New York City declared certain pets such as ferrets illegal, abandonment
cases increased. It is not uncommon to have snakes, ferrets or other animals
released into parks when the owners are unable to keep or care for them.
W hile this is less an overt act of cruelty than one of desperation on the owner’s
part and is a way of trying to maximize chances of the pet’s survival, these
domesticated animals fare as badly as do abandoned cats and dogs. Most of
these cases remain anonymous and are likely to be under-reported. As
another example, at one time cockfighting was legal in many southern states
and there is a reluctance to prosecute these crimes, despite changing
legislation.
Other crimes might also be topical. Shortly after the dragging of an
African-American man, a similar animal-dragging case occurred and there was
a small percentage in this study. The phenomenon of copy-cat killings in the
animal world is as yet unmeasured and unstudied. The emergence of “crush”
films (eroticisation of animal death) on the heels of “snuff” films (eroticisation of
human death) is not coincidental and is another puzzling aspect of criminal
behavior.
Criminal Justice Response
There was a great degree of variability in the criminal justice response to
cases of animal abuse. As in the adjudication of other crimes, this type of
offense was most likely subject to an informal ranking on a hierarchy of
seriousness which eventually dictated the resolution. As an example, in larger
154
cities with crowded dockets and a higher concentration of serious offenses,
cruelty to animals might have been dealt with in a more summary fashion than
in areas where case volume was lower. Some states had elevated the status
of the crime to a felony, thus attempting to increase penalties but this is not
always sufficient to ensure punishment. There were low rates of incarceration
for these crimes despite the designation as a felony offense; it is possible that
more serious felonies are incarcerated, and any available space is reserved for
more violent inmates. It is also possible that increasing the penalties raises
the standard of proof needed for conviction, making this set of crimes as
difficult to prosecute as child abuse or other cases where the victim is unable
to contribute but the burden of proof is higher than misdemeanor charges. A
number of cases in this study did involve children and required the intervention
of social service agencies. This finding substantiates recommendations to link
investigations by social services and humane agencies, an association that
can be mutually beneficial in obtaining relief for the victims.
Relatively low rates of incarceration did not mean that, on the whole, this
crime was not punished. There are in many instances adequate laws to
protect animals; in this study there was, however, tremendous disparity in
assigned penalties, making general assumptions unpredictable. Severe
penalties were not correlated with severe examples of animal abuse, and
sometimes the death of the animal (the most extreme case of abuse) was not
penalized to the fullest extent of the law. Death of the animal was in fact the
most problematic example of abuse, since cruelty laws often define suffering,
155
torturing, starving, etc. as punishable offenses, but are strangely silent on
animal killing, especially one’s own pet. Included in this quasi-legitimate
extermination of an animal are defensive strategies, but as was evident in
many of the cases in this study, claims of potential danger are difficult to
reconcile with what appear to be relatively benign animals. In a sense, claims
of dangerousness are the legal loophole legitimizing the offender’s behavior
within this category of crime.
A more uniform approach by criminal justice officials to the issue of
animal cruelty is needed. The discretion of police in charging offenders, of
attorneys in prosecuting offenders and judges in sentencing offenders
contributes to the controversies surrounding the punishment of this crime.
Animal advocates have done much to promote this crime as a “gateway” to
further offenses against humans; this tends to devalue the seriousness of the
crime in its’ own right. This crime should neither be ranked on a sliding scale
of seriousness nor judged as indicative of potential future human victimization.
Animal killing, even as a defensive strategy, should be punished except when
used in the most imminently dangerous and critical situations.
In some states, a mental health intervention or interview is required; the
inclusion of mental health screening has most probably arisen because of
animal hoarding, which is believed to be a psychological condition. Mental
health screening is also a means of ferreting out future serial killers. A very
small number in this sample were assigned to counseling or some type of
mental health intervention, and other penalties were alm ost always incurred.
156
The small group receiving mental health attention had a very small number of
animal hoarders and a few juveniles, but whether or not the psychological
intervention was a successful treatment modality or rehabilitative tool is
unclear. To date, there has been little differentiation within criminal justice
agencies about the various forms of animal abuse, and the episodic or chronic
nature of the crime, nor have there been long-term studies about the efficacy
of counseling. Despite these short-comings, counseling is often
recommended, and may be used as a way of deflecting more serious
penalties.
Offender Characteristics
The most notable feature when examining offenders has been the distinct
grouping of subjects in this study. It is relatively rare to have representation of
women’s criminality; not only are women represented within this category of
crime but there emerged another identifiable group, that of mixed male and
fem ale partners. These patterns represent a major departure from most
criminal justice studies.
The fem ale group in this study, although proportionally smaller than the
m ale group, were more likely to collect multiple species and were therefore
capable of abusing more animals than the males. This type of offender has
been well-recognized within psychological and criminal justice communities
and this raises some concern. There is a very real possibility that, in the case
of animal hoarders, these offenders are mentally ill, and we are measuring
157
something other than fem ale criminality. Although this phenomenon is easily
identified, it is poorly understood but has been compared to obsessive-
compulsive disorders. These offenders tend to have larger groupings of
animals that are more noticeable; they are more noticeable by both sight and
smell, making apprehension easier. Apprehension is also validated by the
offender fitting into an accepted set of criteria (i.e. being female and having lots
of animals). In this self-fulfilling twist, this narrow group of offenders (primarily
Collectors/hoarders) are penalized, while others, such as fem ale abusers with
one animal and male abusers with multiple species and animals are
overlooked. W hile we are willing to accept portraits of females turning pets
into surrogate children, we must question whether these are just lonely women
or women alone; one group pitiable, the other a perhaps misanthropic bunch
who carry out their aggression away from the prying eyes of other human
relationships. It is difficult to view slow death by starvation and disease as a
kindness that a mother would bestow on her child, but we have accepted the
protestations of motherly love at face value, a courtesy we have not extended
to the other offenders who insist they meant no harm. W hen considering the
participation of females in crimes of animal cruelty, we must look past the
constraints that sexual dimorphism places on their physical ability to cause
harm, or w e are in danger of again “...overlooking significant sociopathic
elements,” a tendency that Felhous and Yudowitz noted twenty-five years
ago. Physical violence by women most likely does not cause the sam e
damage as does m ales’, a violent fem ale is not as threatening or alarming as a
158
violent m ale and usually outside intervention (i.e. police) is not required, and
the timing of violent episodes may occur outside the regular traffic patterns of
observers (i.e. when everyone else is at work). The tendency to discount the
capacity of females to be physically violent and for males to be nurturing is
most certainly reflected in arrest patterns, and hence, this study. As there were
examples of emotional attachment to animals by males, there were also
examples of gratuitous violence towards animals by females and should be
more fully recognized by various agencies.
Motivations
W ithout the luxury of personal interviews, discovering human motivations
can sometimes be a daunting task. At times, the motivations were explicitly
stated; at other times, careful reading of the narratives and deciphering of
subtle clues was needed. Despite the difficulties, the 14 motivations appeared
to describe the range of motivations found in this study.
There was one definition, accidental, which did not quite fall into
motivational definitions, but it became clear that a portion of these cases
included unintentional and unforeseen abuses. Most of these cases were
dismissed despite original charges of cruelty to animals, although the
offenders may have been prosecuted on other charges, for instance, injury to
an animal and drugs or drinking were common; in those instances, the
substance abuse charges prevailed.
In some cases, more than one motivation seemed to be in evidence, and
159
the cases were coded accordingly. In general, the motivations could be further
grouped into broader definitions having either a destructive or opportunistic
basis, with rarer instances of a constructive nature (altruism). The more
precise representation of 14 motivations allows for a more complete
understanding of this crime, and could possibly have implications for treatment
modalities. The development of different motivations is a departure from
current understanding of animal abuse and presents an opportunity for
possible refinements in sentencing. It is clear that certain underlying
motivations will contribute to chronicity or spontaneity of this type of crime,
and as more cases are prosecuted, interviews can more precisely target this
as yet undeveloped area of information.
Cluster analysis
The development of 10 identifiable cluster types substantially adds to the
current knowledge of animal abusers as a group of offenders. From the
analysis, MacDonald’s triad was most closely associated with the violent
offenders, but the shortcomings of prior studies becomes evident when viewed
in this narrow context. It is most likely that only the violent offender category
receives sufficient prison time to appear in any study of incarcerated offenders;
this group had, among other things, a noticeable preponderance for arson-
related incidents. Focusing only on this group, it becomes clear that a broad
spectrum of animal abusers is ignored. It is somewhat surprising that earlier
studies relied heavily on analyses of this type of offender in this sample, they
160
were the minority. O f course, more recent changes in legislation have helped
create a broader definition of abuser, or at least have helped in apprehension
and sentencing and raised the numbers of identified abusers. Research
though, has been somewhat lagging in measuring the efficacy and success of
increasing penalties for animal cruelty.
Collectors were the most recognizable group, but not the largest. This is
somewhat surprising given the amount of interest they have generated. It is
noteworthy that another emergent group, that of Racketeer, has started to
gain prominence in more recent years. Guns, drugs and the increases in gang
affiliation have helped strengthen this group; their endurance is yet to be
demonstrated. There will always be, no doubt, an organized group of animal
fighters. In part the popularity of pit bulls is integrally linked to their fighting
ability, but some towns are starting to outlaw this particular breed. Individually,
pit bulls are not particularly valuable, thus increasing their disposability.
Popularity of certain breeds seems to ebb and flow, and it will be worth
watching to see if pit bulls follow this pattern.
Despite being rooted in the same activity, dog and cock-fighting have
extremely different cultural associations, and while broadly designated as
Racketeers, it would be possible to further divide this group into two sub
groups; this is one example of the further refinement possible with these
cluster results. W hile cockfighting is still, for the most p art illegal, the climate
of the gatherings is distinctly different, with cockfighting seen as a form of
family entertainm ent There was a predominance of Hispanic offenders in
161
this group, which reflects the cultural tradition of fighting birds in other
countries.
Criminal justice disposition bv cluster
Control Freaks experienced dismissal of their crimes relatively often and
this is somewhat surprising considering the high lethality of the crimes in this
group (85.7% ). Their actions resulted in death of the animal more often than
with any other cluster. These abusers usually victimized other’s pets through
planned events which would, in other types of crimes, increase the penalties.
There was, perhaps, a rationalization that these crimes tended to target a
specific victim and a specific problem, and were not indicative of a pattern or
did not suggest future dangerousness. These results tend to reflect the low
value that is placed on animals, and the inability of victimized owners to extract
substantial compensation. There was a large enough group of felony
offenders (33.9% ) to have allowed a more punitive approach.
A large number of cases were dismissed for Schemers and Con Artists
(23.5% ), which was reflective of the relatively low percentage of animals that
died (< 2 5 % ), and the relatively non-violent nature of the most prominent
modality of abuse (74.5 % neglect). This group was almost completely
comprised of m ale/fem ale couples, and this may have contributed to a
perception of responsibility and respectability that decreased the sentence
severity. Alternatively, it might have been difficult to assign blame to one or
the other person, and as a more practical solution, the animals were seized.
162
Seizure was also the most popular penalty for Neglectors; their crimes
tend to be non-violent and non-serious; the felony designation was also quite
low. The criminal justice response to this group appeared to be relatively
straightforward and predictable.
The felony designation was also low for Collectors, and, as already
mentioned, was indicative that this group was not viewed as seriously as other
clusters. The seizure rate of the animals was quite high (>75% ) but contrary to
expectations, mental health counseling was relatively low at 12.7% of the
cases. W hile there is a general belief that this crime has psychological
implications, required mental health counseling does not seem to support this
assertion. On the other hand, this was the third highest group receiving mental
health counseling, and so, comparative to the other clusters, psychological
intervention was high. Mandated counseling may be low because the
availability of this alternative is low. This finding should be compared to other
types of intervention/counseling programs associated with the criminal justice
process to see if this is a consistent pattern.
Some type of mental health intervention was recommended most often
for Thrill-Seekers and Disciplinarians. Again, while these percentages are
rather low (<25% ), they suggest that there may be a psychological component
to some crimes that might respond more positively to treatment rather than
punishment. Disciplinarians (all male, all over 21 years of age) were often
assigned to anger management programs, and Thrill-Seekers (nearly 80%
under 21 years of age) received drug and alcohol counseling. Overall, the
163
participation of three groups (Collectors, Thrill-Seekers and Disciplinarians) in
some type of mental health program appears to be somewhat low and
indicative of limited program availability.
Other high rates of animal seizure were found in the Career Abuser and
Racketeer clusters. Half the Racketeers were charged with felonies, and
would have been expected to have a large percentage incarcerated but this
was not the case. A small percentage of this group was incarcerated; overall
penalties foi this group were extremely low in relation to the other clusters,
their involvement in other illegal activities (drug-related) and the high
percentage of felonies in this group. This finding is puzzling and appears to
be an extreme example of the disparity that occurs in the sentencing of these
crimes. The only possible explanation for lenient sentencing is that these
offenders do not appear to be dangerous to other humans.
Violent Aggressors and Hapless Abusers were small groups,
unremarkable in any way and most probably the most affected by missing
data. A cautionary note is again added for these or other conclusions about
the criminal justice response to the clusters; missing information was most
evident within this set of variables, and suggest the need for a supplementary
measure of criminal justice disposition of animal cruelty cases.
164
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Content analysis of newspaper reports provided a valuable resource for
the analysis of animal cruelty crimes. Newspapers can be both a barometer of
social activities and interest, and can set the tone for the kinds of events that
are considered newsworthy. The purpose of this study was not to measure
society’s interest or reporting of animal cruelty, but to find a resource rich in
contextual detail that would allow an analysis of both manifest and latent
content of these accounts. W hile these crimes would appear, at least initially,
as somewhat disturbing or perplexing, the inclusion of a narrative in the
analysis of these crimes led to a more comprehensive and at times empathetic
understanding of the motivations which would be lost in other methods of data
collection. These accounts, richly infused with detail, facilitated the creation of
a typology of offender based on motivations, and has expanded the current
understanding of animal abusers. It is, hopefully, a starting point for the
inevitable future ponderings of ethicists, criminologists and ecologists, for in
this ever-shrinking planet practical solutions will be needed for the
management of both wild and domesticated animals.
There is a cautionary note that should be added when newspaper
narratives are used as the data source. The design of this study allowed the
organization of offenders into meaningful clusters, and so, in a sense,
stereotypes have been perpetuated. Particularly in the case of animal
hoarding, these stories may suffer from overexposure; the familiarity of the
165
general public with this phenomenon can be interpreted as some type of
unscientific validation of the possibility. The additional problem though, is our
conflicted and schizophrenic indecision about redress in cases of animal
abuse in general and hoarding in particular. These offenders should be either
treated or punished, but they should not be allowed to squander the lives of
animals without some type of serious repercussion. This group comprised
roughly 18% of the total cases, but were responsible for 43% of the total
number of animals that were abused.
There were a very large number of animals that were abused over a one-
year period, even with the inclusion of some extremely conservative estimates.
This sample was quite likely a small representation of the crime, and with this
in mind it is safe to say that criminal justice involvement appeared to be dismal.
W ith increased interest and pressure, it is hoped that conditions will eventually
improve. In time, it may be possible to obtain a substantial and complete
source of data that will allow further refinement of these cluster types or
identification of sub-groups within the clusters. Other research could combine
abusers prosecuted under federal legislation, including crimes investigated by
agricultural and wildlife agencies. The inclusion of other cases might increase
group size and affect general assumptions about the prevalence of specific
abuser types, but underlying motivations are expected to endure.
This study has m ade a small contribution to an extremely neglected area.
It is d e a r that aside from anecdotes, there is little substantive knowledge about
animal cruelty. It is therefore strange that the general solutions that are
166
demanded to combat this crime are higher penalties and increased education.
In reviewing the literature, we did not find any studies that evaluated these two
proposed solutions. It would seem that at the very least the identification of
different abuser types is suggestive of different motivations, and hence,
different responses. This is not to say that in the end the best response is
anything other than a criminal justice one, but rather, criminal justice
responses should be adaptive to the problem. Some innovative prisons have
introduced working-dog training programs into their facilities (i.e. Wisconsin
Correction Liberty Dog Program) and these programs offer benefits to both
the community (via a supply of working dogs) and the inmates (psychological
well-being). This creative approach that unifies both animal and offender
should offer possibilities for animal abusers.
Exploring cruelty to animals presented a unique opportunity to observe
human behavior outside of social relationships. It is not surprising that the
clusters that emerged were easily likened to criminological prototypes because
the individuals involved were for the most part consistent in their social or more
precisely anti-social behavior which was often reflected in the treatment of their
pets. The ability of pets to facilitate a psychologically therapeutic experience
has been recognized and used in different settings, yet for many of the
criminologically minded this experience does not appear to occur. The interest
and desire to own a pet suggests that there is some aspect of human potential
that is often not fulfilled by regular human relationships. One could postulate
that while the acquisition of a pet underscores that the need to bond exists in
167
many individuals, the abuser may be unable to translate this need into the
positive experience and attachment that would preclude incidences of injury to
the animal companion.
168
Bibliography
Adams, C. J. (1994a). Neither Man nor Beast. New York: Continuum.
(1994b). Bringing Peace Home: A Feminist Philosophical Perspective

on the Abuse of W omen, Children, and Pet Animals. Hypatia: A Journal
of Feminist Philosophy. 9, 63-84.
Agnew, R. (1998). The Causes of Animal Abuse: A Social-Psychological

TRCNF Analysis. Theoretical Criminology. 2 , 177-209.
Aldenderfer, M„ and Blashfield, R. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Newbury Park:

Sage Publications.
American Veterinary Medical Association. (1992). The Veterinary Service

Market for Companion Animals. Illinois: Schaumberg.
Arkow, P. (1992a). Correlations Between Cruelty to Animals and Child Abuse

and the Implications for Veterinary Medicine. Canadian Veterinary
Journal. 33. 518-21.
. (1992b). Summit on Violence Towards Children and Animals:

Excerpts from the Summit Report. Protecting Children. 9, 6-9.
. (1996). The Relationship Between Animal Abuse and Other Forms of

Family Violence. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin. 12, 29-
34.
Arluke, A. (1996). Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Tem ple University

Press.
Arluke, A. and Carter, L. (1997). Physical Cruelty toward Animals in

Massachussetts, 1975-1996. Society & Animals. 5(3). 195-204.
Arluke, A., Levin, J., Carter, L. and Ascione, F.R. (1999). The Relationship of
Animal Abuse to Violence and other Forms of anti-Social Behavior.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 14(9). 963-975..
. (1998). Battered W om en’s Reports of Their Partners’ and Their

Children’s Cruelty to Animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 1 ,1 1 9 -1 3 3 .
Beime, P. (1995). The Use and Abuse of Animals in Criminology: A Brief

History and Current Review. Social Justice. 2 2 ,5 -3 1 .
169
. (1999). For a Nonspeciest Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object
of Study. Criminology. 37. 117-47.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New

York: American Book-Stratford Press, Inc..
Bisno, J. (1997). Cats in Ancient Egypt. From a lecture presented at Natural

History Museum of Los Angeles Countv. Internet. Retrieved March 13,
2000 from http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/cats/P24/more.htm
Boat, B. (1995). The Relationship Between Violence to Children and Violence

to Animals: An Ignored Link? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 10(2).
228-235.
Carson, G. (1972). Men. Beasts, and Gods: A History of Cruelty and

Kindness to Animals. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Cazaux, G. (1999). Beauty and the Beast: Animal Abuse from a Non-
Speciest Criminological Perspective. Crime. Law and Social Change.
31(12), 105-126.
Climent, D.E. and Ervin, R.R. (1972). Historical Data in the Evaluation of
Violent Subjects: A Hypothesis Generating Study. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 27, 621-624.
Climent, D.E., Rollins, A., Ervin, R.R. and Plutchik, P.D. (1973).
Epidemiological Studies of Women Prisoners I: Medical and Psychiatric
Variables Related to Violent Behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry.
130. 985-990.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated Animals From Early Tim es. Austin:

University of Texas Press.
Collins, E. (October 11, 2000). Man charged in dog cruelty case. The Capital
(Annapolis, MD). Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu:2053/universe.
DeViney, E., Dickert, J., Lockwood, R. (1983). The Care of Pets Within Child
Abusing Families. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems.
4, 321-329.
Egelko, B. (April 12, 2003). Appeal for murder rap in dog-maul case: Attorney
general says judge had no right to let Knoller off so easy. San Francisco
170
Chronide. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, LexisNexis website http://www.lib.jjay.cuny .edu:2053/universe.
Evans, E. P. (1906). The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of

Animals: The Lost History of Europe’s Animal Trials. London: W .
Heinemann.
Favre, D., Tsang, V . (1993). The Development of Anti-Cruelty Laws During

the 1800’s. The Detroit College of Law Review. 1. 1-35.
Felthous, A.. (1980). Aggression Against Cats, Dogs and People. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development. 10. 169-177.
. (1981). Childhood Cruelty to Cats, Dogs and Other Animals. Bulletin

of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. 9(1), 48-53.
. (1984). Psychotic Perceptions of Pet Animals in Defendants

Accused of Violent Crimes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2 ,3 3 1 -
339.
Felthous, A. and Yudowitz, B. (1977). Approaching a Comparative Typology

of Assaultive Fem ale Offenders. Psychiatry. 40(3). 270-276.
Felthous, A., and Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, Firesetting and Cruelty to

Animals: The Significance of Two-Thirds of This Triad. Journal of
Forensic Science. 24. 240-246.
Felthous, A., and Kellert, S. (1986). Violence Against Animals and People:
Is Aggression Against Living Creatures Generalized? Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry & Law. 14(1), 55-69.
. (1987a). Childhood Cruelty to Animals and Later Aggression Against

People: A Review. American Journal of Psychiatry. 144. 710-717.
. (1987b). Psychosocial Aspects of Selecting Animal Species for

Physical Abuse. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 3 2 .1713-1723.
Ferguson, M. (1998). Animal Advocacy and Englishwomen. 1780-1900. Ann

A rbor The University of Michigan Press.
Finsen, L., and Finsen, S. (1994). The Animal Rights Movement in America:
From Compassion to R espect New York: Maxwell MacMillan
International.
Flynn, C. (1999). Exploring the Link between Corporal Punishment and
171
Children’s Cruelty to Animals. Journal of Marriage and the Family.
61(14), 971-981.
Francione, G. (1995). Animals. Property and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple.
. (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?

Philadelphia: Temple.
Frazer, J. (1922). The Golden Bough. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions

Ltd..
Gallup, F. and Beckstead, J. (1988). Attitudes Toward Animal Research.

American Psychologist. 4 3 . 474-476.
Gregg, C. (1985). Plaque: An Ancient Disease in the Twentieth Century (rev,

ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Heath, G., Hardesty, V., and Goldfine, P. (1984). Firesetting, Enuresis, and
Animal Cruelty. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy. 1, 97-
100.
Heilman, D ... and Blackman, N. (1966). Enuresis, Firesetting and Cruelty to

Animals: A Triad Predictive of Adult Crime. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 122. 1431-1435.
Hernandez, N. (February 22, 2001). Trial Delay For Man Accused of Cutting
Dog; Odenton Resident’s Daughter Bitten. The Washington Post.
Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
LexisNexis website http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu:2053/universe.
Hess, E. (1996, August 6). New York’s Secret Animal Shelter System May be
the W orst in the Country. Village Voice, p.27.
Hubbell, S. (2001). Shrinking the C a t Genetic Engineering Before W e Knew

About G enes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hutton, J. (1983). Animal Abuse as a Diagnostic Approach in Social Work: A

Pilot Study. In A . Katcher and A. Becks (Eds.), New Perspectives on
Our Lives with Companion Animals ( p d . 444 -447 ). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hyams, E. (1972). Animals in the Service of M an. New York: J.B. Lippincott
Justice, B., Justice, R., and Kraft, I. (1974). Early Warning Signs of
Violence: Is a Triad Enough? American Journal of Psychiatry. 131, 457-
172
459.
Kellert, S. (1993). Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior Toward Wildlife Among

the Industrial Superpowers: US, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social
Issues. 4 9 . 53-69.
Kellert, S., and Felthous, A. (1985). Childhood Cruelty Toward Animals

Among Criminals and Non-Criminals. Human Relations. 38. 1113-1129.
Kete, K. (1994). The Beast in the Boudoir. Petkeepina in Nineteenth Century

Paris. Berkley: University of California Press.
Kramer, J. and Sprenger, H. (1971). The Malleus Maleficarum. (Rev. M.

Summers, Trans). New York: Dover Publications, Inc. (Original work
published 1486).
Langevin, R., Parich, D., Orchard, B., e ta l. (1983), Childhood and Family
Background of Killers Seen for Psychiatric Assessment: A Controlled
Study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. 11. 331-
341.
Lansbury, C. (1985). The Old Brown Poo: Women. Workers and Vivisection
in Edwardian England. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Lemer, M. (December, January 1999). From Safety to Healing: Representing

Battered Women with Companion Animals. Domestic Violence Report
Lemer, M., and Zorza, J. (Feb/March 1999). W hat Advocates Can Do For
Battered Women with Companion Animals. Domestic Violence Report.
Lewis, D., Shanok, S., Grant,M., e ta l. (1983). Homicidally Aggressive Young

Children: Neuropsychiatric and Experimental Correlates. American
Journal of Psychiatry. 140. 148-153.
Loar, L., and W hite, K. (Summer, 1992). Connections Drawn Between Child
and Animal Victims of Violence. The Latham Letter. 510, 521-524.
Lockwood, R. (1989). Cruelty to Animals and Human Violence. The Training

Key. Arlington: International Association of Chiefs of Police Inc..
. (1999). Animal Cruelty and Violence Against Humans: Making the

Connection. Animal Law. 5, 81-87.
Lockwood, R., and Hodge, G. (Sum m er,1986). The Tangled W eb of Animal

Abuse: The Links between Cruelty to Animals and Human Violence.
173
Humane Society News. 1-6.
Lockwood R., and Church, A. (Fall, 1996). Deadly Serious: An FBI

Perspective on Animal Cruelty. Humane Society News. 1-4.
MacDonald, J. (1963). The Threat to Kill. American Journal of Psychiatry.

120. 125-130.
. (1968). Homicidal Threats. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.
Masson, J., and McCarthy, S. (1995). W hen Elephants W eep. New York:
Delacorte Press.
McClellan, J., Adams, J., Douglas, D., McCurry, C., and Storck, M. (1995).
Clinical Characteristics Related to Severity of Sexual Abuse: A Study of
Seriously Mentally III Youth. Child Abuse & Neglect. 19. 1245-1254.
McDonough, M. (July, 28, 1999). Animal Abuse a Predictor of Domestic

Violence. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.
Mendelson, III, J. (Summer, 1997). Should Animals Have Standing? A

Review of Standing Under the Animal W elfare Act. Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review. Retrieved April 1, 2001, from John
Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
Miller, K., and Knutson, J. (1997). Reports of Severe Physical Punishment

and Exposure to Animal Cruelty by Inmates Convicted of Felonies and by
University Students. Child Abuse and Neglect. 21(1). 59-82.
Morse, M. (1968). Ordeal of the Animals. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Nelson, B. (1997). Criminal Justice Research in Libraries and on the Internet.

Westport: Greenwood Press.
New York City Police Department. (March 14, 2000). Aggravated Cruelty to
Animals. Operations Order No. 19.
Nieves, E. (January 1 8 ,1 9 9 9 ). A Campaign for a No-kill Policy for the

Nation’s Animal Shelters. New York Tim es. Retrieved August 1, 2001,
from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
Norusis, M. (1990). SPSS Base System User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
174
Opotow, S. ((1993). Animals and the Scope of Justice. Journal of Social
Issues. 49. 71-85.
Passariello, P. (1999). M e and My Totem: Cross-cultural attitudes towards

animals. In Francine L. Dolins (Ed.), Attitudes to Animals: Views in
Animal W elfare, (p p . 12-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pious, S. (1993). Psychological Mechanisms in the Human Use of Animals.

Journal of Social Issues. 49. 11-52.
Preece, R., and Chamberlain, L. (1993). Animal W elfare and Human Values.
Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Prentky, R., and Carter, D. (1984). The Predictive Value of the Triad for Sex
Offenders. Behavioral Science and the Law. 2, 341-354.
Rada, R. (1978). Psychological Factors in Rapist Behavior. Clinical Aspects

of the Raoist. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Reitman, J. (1992). Stolen for Profit. New York: Pharos Books.
Ressler, R., Burgess, A., Hartman, C., Douglas, J., and McCormack, A.
(1986). Murderers W ho Rape and Mutilate. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. 1(3), 273-287.
Rigdon, J., and Tapia. F. (1977). Children W ho Are Cruel to Animals - A

Follow-up Study. Journal of Operational Psychiatry. 8, 27-36.
Ritter, A., Jr.. (1996). The Cycle of Violence often begins with Violence
toward Animals. The Prosecutor. 30. 31-33.
Ritvo, H. (987). The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the
Victorian Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Romer, A., and Parsons, T. (1956). The Vertebrate Body. Philadelphia:

Saunders College Publishing.
Roscoe, R., Haney, S., and Peterson, K. (1986). Child/Pet M altreatm ent
Adolescents Ratings of Parent and Owner Behaviors. Adolescence. 21.
807-814.
Rosen, B. (1995). W atch for Pet Abuse - It Might Save Your Client's Life.
Shepard's ElderCare/Law. Newsletter. 5, 1-9.
Sendi, I. And Blomgren, P. (1975). A Comparative Study of Predictive Criteria
175
in the Predisposition of Homicidal Adolescents. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 132. 423-427.
Serpell, J. (1986). In the Company of Animals. New York: Basil Blackwell

Ltd..
Shanok, S., Malani, S., Ninan, P., and (1983). A Comparison of Delinquent
and Non-Delinquent Psychiatric Inpatients. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 140. 582-585.
Sink, L. (October 13, 2000a). Man ordered to pay $7,500 for poisoning
neighbors’ dogs. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1, 2001,
from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
(October 11, 2000b). Dogs’ owner lose ruling: Judge blocks allegation
of emotional distress. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1,
2001, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
(May 19, 1997a). Letters on dogs’ deaths go to court. Animal lovers

appeal to judge to take action against man charged in pet poisoning.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay
College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
(July 30,1997b). Trial begins for man accused of poisoning three dog.
Lawyer for defendant raises possibility of coverup in antifreeze deaths.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay
(July 31, 1997c). Man claimed he has was framed in poisoning of

dogs, officer says. Detective was told charges were neighbor’s
retribution. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
(November 21, 1997). Man’s sentencing in deaths of dogs stirs

emotions. Killing of animals brings calls for jail and for mercy. Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay College of
Sneath, P., and Sokal, R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco:
176
W .H. Freeman and Company.
Sperling, S. (1988). Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. Berkley:

University of California Press.
Stempel, G. (1989). Content Analysis. In G.H. Stempell III and B.H. Westley
(Eds.), Research Methods in Mass Communication. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury

Park:
. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.
Tannenbaum, J. (1995). Animals and the Law: Property, Cruelty, Rights.

Social Research. 62(3). 539-607.
Tapia, F. (1971).Children W ho Are Cruel to Animals. Child Psychiatry and

Human Development. 2, 70-77.
Tingle, D., Barnard, G., Robbins, L., Newman, G., and Hutchinson, D. (1986).
Childhood and Adolescent Characteristics of Pedophiles and Rapists.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 9, 103-116.
Tresi, J. (2002). The Broken Window: Laying Down the Law for Animals.
Southern Illinois Law Journal. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from John Jay
Turner, J. (1980). Reckoning With the Beast. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Varian, B. (October 14, 2000a). Boys accused of beating cat to death. St.
Petersburg Times. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from John Jay College of
(December 2 0 ,2000b). Two young boys apologize for killing

neighbor’s c a t S t Petersburg Times. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, LexisNexis website
Vermeulen, H., and Odendaal. J. (1993). Proposed Typology of Companion
177
Animal Abuse. Anthrozoos. 6, 248-257.
Vila, C., Savolainen, P., Maldonado, J., Amorim, I., Rices, J., Honeycutt, R.,
Crandall, K., Lundegerg, J., and W ayne, R. (1997). Multiple and Ancient
Origins of the Domestic Dog. Science. 276.
W ax, D., and Haddox, V. (1973). Sexual Aberrance in Male Adolescents

Manifesting a Behavioral Trial Considered Predictive of Extreme Violence:
Some Clinical Observations. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 19(1). 102-
108.
W ise, S. (2000) Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights For Animals.
Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Wrangham, R., and Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic Males: Apes and the
Origins of Human Violence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
APPENDIX A
Codebook for cluster analysis
All cases were selected from the results of the search outlined in the
Methods section. For inclusion, the cases had to have independent
corroboration of a cruel act, meaning apprehension by an authoritative body
such as police or humane agents. The following variables are those used for
the cluster analysis. All variables were binary coded as no=0, yes = 1.
A. Demographic Variables
1. MALE = all male Y N

2. FEMALE = all female Y N
3. M IXED = mixed male and fem ale partners Y N
4. SING LE = offender acted alone Y N
5. AGE - 21 years of age and under Y N
* Any missing values coded as over 21
B. Criminal History
6. PRIO R = other violations before current offense Y N

7. CONCURRE = other violations at sam e time Y N
as current animal abuse charge
"Violations can be both prior to and concurrent
with current animal abuse charges
8. SUBSTANC - alcohol or rug charges Y N

9. A N IVIO L = animal abuse charges unrelated Y N
to current incident
10. VIO LEN T = offenses such as domestic violence, Y N
assault robbery, etc.
11. NONVIOL = offenses such as weapons Y N
disharge, loitering, mischief, etc.
C. Victim Characteristics
12. BABY = animal was immature Y N
179
13. OW N = victimized animal belonged to offender Y N
14. KILL = animal was killed as a result of abuse. Y N
Includes cases where animal dies
directly as a result of abuse, but must
excluded cases where animal possible
dies indirectly, I.e. from disease. The
intention to kill the animal is clear.
D. Motivation
15. PROFIT = the animal is almost always a means to Y N

end. Profit is usually monetary but can
be enhancement of reputation. Cruelty
arises when owners do not follow
humane standards of care, which can help
to maximize profits.
16. THRILL = thrill-seeking behaviors that are Y N
designed to relieve boredom, produce
excitement and entertainment. The abuse
occurs concurrently with some event
involving the animal.
17. INDIFF = these abuses are characterized by a Y N
passive neglect, and the abuser has a
marked lack of empathy for the animal.
The abuser’s failure to provide necessities
as medical care and adequate housing
cause suffering.
18. ALTRUI = altruism designates a genuine desire or Y N
compulsion to care for the animals. The
offenders generally has great affection for
the animal and believe that they are
improving the living conditions of the
animals.
19. SUBSTI = substitution of the animal in place of Y N
another person or object results in the
animal as a target for displace anger. The
animal may also be used as a means of
manipulating another person, and is not
the cause of the actions.
20. SELFAB = self-absorption of the offender arose Y N
from some type of personal disaster.
The resulting animal abuse was initially
unintentional, but in the long-term the
offender’s inability to deal with personal
problems resulted in abuse.
21. DEFENS = defense against perceived threat from Y N
180
the animal led to violent actions towards
the animal. The threat may or may not
have been real.
22. ACCIDI = accidental abuse occurred when the Y N
offenders did not exercise sound
judgment in the care of the animals.
The abuse was unintentional and lacked
malice.
23. PUNISH = punishment is a means of teaching the Y N
animal a lesson, but the method is
exaggerated, although it usually stops
short of the death of the animal.
24. RETALI = retaliatory motives arise from the Y N
offender’s need to take revenge because
of the animal’s behavior. The actions are
generally lethal and associated with
extreme rage.
25. DOM INA - dominance defines the offender’s need Y N
to exert control of situations, events or
commonly, his own personal space.
There is no fear of the animal, but the
offender usually feels justified in
maintaining the integrity of his
surroundings.
26. SADISM = sadism is an exaggerated form of Y N
abuse and the pleasure derived is
from the suffering of the animal. It may
or may not be combined with elements
of thrill-seeking, but it is usually the
offender himself, an not some outside
force, who administers the means of
suffering.
27. NONCON = non-conformity expresses the Y N
motivation of the offenders to live
unconventionally. This translates into
signs of illness or neglect arising from
poor nutrition, lack of medical care and
unsanitary conditions. The conditions
are a result of conscious choices and the
offenders share the same conditions as
their animals.
28. SEXUAL = sexual gratification is the motivation Y N
for using animals as a sexual partner.
There is often a belief that the sexual
acts are consensual.
181
E. Secondary motivational factors
29. INSTRU - Instrumental - the abuse is only a Y N

means to an end and the animal being
abused is irrelevant The opposite
would be an expressive act, where
the animal is the focus of the abuse
and there is a high degree of emotion
attached to the actions.
30. CALCUL = Calculated - has a lot of planning Y N
been involved? The opposite would be
an act this is spontaneous and occurs
with little thought and planning.
31. CHRONI = Chronic - has abuse occurred over time Y N
or is it repetitive? The opposite would
be abusive incidents that are isolated,
occurring only once or for a very limited
period of time.
F. Crime/Method
There can be more than one method involved, but usually means the
most predominant method(s).
32. ABANDO = abandon-animals left without care Y N

32. BAIT = animal used for fighting or training Y N
34. BEAT = includes hitting and punching Y N
35. BURN = setting on fire and chemical bums Y N
36. CONFIN = Confine-restrict movement Y N
37. DRAG = securing animal to back of moving vehicle Y N
38. IM PACT = slamming, throwing, using object to hit Y N
39. M U TILA - mutilate-to deface, cut, behead Y N
40. NEGLEC - neglect-lack of sanitation, medicine Y N
41. POISON = antifreeze or other chemicals ingested Y N
42. SHO O T = includes guns, bow and arrow, pellets Y N
43. SLASTA = slash/stab-penetrating or cutting wounds Y N
44. STARVE = lack of food and water with severe effect Y N
45. SUFFHA = suffocation and hanging-incJudes Y N
asphyxiation and overheating/overdriving
182
APPENDIX B
Coding Instructions
Eliciting the true motivation for particular actions can be challenging,
even when the rationale is presented by the actor, but often a rationale has
been presented and this has been used to build a set of indicators. Each
indicator stands alone as a piece of information, and is combined with other
indicators to provide more detail. The following describes additional
information to be used as prompts in the identification of motivations; it is not
necessary to have every descriptor and not every story will carry all these
details, but any one indicator will direct the reader to a particular motivation;
the general content of the story can then be checked against the definitions in
Schedule A to evaluate how well is the fit.
Motivation
PRO FIT
- the animal is used for breeding
- the animal is a purebred or has some
desirable feature such as strength
- there is than more than one animal involved
- animal(s) are in general poor condition
- animals are scarred
- guns/drugs/alcohol are present
• there is more than one person involved in
the action
- animals are often owned by actors
THRILL-SEEKING
- abuse falls into behavioral patterns that are
goal-oriented
183
- abusive action provides entertainment and
alleviates boredom
- confederates are present
- actors are immature
- action is not seen by actors as harmful or
criminal
- guns/drugs/alcohol are used
- animals are often owned by third parties
- abuse revolves around one episodic event
INDIFFERENCE
- animal is thin, poorly groomed or ill
- condition of animal is not due to physical
abuse by owner
- animal belongs to actor
- actor is unconcerned about and unaware of
animal’s condition
- condition of animal has evolved over time
- actor(s) may make up excuses for the
animal’s condition
- animal(s) are (generally) not housed inside
ALTRUISM
- description indicates an emotionally charged
situation
- actor is generally alone
- animals belong to actor, many are/were strays
- actor has made sacrifice for animai(s), such
as being evicted, increased
maintenance, lower living standard
- actor is emotionally attached to animals
- actor does not directly physically harm animal
- conditions are described as unsanitary,
animals are overcrowded or poorly
groomed, sometimes underfed and/or
ill
SUBSTITUTION
- abuse is not attributable to action of animal,
such as disobedience
- abuse is physically damaging
- there is always another actor mentioned, but
not necessarily present
- there is a dispute with another actor
- animal abuse is spontaneous and not chronic
184
or repetitive
- animal is not owned by the actor
- alcohol/drugs are present
SELF-ABSORPTION
- actor has experienced a precipitating event,
i.e. divorce, illness
- abuse is not physical but negligent
- conditions of neglect indicate animal has
suffered over time
- actor may by depressed or physically
compromised, but is not hospitalized
- actor owns the animal
- animal has been previously well cared for
DEFENSE
- there is an injury to a human or another
animal by the (animal) victim
- the animal make threatening gestures
growling, stalking, etc.
- the animal is not owned by actor
- the animal is killed
- the actor uses a weapon
- the animal trespasses onto actor’s property
- the animal is mature
ACCIDENTAL
- injury to animal is unforeseen or unintentional
- actors are remorseful
PU NISH M EN T
- the animal misbehaves in some way
- the animal has not responded to owner’s
commands
- the animal is not killed
- the animal is owned by actor
- there is only one actor present at the time
- the actor views action as appropriate for
training purposes
- the action is meant to discourage a particular
behavior
RETALIATION
- the animal misbehaves
- the actor is highly emotional, angry
185
- the actor is highly emotional, angry
- the animal is killed
- the actor intends to kill, and uses a weapon or
deadly force
- the actor assigns blame to the animal
DOMINANCE
- the actor does not own the animal
- the animal trespasses onto the actor’s
property, actor is offended, not
threatened
- the animal is used to blackmail a third party,
i.e. by threat to the animal, the third
party will be intimidated or “obey” the
actor
- the actor steps in to exterminate an unwanted
animal for others
- the actor’s actions are generally rational and
not emotionally impulsive
SADISM
- the animal is tortured, not killed quickly
- there is no rationalization or justification
provided
- the animal may not be immediately killed, but
will have to be destroyed because of
the severity of the injuries
NONCONFORM ITY
- there are child endangerment charges or
children are removed from the home
- animals are housed inside
- conditions are unsanitary but not life-
threatening
- animals and children may be dirty, unkempt
and neglected
- there is no physical abuse mentioned

- the actors are in an otherwise traditional
family relationship
- there are no other contributors, such as
unemployment or illness, and poor
living conditions appear voluntary
186
SEXUAL
- inappropriate touching of an animal
- intercourse with an animal

Animal PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

ProQuest information and Learning

AND ANIMAL ABUSERS

Gretchen Joy Bickerstaff

Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York

the Requirements for the Degree of

School of Criminal Justice

Ail rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

AND ANIMAL ABUSERS

Gretchen Joy Bickerstaff

made this possible.

It is with great appreciation that I thank the members of my committee:

careful reading of the drafts and valuable comments allowed me to make

measurable improvements in the development and writing. It probably goes

he saw the possibilities long before I ever did.

me. She was always the least surprised at any of my accomplishments.

coder and “administrator”; these generally boring tasks were performed,

surprisingly, without complaint.

The Lure of Animals - Reconciling Indifference and Attachment 4

2. Review of the Literature 33

4.1 Distribution of type and number of animal victimized by offender 80

4.2 Species victimization by gender of offender 82

4.3 Modality of abuse by gender of abuser 84

4.4 Distribution of sentencing alternatives by category of offense 86

4.5 Offender characteristics and criminal activity by gender of abuser 94

4.6 Prior and concurrent charges by gender 96

4.7 Distribution of offender motivation, in rank order 98

4.8 Motivation of offense by gender of offender 103

4.9 Result of cluster analysis 105/106

4.10 Criminal justice disposition by cluster 148/149

and Animal Abusers

Crimes against animals have been consistently neglected within the

discipline of Criminal Justice, yet most states classify these acts as

misdemeanors, or with increasing frequency, as felonies. Lack of response

involving cruelty to animals were collected and subjected to systematic

To this end, a search of electronic and print media of newspaper stories

nationwide was conducted, and patterns of crimes, victims, offenders and

A typology of offender based on motivation was also constructed by performing

a content analysis of newspaper articles for the year 2000.

A total number of 717 cases were retrieved; 591 cases had an

being neglect, baiting, beating, shooting and starving.

from reported accounts. The most common form of sentencing was a

combination of fines, probation and community service. Roughly one-quarter

of offenders were incarcerated, and there was a great degree of variability in

sentences that appeared to be independent of the severity of the crime.

followed by thrill-seeking behaviors. In all, 14 motivations were identified.

These and other select variables were cluster analyzed to arrive at 10

identifiable offender types: Violent Aggressors, Hapless Abusers, Career

Abusers, Disciplinarians, Schemers and Con Artists, Thrill-Seekers, Control

Freaks, Racketeers, Collectors, and Neglectors.

This study was designed to be a comprehensive analysis of the crime of

cruelty to animals and provide exploratory research on the development of an

animal cruelty. Our treatment of animals is of interest because it presents a

chance to study human behavior, specifically criminal behavior, in a unique

such macho imagery; in reality, he was no match for a human opponent. It is

a fitting reminder that acts as distasteful and senseless as the immolation of a

seriousness of a misdemeanor charge, if prosecuted at all. Each state makes

state fluctuations in enforcement lead to a tendency to under-report and under-

emphasize the suffering of these silent victims.

Cruelty to Animals - Measurement and Assessment