Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A documented connection
The Humane Society of the United States
Longitudinal studies show that chronic physical aggression (e.g., animal cruelty) by elementary
school boys increases the likelihood they will commit continued physical violence as well as
other nonviolent forms of delinquency during adolescence.[vi]
A child who abuses animals may also be acting out against violence in his own home.[vii].
Professional intervention can remove a child from a potentially abusive situation and divert him
or her from future abusive behavior.
Experts agree that early prevention and treatment of animal cruelty is the key to stopping the
cycle of violence, because as aggressive children get older, they are less responsive to
therapeutic intervention[viii].
Are there any laws or policies addressing the connection between animal abuse
and other violence?
Several states have cross-reporting laws, which require social workers, veterinarians, or
doctors who encounter suspected child abuse to report it. In San Diego, Calif., social workers
must report suspected cases of animal abuse to animal control officials. [x]
At least 13 states have laws allowing courts to include pets in temporary restraining orders
(TROs) in domestic violence situations.[xi]
At least 28 states have counseling provisions in their animal cruelty laws. Four of these states
require psychological counseling for anyone convicted of animal cruelty, and six
mandate counseling for juveniles convicted of animal cruelty. [xii]
[i] Degenhardt, B. 2005. Statistical Summary of Offenders Charged with Crimes against
Companion Animals July 2001-July 2005. Report from the Chicago Police Department.
[ii] Cohen, W. (1996). Congressional Register, 142(141), Oct. 3.
[iii] Walton-Moss, B. J., Manganello, J., Frye, V., & Campbell, J. C. (2005). "Risk factors for
intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women." Journal of Community
Health, 30(5), 377389.
[iv] DeViney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). "The care of pets within child abusing
families." International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4, 33213329.
[v] Randour, M. L. (2004). "Including animal cruelty as a factor in assessing risk and designing
interventions." Conference Proceedings, Persistently Safe Schools, The National Conference of
the Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, Washington, D.C.
[vi] Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K.,
Fergusson, D., Horwood, J., Loeber, R., Laird, R., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T., Petitt, G. S., &
Vitario, F. (2003). "Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and
adolescent delinquency: A six site cross national replication." Development and
Psychopathology, 39(2), 222245.
[vii] Randour, M. L., & Davidson, H. (2008). A Common Bond: Maltreated Children
andAnimals in the Home: Guidelines for Practice and Policy. The Humane Society of the
United States: Washington, D.C.
[viii] Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct Disorder in Childhood and Adolescence (2nd ed.). Sage:
Thousand Oaks, Calif. and Loeber, R. (1990). "Development and risk factors in juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency." Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 142.
[ix] Arluke, A., & Lockwood, R. (Eds.). (1997). Society & Animals, Special Theme Issue:
Animal Cruelty,5(3). Society & Animals Forum (formerly Psychologists for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals): Washington Grove, Md. 301-963-4751.
[x] The Humane Society of the United States. (2008). First Strike: The Violence Connection.
[xi] Ramsey, S., Randour, M.L., & Gupta, M. (2010). "Protecting Domestic Violence Victims
by Protecting Their Pets." Juvenile and Family Justice Today 19(2), 16-20.
[xii] The Humane Society of the United States, 2008.
Share
Violent acts towards animals have long been recognised as indicators of a dangerous psychopathology that
does not confine itself to animals. "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living
creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives", wrote humanitarian
Dr Albert Schweitzer.
Robert K Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
states, "Murderers ... very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids". Studies have now
convinced sociologists, lawmakers and the courts that acts of cruelty to animals deserve our attention. They
can be the first sign of a dangerous pathology that threatens humans as well.
Animal abuse is not just the result of a minor personality flaw in the abuser but rather a symptom of a deep
mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to
animals don't stop there; many of them move on to their fellow humans.
The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals regularly appears in the backgrounds of serial rapists
and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists
cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.
A study conducted in the US by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA found that people who
abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. The majority of inmates
on death row in California's San Quentin State Prison "practiced" their crimes on animals, according to the
prison's warden.
Notorious Killers
As a child, serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy who was convicted of two murders but was suspected
of actually killing more than 40 women witnessed his father's violence towards animals, and he
himself later tortured animals.
Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped and stabbed a 7-year-old boy, was known in his neighbourhood
for hanging cats and torturing dogs.
David Berkowitz (aka the Son of Sam), who pleaded guilty to 13 murder and attempted murder
charges, once shot a neighbour's Labrador retriever.
Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a California school, killing two children and injuring nine
others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often setting their tails on fire.
Serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of dogs and cats on sticks.
Write to the Minister of Environment and Forests and encourage him to increase the currently
meagre and ineffective penalties for cruelty to animals. When the penalties are increased, police,
animal protection groups and citizens will have more power to stop the senseless animal abuse that
could lead to cruelty to humans:
Mr Jairam Ramesh
Minister of State, Ministry of Environment and Forests
C-1/9, Lodhi Gardens, Rajesh Pilot Marg
New Delhi 110003
24638111, 24632288
Encourage your local police to take cruelty-to-animals cases seriously. In order to motivate police to
take strong action against unlawful cruelty, PETA has prepared a video for them on the unlawful
manner in which some animals are transported and slaughtered. Write to PETA at
PETAIndia@petaindia.org to request a copy to share with your local police department.
Urge your state government and local school to take cruelty to animals seriously. Laws must send a
strong message that violence against any sentient creature human or non-human is unacceptable.
Be aware of signs indicating that children or animals are being abused. Take children seriously when
they report that animals are being neglected or mistreated. Some children won't talk about their own
suffering but will talk about an animal's.
Don't ignore even minor acts of cruelty to animals committed by children. Talk to the child and the
child's parents. If necessary, call a social worker.
Increasingly, child protection and social service agencies, mental health professionals, and
educators recognize that animal abuse is aggressive and antisocial behavior. It is also a reliable
predictor of violence against people after a young abuser grows up.
Children learn about abuse by being its victim. They often fail to develop empathy, and without
this key quality they cannot recognize their victims' pain. When they begin to "act out" their
abuse trauma, children first target animals. As adults, they find new victims among the most
vulnerable--children, partners, and the elderly.
Consider the following facts:
The FBI sees animal cruelty as a predictor of violence against people and considers
past animal abuse when profiling serial killers.
National and state studies have established that from 54 to 71 percent of women
seeking shelter from abuse reported that their partners had threatened, injured or killed
one or more family pets (Anicare Model workshop, Tacoma, 2004. Created in 1999,
the AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse treats people over 17 by bringing
abusers and animals together. A companion program treats children.)
In assessing youth at risk of becoming violent, the U.S. Department of Justice stresses
a history of animal abuse.
More than 80 percent of family members being treated for child abuse also had abused
animals. In two-thirds of these cases, an abusive parent had killed or injured a pet. In
one-third of the cases, a child victim continued the cycle of violence by abusing a pet.
A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and
Northeastern University found that 70 percent of animal abusers had committed at least one
other crime. Almost 40 percent had committed violent crimes against people.
The researchers also compared matched groups of abusers and non-abusers over a 20-year
period. They found the abusers were five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the
non-abusers.
Says Robert Ressler, founder of the FBIs behavioral sciences unit, These are the kids who
never learned its wrong to poke out a puppys eyes. (5)
Notorious Killers
History is replete with notorious examples: Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post
office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to
attack and mutilate them.(6) Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-yearold boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs
rectums and strung up cats.(7) Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing
two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting
their tails on fire.(8) Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler who killed 13 women, trapped
dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.(9) Carroll
Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of
violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.(10) In 1987, three Missouri high school students
were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of
animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats
hed lost count. (11) Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates
that they had decapitated a cat.(12) Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs heads,
frogs, and cats on sticks.(13)
More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and
Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees.(14)
Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12
classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their
friends.(15)
There is a common theme to all of the shootings of recent years, says Dr. Harold S.
Koplewicz, director of the Child Study Center at New York University. You have a child who
has symptoms of aggression toward his peers, an interest in fire, cruelty to animals, social
isolation, and many warning signs that the school has ignored.(16)
Sadly, many of these criminals childhood violence went unexamineduntil it was directed
toward humans. As anthropologist Margaret Mead noted, One of the most dangerous things
that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it.(17)
Animal Cruelty and Family Violence
Because domestic abuse is directed toward the powerless, animal abuse and child abuse often
go hand in hand. Parents who neglect an animals need for proper care or abuse animals may
also abuse or neglect their own children. Some abusive adults who know better than to abuse a
child in public have no such qualms about abusing an animal publicly.
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had
been abused.(18) Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been
identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.(19) In one study of battered
women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners had harmed or killed the animals. One
in four said that she stayed with the batterer because she feared leaving the pet behind.(20)
While animal abuse is an important sign of child abuse, the parent isnt always the one harming
the animal. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home; like their
parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the
only individual in the family more vulnerable than themselves: an animal. One expert says,
Children in violent homes are characterized by frequently participating in pecking-order
battering, in which they may maim or kill an animal. Indeed, domestic violence is the most
common background for childhood cruelty to animals.(21)
Stopping the Cycle of Abuse
There is a consensus of belief among psychologists that cruelty to animals is one of the
best examples of the continuity of psychological disturbances from childhood to adulthood. In
short, a case for the prognostic value of childhood animal cruelty has been well documented,
according to the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.(22)
Schools, parents, communities, and courts who shrug off animal abuse as a minor crime are
ignoring a time bomb. Instead, communities should be aggressively penalizing animal abusers,
examining families for other signs of violence, and requiring intensive counseling for
perpetrators. Communities must recognize that abuse to ANY living individual is unacceptable
and endangers everyone.
In 1993, California became the first state to pass a law requiring animal control officers to
report child abuse. Voluntary abuse-reporting measures are also on the books in Ohio,
Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. Similar legislation has been introduced in Florida. Pet
abuse is a warning sign of abuse to the two-legged members of the family, says the bills
sponsor, Representative Steve Effman. We cant afford to ignore the connection any
longer.(23)
Additionally, children should be taught to care for and respect animals in their own right. After
extensive study of the links between animal abuse and human abuse, two experts concluded,
The evolution of a more gentle and benign relationship in human society might, thus, be
enhanced by our promotion of a more positive and nurturing ethic between children and
animals.(24)
What You Can Do:
Urge your local school and judicial systems to take cruelty to animals seriously. Laws must
send a strong message that violence against any feeling creaturehuman or other-than-human
is unacceptable.
Be aware of signs of neglect or abuse in children and animals. Take children seriously if they
report animals being neglected or mistreated. Some children wont talk about their own
suffering but will talk about an animals.
Dont ignore even minor acts of cruelty to animals by children. Talk to the child and the childs
parents. If necessary, call a social worker.
References
1. Daniel Goleman, Childs Love of Cruelty May Hint at the Future Killer, The New York
Times, 7 Aug. 1991.
2. Animal Abuse Forecast of Violence, New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1 Jan. 1987.
3. Alan R. Felthous, Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People, Child Psychiatry and
Human
Development, 10 (1980), 169-177.
4. Goleman.
5. Robert Ressler, quoted in Animal Cruelty May Be a Warning, Washington Times, 23 June
1998.
6. International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Training Key, No. 392, 1989.
Animal cruelty has no place in a civilized society. Numerous studies have shown that people
who abuse animals often escalate to violence against people. Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Boston
Strangler DeSalvo, Ted Bundy, David Son of Sam Berkowitz and Ted Unabomber
Kaczynski all had a history of torturing animals.
In addition, other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling,
drug trafficking and acts of human violence. Virtually every arrest for animal cruelty has also
led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities. Moreover, gratuitous
cruelty toward animals dehumanizes all of us and is simply wrong.
This is not a First Amendment issue; this is a law enforcement issue. The FBI, U.S. Department
of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early
warning signs of potential violence by youths.
That is why 26 state attorneys general have asked the high court to uphold the law. None have
opposed it.
Karen Stephenson
1 Comments
Join the Conversation
Motivations
In 1985, researchers Stephen Kellert and Alan Felthous, extensively studied the animal abuse
phenomenon. They discovered several motivations that helped to characterize animal cruelty in
adults, many of which are applicable to youth who abuse animals. Some motivations are:
Ads by Google
Ford B-Max Drive Test Testeaza-i Puterile si Confortul ! B-Max a Primit 5* la Testele NCAP.
www.ford.ro/B-Max
Te ingrasi la loc? pentru ca nu tii cont de trupul tau Nu-ti neglija grupa sanguina!
www.biorhesus.ro
Controlling an animal through inflicting pain as a result of the sense of loss of full
control in one's own life. (Physically abused by parents.)
Case reports and a youth interview study conducted by researchers Frank Ascione, T.
Thompson and T. Black suggest a number of developmentally related motivations such as:
Peer pressure
Forced abuse (child is forced into animal abuse by a more powerful individual).
Animal phobias.
Kellert and Felthous found that family violence, particularly alcoholism and paternal abuse,
were significantly more common among aggressive criminals with a history of childhood
cruelty toward animals. This connects with statistical information from animal control agencies
in the United States. They say that 80% of homes in which animal control agencies found
abused pets, there had been investigations by child welfare agencies due to reports of physical
abuse and neglect.
FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley was quoted as saying Animal cruelty is not a
harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; this is a warning sign. There are deep
psychological issues that lead to violent crimes against people.
Dr. Randall Lockwood, who earned a doctorate in psychology and is senior vice president for
anti-cruelty and training for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says
that children and adolescents who are abusive to animals is often acting out violence
experienced or witnessed in their home. Aggressive individuals usually become that way
because of a real or perceived injustice.
Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berowitz, Ted Bundy, all sadistically tortured animals in their childhood.
Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killed two students and injured nine
other children. When she was young, she had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting
their tails on fire.
Prevention
Like child and spousal abuse, this is a highly problematic issue that sadly, will not go away for
a long time. Being proactive is something everyone can do. Volunteer time, or donate to your
locate Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a start.
If you see an act of violence against any animal, report it to both the local S.P.C.A. and to the
police. If you know of or suspect there is violence in a neighbor's home or a child is being
abused, the perpetrator could be a future violent criminal. It's a moral and civic duty to report
these situations to local child welfare agencies.
If everyone does a little, changes can happen.
Read more at Suite101: Aggression and Animal Abuse: Violence against Animals is Linked to
Family Turmoil | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/aggression-and-animal-abusea102429#ixzz26p0Da0e0
According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to
commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes
than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have
demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of
serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s,
when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals
as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators
of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In
fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic
criteria of conduct disorder.
If you break it down to its bare essentials:
"Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the
torture of a victim they know cannot defend itself."
Now break down a human crime, say rape. If we substitute a few pronouns, it's the SAME
THING.
"Rape is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim
they know cannot defend themselves."
Now try it with, say, domestic abuse such as child abuse or spousal abuse:
"Child abuse is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a
victim they know cannot defend themselves."
Do you see the pattern here?
The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable of committing human abuse is
much finer than most people care to consider. People abuse animals for the same reasons they
abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue
on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.
Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past, and since
there's no way to know which animal abuser is going to continue on to commit violent human
crimes, they should ALL be taken that seriously. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley
was quoted as saying "Animal cruelty... is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy
individual; this is a warning sign..." It should be looked at as exactly that. Its a clear indicator
of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes.
Dr. Randall Lockwood, who has a doctorate in psychology and is senior vice president for
anti-cruelty initiatives and training for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, states "A kid who is abusive to a pet is quite often acting out violence directly
experienced or witnessed in the home," Lockwood said, adding that about one-third of
children who are exposed to family violence will act out this violence, often against their own
pets.
Others either abuse pets or threaten to abuse them as a way to control an individual.
"So much of animal cruelty... is really about power or control," Lockwood said. Often,
aggression starts with a real or perceived injustice. The person feels powerless and develops a
warped sense of self-respect. Eventually they feel strong only by being able to dominate a
person or animal.
Sometimes, young children and those with developmental disabilities who harm animals don't
understand what they're doing, Lockwood said. And animal hoarding - the practice of keeping
dozens of animals in deplorable conditions - often is a symptom of a greater mental illness,
such as obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Just as in situations of other types of abuse, a victim of abuse often becomes a perpetrator.
According to Lockwood, when women abuse animals, they "almost always have a history of
victimization themselves. That's where a lot of that rage comes from."
In domestic violence situations, women are often afraid to leave the home out of fear the
abuser will harm the family pet, which has lead to the creation of Animal Safehouse programs,
which provide foster care for the pets of victims in domestic violence situations, empowering
them to leave the abusive situation and get help.
Whether a teenager shoots a cat without provocation or an elderly woman is hoarding 200 cats
in her home, "both are exhibiting mental health issues... but need very different kinds of
attention," Lockwood said.
Those who abuse animals for no obvious reason, Lockwood said, are "budding psychopaths."
They have no empathy and only see the world as what it's going to do for them.
History is full of high-profile examples of this connection:
Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post office and then shot himself, had a
history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to attack and mutilate them.
Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been
widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs? rectums
and strung up cats.
Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing two children and
injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on
fire.
Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats
in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.
Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused,
said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.
In 1987, three Missouri high school students were charged with the beating death of a
classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of animal mutilation starting several
years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats he?d lost count. Two
brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had
decapitated a cat.
Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs? heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.
More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and
Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees.
Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12
classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their
friends.
As powerful a statement as the high-profile examples above make, they don't even begin to
scratch the surface of the whole truth behind the abuse connection. Learning more about
the animal cruelty/interpersonal violence connection is vital for community members and
law enforcement alike.
Related Links (Off-site links open in a new window)
The Whole Picture
Pet-Abuse.Com Cruelty Connection Cases
American Humane: The Link
NCPC: Screening Animal Cruelty Cases for Domestic Violence
Factors in the Assessment of Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty
First Strike: The Connection Between Animal Cruelty and Human Violence
HSUS: Animal SafeHaven Directory
Society & Animals Forum: Articles on the Link
The Abuse of Animals and Domestic Violence
Battered Women's Reports of Their Partners' and Their Children's Cruelty to Animals
Animal Welfare and Domestic Violence
The Latham Foundation for the Promotion of Humane Education
Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime
Bibliography of Materials about Animal Abuse, Child Abuse and Domestic Violence
Read more: Abuse Connection - The Link Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence
There are many different reasons why individuals abuse animals. Animal cruelty covers a wide
range of actions (or lack of action), so one blanket answer simply isn't possible. Each type of
abuse has displayed certain patterns of behavior that we can use to help understand
more about why people commit the crimes we encounter today.
Animal cruelty is often broken down into two main categories: active and passive,
also referred to as commission and omission, respectively.
The fact is that the serial killer examples are only the ones that are sensational enough to make
the news. These are the high-profile cases that some animal welfare organizations use to drive
their point home, but the reality is that this pattern has shown itself over and over again in
much less "news-worthy" cases. One might argue that they in fact, lessen the impact, because it
makes this connection appear to be something that only exists in serial killers and "psychos",
when in fact its very likely that everyone reading these words knows someone who has abused
animals.
Surely you know at least one person who suffers from child-abuse, or is beaten by their
spouse...
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the
home had been abused.
Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been identified
by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.
In one study of battered women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners
had harmed or killed the animals. One in four said that she stayed with the batterer
because she feared leaving the pet behind.
Because the household pet is often used as a control device to keep the abused from seeking
help, some shelters have developed programs to assist in these situations. Programs like
Rancho Coastal Humane Society's Animal Safehouse Program allows victims to leave their
animals in foster care while they seek medical attention, counseling and help. For a national
listing of Animal Safehouse/Safe Haven organizations, visit the HSUS Safe Haven Directory.
victims? response (e.g. beating, strangling, crushing, hanging, stabbing) may be a more serious
indicator than actions that are more remote (e.g. shooting, poisoning, vehicular injury).
8. Victim(s) is bound or otherwise physically incapacitated
Abuse that includes binding, tying, securing with duct tape, confining in a box or bag or
otherwise rendering the animal incapable of escape (e.g. crippling) is suggestive of a higher
degree of intentional, premeditated violence.
9. Use of fire
A large body of criminological and psychological literature points out the connection between
animal cruelty and arson as significant predictors of violent and even homicidal behavior. The
combination of these factors, i.e. the intentional burning of a live animal should be considered
particularly significant as an indicator of the potential for other violent acts.
10. Duration of abuse
Acts of prolonged maltreatment (e.g. torture) rather than sudden or instantaneous death are
more indicative of potential for repeated violence against others
11. Degree of pre-planning or premeditation
Acts that were premeditated rather than reactive or opportunistic and which involved
assembling tools or instruments of injury are more suggestive of high risk. Very long term
planning (e.g. several days or weeks) suggests possibility of psychopathic thought processes as
contributing factor.
12. Act involved overcoming obstacles to initiate or complete the abuse
Abuse that involves risk or effort (e.g. climbing barrier, breaking and entering, etc.) or pursuit
of a victim that escapes initial attack, is indicative of highly motivated violent behavior and thus
should be considered an indicator of greater risk for future violence.
13. Act was committed with high risk of detection or observation
Animal cruelty that is perpetrated in public or with high probability of detection should be
considered indicative of low concern for consequences of the perpetrator? s acts, and thus an
indicator of risk for other violence.
14. Other illegal acts were committed at the scene of the animal cruelty
Personal and property crimes occurring in conjunction with the commission of animal cruelty,
(e.g. vandalism, theft, threats to assault on owner or witness) should be considered indicative
of higher risk for other violent and/or criminal acts.
15. Individual was the instigator of an act involving multiple perpetrators
Although the perpetration of many acts of violence may be more likely in a group setting,
particular attention should be paid to instigators of such group violence against animals.
16. Animal cruelty was used to threaten, intimidate or coerce a human victim
Killing or injuring animals to exercise control or threats over others, especially those
emotionally attached to those animals, should already be considered a form of emotional abuse
and a behavior that, by definition, already involves violence against people.
17. Act of animal cruelty was indicative of hypersensitivity to real or perceived threats or
slights
Violent perpetrators often misread cues and intentions of others as indicative of threats, taunts,
etc. Acts of violence against animals conducted with this motivation can be considered
indicative of a high-risk response to social problems.
to gain feelings of power, control and domination - or to alarm or intimidate others. This
should be considered a serious warning sign of potential for escalated or repeated violence.
28. Animal cruelty was accompanied by ritualistic or "satanic" actions
Animal cruelty accompanied by "satanic" or other ritualistic trappings suggests an active effort
to reject societal norms or attempts to seek power and control through magical? thought
processes, which may escalate to fascination with the application of such ritual to human
victims.
29. Act of abuse involved staging or reenactment of themes from media or fantasy
sources
The reenactment of cruelty to animals in ways the perpetrator has been exposed to through
media or fantasy sources (including video games) can be indicative of weak reality testing and
a greater likelihood of copying other media portrayals of violent acts against human victims.
30. Perpetrator reportedly experienced altered consciousness during the violent act
Acts that are accompanied by blackouts, blanking, de-realization or depersonalization should
be considered indicative of thought disorders that could contribute to acts of violence against
human victims.
31. Perpetrator reportedly experienced strong positive affective changes during the
violent act
Violent or destructive acts that are reportedly accompanied by strong positive affect (laughter,
descriptions of a rush, exclamations of generalized or sexual excitement) indicate that
such violence is being strongly reinforced and is likely to be repeated and/or escalate.
32. Perpetrator lacks insight into cause or motivation of the animal abuse
Repeat violent offenders often display little or no insight into the motivation of their violent
acts.
33. Perpetrator sees himself as the victim in this event and/or projects blame onto others
including the animal victim
Repeat offenders and those resistant to intervention are less likely to take responsibility for
their actions and often offer self-serving, fanciful or bizarre justifications for their actions.
Last revision November 17, 2003. Reproduced with permission.
Read more: Factors in the Assessment of Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty |
Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database http://www.petabuse.com/pages/abuse_connection/risk_assessment.php#ixzz26p1MGfF4
Overview
An earlier paper (Ascione, 1993) outlined a series of issues that pertain to the development of
cruelty toward animals in childhood and adolescence, using the following definition of cruelty:
"...socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or
distress to and/or death of an animal..." (p. 228). Case examples from the early psychoanalytic
literature were reviewed as well as primarily retrospective research from forensic psychiatry
and sociology linking childhood histories of animal abuse with contemporary patterns of
criminal violence. One of the watershed events for research in this area was the inclusion of
"cruelty to animals" among the symptoms of Conduct Disorder in children and adolescents in
major psychiatric diagnostic manuals (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; 1994). Conduct
Disorder represents a pattern of antisocial behavior that can persist into adulthood.
Research examples included the association of animal maltreatment with cases of child physical
abuse, the sexual abuse of children, and partner battering or domestic violence. Follow-up
work by colleagues and the present authors has included the design and field testing of a
questionnaire for assessing children and adolescents' histories of animal abuse (Ascione,
Thompson, & Black, in press) and a survey on animal maltreatment for use with women who
have been battered (Ascione, in press; Ascione & Weber, 1995)
Since this review, there has been a number of publications attempting to raise the
consciousness of the child welfare community (Boat, 1995) and the veterinary profession
(Arkow, 1994; Munro, 1996) about the need to attend to the maltreatment of animals.
However, similar advances are only beginning within the community of professionals who deal
with domestic violence.
combination that may compound these children's trauma and contribute to their psychological
maltreatment. It should be noted that children in such homes are at heightened risk for being
abused themselves. Witnessing parent and pet abuse may compromise children's psychological
adjustment, increase their propensity for interpersonal violence (via observational learning
and/or identification with the aggressor), and make children's cruelty to animals more likely to
emerge as a symptom of their distress.
violence and animal maltreatment, whether women and children coming to shelters mention pet
abuse, and whether shelters routinely collect information about the abuse of pets in their intake
protocol. If shelters collected such information, we asked about the type of information
gathered.
Method
Sampling Procedure
We obtained the most recent edition (1994) of the National Directory of Domestic Violence
Programs compiled by the National Coalition against Domestic Violence (NCADV). The
directory contains state-by-state information as well as information from Washington, D.C.,
Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands, derived from a survey conducted by the Coalition.
The number of programs listed for each state ranged from 4 (Delaware) to 120 (New York).
We elected not to include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in our sampling.
The directory lists 16 potential service categories for each program, three of which were
relevant for the current study. These were: "SHELTER - Residential facility for battered
women and their children . .. CHILDREN'S COUNSELING/PROGRAMS - One or more of
the various services provided for children of battered women ranging from counseling, to
advocacy, recreational activities, and a structured children's program ... SHELTER CAPACITY
- The number of women and children who can be sheltered at any one time" (NCADV, 1994,
Directory definitions, unpaginated).
We selected one shelter from each state (excluding Utah) and the District of Columbia using
the following criteria: the facility had to provide overnight (residential) accommodations,
indicate that children's counseling or programs were available, and be the largest shelter in the
state based on "shelter capacity" as defined above. In most cases, we selected the shelter
located in a major, well-known city.
Instrument
We developed a simple, one-page questionnaire with seven items and space for open-ended
comments since we were aware of the premium on time for most shelter personnel. The exact
wording of each item will be provided in the results section but, briefly, the questionnaire asked
about the number of clients served in a six-month period, whether women or children coming
to the shelter mentioned pet abuse, and whether the respondents had noted the coexistence of
domestic violence and pet abuse and, if so, their estimate of the extent of overlap between
these forms of violence. We also asked whether a question about pet abuse was included in the
shelter's intake interview.
A cover letter describing the project as a study of the "relation between domestic violence
toward women and children and abuse of pets" was attached to the questionnaire together with
a stamped, addressed return envelope. The study protocol, letter, and questionnaire were
approved by Utah State University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects
Research and a copy of the IRB approval was included in the mailing.
Survey Procedure
After an initial mailing, a second mailing was made to sites that had not responded. Following
two mailings, shelters were contacted by phone and the questionnaire was administered as an
interview (for those sites that agreed to participate). Respondents primarily were shelter
directors and front line staff having direct contact with clients.
Results
Our survey of 50 shelter programs yielded responses from 48, representing a 96% response
rate. One program did not respond despite repeated phone calls and one declined participation
due to time constraints.
We asked shelters to indicate the number of women who stayed in their facility at least one
night during the period November 1, 1995 to May 1, 1996. Estimates were provided by 87.5%
of the shelters with 12.5% either unable to provide an estimate or leaving this item blank. For
the 42 shelters completing this item, the number of women staying overnight during the sixmonth period ranged from 34 to 600 with a mean of 186.
One of the questions we asked (see Table I for a summary of results) was, "Do women who
come into your shelter talk about incidents of pet abuse?" An affirmative response was given by
85.4% of the shelters. In response to the question, "Do children who come in to your shelter
talk about incidents of pet abuse?" 63% of the 46 shelters that completed this item said "Yes."
"Yes"
Do women who come into your shelter talk about incidents of pet abuse?
85.4%
Do children who come into your shelter talk about incidents of pet abuse?
63.0%
83.3%
27.1%
We also asked respondents, "In your experience with shelters, have you observed the
coexistence of domestic violence and pet abuse?" 83.3% percent of the shelters responded
affirmatively. When asked, "What is your best estimate of the percentage of homes where
domestic violence and pet abuse coexist?" 50% of the shelters provided estimates (the
remaining shelters either entered a question mark or left this item blank). Estimates ranged
from less than 1% to 85% with a mean estimate of 44% coexistence of domestic violence and
pet abuse. In response to the question, "Do you have any questions in your intake interview
concerning pets?", 27.1 % responded "Yes." (Estimates of percent coexistence were unrelated
to whether shelters had a question about pets in their intake interview.) Of the 13 shelters
responding affirmatively, 12 responded to a follow-up question about the type of questions
asked during intakes. A sampling of responses included:
"Has he threatened to hurt you, your family, your pets or favorite belongings of yours?"
"In a section called 'History of Abuse' we ask if they've experienced pet abuse."
"Has there been physical destruction of property/pets? Where are pets? Do you have a
safe place to keep them?"
Finally, we asked respondents if they wished to receive a brief summary of the study when it
was completed. This item was left blank by 46%, 42% requested a copy, and 12% said "No."
Discussion
Before discussing the results of this study, a few caveats are in order. There are hundreds of
domestic-violence programs throughout the United Stateswe sampled only 50 of these
which met our selection criteria. Therefore, caution should be exercised in generalizing our
results to all shelters. Since we selected the shelter with the largest capacity in each state, we
probably excluded shelters serving primarily rural communities where farm and wild animal
abuse may occur, another factor limiting generalization. Finally, a survey of nonresidential
domestic violence programs and shelters that do not provide children's services would be
valuable as a comparison for the data we obtained.
The overwhelming majority of shelters we surveyed indicated that women seeking shelter
mention experiences of pet abuse. A smaller but still substantial majority also reported that
children have shared instances when pets have been abused in their homes. If in fact, shelters
reporting that children talked about pet abuse always reported that women discussed pet abuse
as well. Despite the fact that 40 of the 48 shelters believed that domestic violence and pet
abuse coexist, only 13 shelters specifically assess this issue in their intake interview. Some
factors that may account for the discrepancy between awareness of the link between animal
maltreatment and domestic violence and the apparent failure to explore the link with shelter
clients include the limited time that shelter staff can devote to intake processes and uncertainty
about how to deal with animal welfare issues that might arise. In the remainder of this
discussion, we explore issues that may be valuable to consider as collaborative programs
between domestic violence services and animal welfare organizations continue to evolve.
If animal shelter records are open to public access, could a perpetrator locate his
partner by asking to see these records?
If a pet is jointly owned by a perpetrator and his partner, how would the shelter
respond to the perpetrator's request (demand?) to claim "his" pet?
Women's stays at shelters are sometimes lengthywho bears the cost of animal
caretaking during this period?
If a woman chooses to return home to her partner after a shelter stay and wants to
reclaim her pet, what steps could be taken to enhance the pet's welfare in such a
potentially violent environment?
Perpetrators may at times give their partners pets as gifts (e.g., during the forgiveness
phase of the cycle of domestic violence). If a pet is sought from an animal shelter, could
the adopter's background regarding domestic violence be checked?
Would an animal shelter allow visitations with a boarded pet by a woman and her
children while they lived away from home? Would this aid or interfere with the pet's
adjustment to separation?
If a woman elects to place a pet up for adoption because she can no longer care for it
or fears for the pet's safety if brought home, must she obtain her partner's permission?
If a pet's injuries stemming from abuse necessitate euthanasia, what steps can be taken
to minimize the trauma of losing the pet for women and children?
Are shelters equipped to deal with a woman's concern for the welfare of farm animals,
who can be targets of abuse in domestic violence situations in rural communities, while
she is away from home?
Effective collaboration between domestic violence services and animal welfare programs will
require grappling with issues like these and no doubt other legal and ethical dilemmas arising
from attempts to keep women and their pets safe.
Animals can help children learn empathy, nonabusive touch, facilitate disclosure about
frightening family events, and even be a source of support during court testimony.
However, if a symptom of a child's trauma is the child's own abuse of animals, how
does one effectively intervene? How would one tailor interventions to children's and
adolescents' developmental levels?
What are the most effective ways of dealing with the separation, grief, and loss issues
for children who have lost contact with their pets or seen them destroyed? Both women
and children may identify the abuse and killing of pets with their own vulnerability.
Are clinicians alert to the possibility that child witnesses of violence and child victims of
physical and sexual abuse may display behavioral disorders that include sexual acting
out with animals or the use of animals as "instruments" for engaging in self-injurious
behavior (e.g., agitating a cat to the point where it scratches the child's limbs)?
Are battered women in domestic violence shelters forced to chose between their personal
safety and that of the pets they left behind when they fled? What policies and procedures do
enlightened shelters employ to deal with the issue of pet abuse by batterers as a means of
manipulation? What assistance can be provided? What are the psychological ramifications of
pet abuse in a domestic violence context? Dr. Frank Ascione provides the answers in Safe
Havens for Pets: Guidelines for Programs Sheltering Pets for Women Who Are Battered. This
vital work is available FREE thanks to funding from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.
Click here for all the details. This book is must reading for every domestic violence worker,
advocate, student, and supporter.
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of
normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46(l, Serial No. 18 8).
Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, H. C., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey of problems and
competencies among four to sixteen-year-olds. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
56(Serial No. 225).
American Psychiatric Association. (I 987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed. rev.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (I 994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Arkow, P. (I 996). The relationship between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Family Violence
& Sexual Assault Bulletin, 12(1-2), 29-34.
Ascione, F. R. (in press). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals.
Journal of emotional Abuse.
Ascione, F. R. (I 993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for
developmental psychopathology. Anthrozods, 5(4), 226-247.
Ascione, F. R. (I 992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of animals: Generalization to
human-directed empathy. Anthrozo6s, 5, 176-19 1.
Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (in press). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty
dimensions and motivations. Anthrozo6s.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Battered partner shelter survey (BPSS). Logan: Utah State University.
Ascione, F. R., Weber, C., Thompson, T. M., & Wood, D. (in preparation). Pet abuse experiences: Women who
are battered and a comparison sample of women without battering experience.
Axtell, J. L. (1968). The educational writings of John Locke. Cambridge: University Press.
Berrios, G. E. (I 996). The history of mental symptoms. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Boat, B. (I 995). The relationship between violence to children and violence to animals: An ignored link?
Journal of interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 229-235.
Browne, A. (I 993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes, and policy implications.
American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.
Jaffe, P. G., & Sudermann, M. (I 995). Child witnesses of woman abuse: Research and community responses. In
S. A. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Families in Focus Series, Vol. II. Understanding Partner Violence:
Prevalence, causes, consequences, and solutions (pp. 213-222). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family
Relations.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., & Mahoney, A. (I 996). Physical violence and
other forms of marital aggression: Links with children's behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology,
10(2),223-234.
McNulty, F. (1989). The Burning Bed, New York: Avon Books.
Munro, H. (I 996). Battered pets. Irish Veterinary Journal, 49, 712-713.
Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The invisible victims. Social Policy Report:
Society for Research in Child Development, 9(3), 1-16.
Pinel, P. (1 809). Traiti Midico-Philosophique de la Alijnation Mentale (2nd ed.). Paris: Brosson.
Shesgreen, S. (Ed.) (I 973). Engravings by Hogarth (Plates 77-79). New York: Dover Publications.
Andrew Vachss and The Zero would like to congratulate Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., on his receipt of the 2001
Distinguished Scholar Award from the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations
and the International Society for Anthrozoology. We have been honored to feature Dr. Ascione's work
regarding the links between personal violence and animal cruelty on the website, and add our respect to that
of the Society's.
Pets were terribly important to her; they were her only source of comfort and affection. One
afternoon, Billy said he had had it with her damn cats and started screaming that he was going
to kill them. Kim didn't take it too seriously. (Browne, 1987, p. 154)
. . . Aubrey got angry with the family dog for straying outside their yard. He loaded one of his
nine guns, then shot and killed it. The kids began to sob, devastated. He grabbed (one child's)
hair . . . slapped another of the kids, then began crying himself. Joyce tried to comfort them all.
But her feelings of anger were mixed with genuine terror: in a moment of rage, she knew,
Aubrey could kill any one of them and cry about it afterward. (Walker, 1989, pp. 20-21)
These examples associating partner abuse with cruelty to animals and, in one case, child
maltreatment are but two of the many anecdotal references to the abuse of animals in the
literature on domestic violence (Adams, 1994). Following an analysis of existing research and
policy issues relevant for understanding the relation between domestic violence and animal
maltreatment, the results of a small-scale descriptive study of the prevalence of animal cruelty
experiences in a shelter sample of battered women are reported. Implications for future
research and for the well-being of women and children experiencing family violence are then
discussed.
actual killing or injuring a pet." However, another dangerousness assessment inventory does
not mention animal maltreatment in any form (Stuart & Campbell, 1989).
Children's Abuse of Animals
The literature on the effects of exposure to domestic violence on children's mental health has
been recently reviewed by Jaffe and Sudermann (1995) who note the complexity and variability
of such effects from one study to another. Cruelty to animals as a childhood reaction to
exposure to domestic violence has not been directly explored. Suggestive information,
however, can be derived from studies of children of battered women in which externalizing
problems and/or conduct disorder symptoms are examined [since the 1987 revision, both the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition revised) and the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) (American Psychiatric
Association 1987, 1994) include physical cruelty to animals as a symptom of Conduct
Disorder].
One recent study that included a sample of both sheltered and community battered women and
their 6-12 year old children found that domestic violence was related to ". . . children's general
psychopathology . . ." (McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995). The authors report that
women's partners' hurting or killing pets did load (albeit, at a low level) on a factor labeled,
"escalated aggression," a factor that included other severe forms of threatened or actual
interpersonal aggression. Other studies have also found a relationship between observing
domestic violence and externalizing psychological symptoms both in preschool-age children at
a shelter or residing at home (Fantuzzo et al., 1991) and in an older (8-12 year old) sample of
Israeli children living at home (Sternberg et al., 1993). However, it is unclear how often
externalizing symptomatology manifests itself in the form of cruelty to animals since reports
rarely describe, understandably, results for individual items on assessment inventories. It should
also be noted that in Sternberg et al.'s study, and in a similar study with a shelter sample
(O'Keefe, 1995), child outcomes may vary depending on whether the child was physically
abused in addition to being exposed to partner abuse.
Given the recent upsurge in concern with the deleterious effects of community or
neighborhood violence on children (e.g. Taylor, Zuckerman, Harik, and Groves, 1994), it is
appropriate that greater attention be given to violence that is perhaps even less escapable for
children: violence among family members in one's home. This issue is receiving cross-cultural
and international attention (Levinson, 1989; Patrignani & Belle, 1995). However, examination
of the confluence of partner abuse, child abuse, and the maltreatment of animals is in its
infancy. Greater attention is being given, at a national policy level, to the overlap between
partner abuse of women and child maltreatment (Ascione, 1995; Dykstra, 1995; Koss et al.,
1994; Schecter & Edelson, 1995), and between the abuse of children and violence toward
animals (American Humane Association, 1995; Deviney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). The
associations among all three types of domestic violence (which may also include sibling abuse:
Suh & Abel, 1990; Wiehe, 1990; and elder abuse: Rosen, 1995) are only beginning to be
explored (e.g., Arkow, 1995). For example, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse have been
noted by Wiehe and Herring (19913 as components of sibling abuse. In the area of emotional
abuse, these authors explicitly include the torture or destruction of a pet as one form of
psychological maltreatment. One can only speculate if siblings, in some cases, may abuse
animals as a result of observing similar abuse performed by batterers.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study included determining: (1) the prevalence of pet ownership
in a sample of women entering a shelter for battered partners in northern Utah, (2) the
prevalence of threatened and/or actual harm to pets by the women's partners, and (3) evidence
for animal maltreatment by the women's children. In addition to quantitative information,
qualitative information on the types of animal maltreatment described were examined. Ways
that information about cruelty to animals could assist professionals who serve families
experiencing domestic violence and who address animal welfare are also examined.
METHOD
Sample
Thirty-eight women seeking in-house services (as distinct from crisis telephone services) at a
shelter for battered partners in northern Utah agreed to be interviewed by shelter staff about
their experiences with maltreatment of pets (in a 1990 report, Rollins and Oheneba-Sakyi
found Utah spouse abuse prevalence to be comparable to national estimates). The women
ranged in age from 20 to 51 years (mean age = 30.2) and reported the following marital status:
married-57%, separated-3%, divorced-8% and single-32%. This was the first visit to the
shelter for 54% of the women; the remaining women reported an average of 1.9 prior visits
(range 1-6). For the 58% of women with children, the mean number of children was 2.8 (range
1-8) and their ages ranged from 8 months to 20 years.
Procedures
Women were interviewed by shelter personnel within a few days of their entry into the shelter
and after the initial crisis circumstances had subsided. It was stressed that participation was
confidential (only shelter staff would know participants' identities) and voluntary, and that
decisions to agree to or refuse participation would not affect shelter services. None of the
women approached declined participation.
The interview used an early version of the Battered Partner Shelter Survey (BPSS - Pet
Maltreatment Assessment (Ascione & Weber, 1995). Given the stress associated with entering
a shelter, the number of questions was kept to a minimum. Interviewers did report, however,
that many of the women were appreciative that someone had finally asked them about concerns
they had for their pets.
The BPSS included the following questions:
Have you had a pet animal or animals in the past 12 months? If yes, what kinds?
Has your partner ever hurt or killed one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Has your partner ever threatened to hurt or kill one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Have you ever hurt or killed one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Have any of your children ever hurt or killed one of your pets (if client has children)? If
yes, describe.
Did concern over your pet's welfare keep you from coming to this shelter sooner than
now? If yes, explain.
Completed BPSS forms were coded by shelter staff and then provided to the author for
tabulation and analysis. Shelter staff also provided aggregate information on participants'
marital status, presence and number of children, and women's reports of prior visits to the
shelter.
RESULTS
Seventy-four percent of the women reported current pet ownership or pet ownership in the 12
months prior to the women's entry into the shelter. Of these women, 68% owned more than
one pet. Dogs and cats were most common; one woman reported horses as pets, and fish,
birds, chickens, rabbits, and a goat were also mentioned.
Nearly three-quarters (71%) of the women with pets reported that their male partner had
threatened to hurt or kill and/or had actually hurt or killed one or more of their pets. Examples
of the former included threats to put a kitten in a blender, bury a cat up to its head and "mow"
it, starve a dog, and shoot and kill a cat. Actual harm or killing of animals was reported by 57%
of the women with pets and included acts of omission (e.g., neglecting to feed or allow
veterinary care) but most often acts of violence. Examples reported included slapping, shaking,
throwing, or shooting dogs and cats, drowning a cat in a bathtub, and pouring lighter fluid on a
kitten and igniting it.
Of the women with pets, two (7%) reported that they had hurt or killed one of their own pets.
Both incidents were described as accidental (stepping on a kitten and running over a dog
chasing the woman's car). In one case, there was also partner cruelty to animals, in the other
there was none.
Twenty-two women had children and 32% (N = 7) of these women reported that one of their
children (three girls and four boys) had hurt or killed a pet or pets. Behaviors ranged from
sitting on a kitten and throwing a kitten against the wall to cutting a dog's fur and tail, pulling a
kitten's head out of its socket, and sodomizing a cat. For 5 of these 7 cases (71%), the mother
had also reported that her partner had threatened to or actually hurt or killed pets.
Eighteen percent of the women with pets reported that concern for their animals' welfare had
prevented them from coming to the shelter sooner. Their concerns included worries for the
animals' safety, fear of relinquishing pets to find affordable housing, placing pets with
neighbors, and abandoning a pet to keep it away from the partner.
DISCUSSION
Although this study did not include comparison samples of non-battered women or battered
women who are not currently in shelters, the substantial rate of partner cruelty to animals is
clearly a cause for concern. Caution must be exercised in generalizing from this study's small
sample to state and national samples; however, extrapolation of this study's findings may help
estimate the scope of the potential problem. For example, 3 million is a conservative estimate
of the number of U.S. women assaulted by their male partners each year (see Browne, 1993).
If half of these women have pets (again, a conservative estimate [Ascione, 1992]), 71% partner
cruelty to animals represents hundreds of thousands of families where pet victimization, actual
or threatened, is part of the landscape of terror to which some women are exposed. Using the
most recent Utah state statistics, over a thousand women in Utah alone may experience partner
abuse of their pets. Abuse may include either threats or actual harm or both. Threats may be
considered a less significant problem; however, Edleson and Brygger (1986) note that
interventions for male batterers may reduce the frequency of abusive acts to a greater degree
than threats of abuse. The latter may be more disturbing to some women.
There is some evidence that the results obtained in the present study are not unique to this
particular sample of women. Arkow (1996) recently noted two surveys, one conducted in
Colorado and the other in Wisconsin, in which 24% and 80%, respectively, of women seeking
domestic violence assistance reported animal abuse by their partner.
Two women in the present sample admitted to hurting or killing their own pets, both described
as accidental incidents. As noted earlier, Walker (1984) reported that some battered women
admit to directing their anger at their children or pets and the fact that some batterers may hold
women's pets hostage (Walker, 1989) may lead women to abandon their animals rather than
leave them home as prey for batterers. These abandonments are understandable since shelters
for battered women may not accept pets and alternative animal care may be financially difficult
for a woman to arrange if she is seeking shelter for herself and her children. Programs to
address this need are beginning to emerge, such as a collaborative effort in Loudoun County,
Virginia among Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter, Loudoun County Animal Care and Control,
the Humane Society of Loudoun County, and privately owned boarding kennels. In cases
where an animal has already been hurt or killed, women (and their children) may be
experiencing unresolved grief about pet loss that may need to be acknowledged and addressed
by shelter staff or counselors.
A number of practical and policy issues are raised when implementing programs to board
animals of women who enter shelters (health, space, and animal / child management issues
usually preclude allowing pets in such facilities). First, domestic violence shelter staff need to
be trained about the potential significance of separation from pets and animal cruelty as
additional emotional stressors for their clients, both women and children. Intake forms should
include items related to women's experience of animal abuse and these items should also be
added to the list of questions asked by crisis telephone line workers. Second, information about
animal abuse may be valuable in developing safety plans for women who remain at home with
their abusers and for those women planning to return home after a shelter stay. Third, if a
woman places her pet for boarding, animal shelters need to develop policies ensuring the
confidentiality of such placements and methods to deal with a batterer who attempts to claim a
pet (in some cases, as a method of further coercing or intimidating his partner).
The reported prevalence of cruelty to animals by children in this sample is further cause for
concern and is comparable to levels reported for mental health clinic samples of children,
assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and its variants (Achenbach & Edelbrock,
1981; Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991), and to data from a sample of children who
had been sexually abused (William Friedrich, April, 1992, personal communication). Friedrich
noted that in a sample of 2-12 year olds who were substantiated victims of sexual abuse, 35%
of the boys and 27% of the girls were reported to be cruel to animals on the CBCL (figures for
a comparison group of nonabused boys and girls were 5% and 3%, respectively). In another
report (Deviney et al., 1983), 26% of children who were physically or sexually abused and/or
neglected displayed animal maltreatment. Although causal relations cannot be determined given
the present study's descriptive strategy, children observing their parents' abuse of animals
(along with other forms of violent and destructive behavior) may foster imitative cruelty.
Educating battered women about the significance of children's cruelty to animals as a potential
symptom of psychological distress may be warranted since some women may believe such
behavior is cathartic. As one of our participants said, "We were all concerned about the cat and
the dog but I figured it was better that the animals were dealing with his hostility instead of the
kids or myself, the spouse."
IMPLICATIONS
Information about children's cruelty to animals may be relevant for interventions for children
exposed to domestic violence. In some cases (e.g., Peled & Davis, 1995), therapy may involve
asking children to identify with an animal to assist children in expressing emotions. Some
children may also identify with animals as symbols of vengeance against a battering parent
(e.g., Silvern & Kaersvang, 1989). Children may also identify themselves or their battered
parent with a pet the children themselves have harmed. Therapists may be advised to routinely
obtain information about cruelty to animals prior to using animal-related exercises.
Furthermore, information about children's positive relations with and concern for their pets and
other animals was not assessed in the present study but could also serve therapeutic ends (see
Figure 1 where a 9 year old child has drawn himself cowering behind a couch as his mother
and beloved pet bird are threatened by an abusive stepfather).
Figure1:drawingby9yearoldboy.(Courtesyof
theCenterforWomenandChildreninCrisis,Inc.,
Provo,Utah)
Legal Implications
The potential for cruelty to animals to be an indicator of the capacity for interpersonal violence
has, in part, led to some states increasing their criminal penalties for severe animal
maltreatment (one recent example is the State of Washington's 1994 revised cruelty-to-animals
law). Increased penalties, including incarceration, for such cruelty can help remove violent
individuals from the family and community and place them in settings where there is the
potential for receiving therapy. In 1995, an Everett, Washington man received a one-year
sentence (in addition to four years for intimidating a witness) after pleading guilty to firstdegree animal cruelty for burning his partner's kitten in a kitchen oven ("Man gets 5 years in
cat-torture case," 1995). He had also been charged with raping his partner (the witness he
intimidated) but these charges were dropped in a plea bargain (the rape charge was dropped
because the woman refused to press charges). As noted by one prosecutor, "We must, as
prosecutors, recognize that it is unacceptable to excuse and ignore acts of cruelty toward
animals. Anyone who can commit such cruelty is in desperate need of incarceration, counseling
or other immediate attention. We cannot afford to accept such violence, nor will the public let
us" (Ritter, 1996, p. 33).
Case Example
A vivid example of the confluence of spouse battering, child abuse (emotional and physical),
and cruelty to animals is provided in recent reports of a murder trial in Salt Lake City. "Peggy
Sue Brown was acquitted Thursday of fatally shooting her husbandthe first time a defendant
has used battered women's syndrome as a defense in a Utah murder case" (Hunt, 1996b, p.
B1). "Brown testified she killed her husband after he beat, raped and locked her in a closet for
days without food or water during their seven-year marriage. She said Bradley Brown, 23, had
made her a virtual prisoner in their home. He also beat and terrorized their young children" (p.
B8). One of Ms. Brown's children testified that Mr. Brown had on one occasion kicked her one
year old brother into a wall.
The level of terror Mr. Brown apparently instilled in his family members is illustrated by
another incident noted during the trial. "(He) hung a pet rabbit in the garage and summoned his
wife. When she came with the baby on her shoulder, her husband began skinning the animal
alive. Then he held the boy next to the screaming rabbit. 'See how easy it would be?' Bradley
said" (Hunt, 1996a, p. B3).
Recommendations
In addition to the relatively small and volunteer sample, this study has a number of limitations
that should be addressed in future research. First, we relied solely on women's reports of their
partners', own, and children's behavior regarding the treatment of animals. Sternberg et al.
(1993) have cautioned that interreporter agreement about child problems, for example,
between family members experiencing domestic violence, may be low. Edleson and Brygger
(1986) found that partners in battering relationships may not agree on levels of different forms
of violence a batterer perpetrates. In their sample of battered men who had undergone
intervention, women's and men's exact agreement, at intake, on the men's actions or threats
against pets was 24%. Clearly, multisource assessments are needed in this area.
Second, sample size precluded examination of differential effects based on children's gender
and age, issues Jaffe and Sudermann (1995) urged more thorough study. The present study also
did not assess the levels of violence these women experienced and to which their children may
have been exposed.
Third, there was no attempt to rate severity of partner cruelty to animals. More empirical
information is needed about the forms, severity, and chronicity of partner cruelty to animals
and its value for risk assessment (Straus, 1993), and the development of topologies of batterers
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). We have developed a protocol for assessing the animal
cruelty performed by children and adolescents (Ascione, Thompson, & Black, in press) which
may be applicable to adults who abuse animals.
Finally, we do not yet understand how the dimensions of partner and/or child cruelty to animals
differ for families where the mother seeks shelter or decides to remain at home. Do children's
relations with pets differ in these circumstances? For example, Fantuzzo et al. (1991) note how
the shelter experience often entails separating children from buffers in their home environment
(e.g., toys, peers). Separation from beloved pets, who may be significant sources of
psychological support and attachment, may be an unaddressed issue for both the child and the
battered parent.
NOTES
1. In 1992, Utah state agencies provided shelter for 1,634 women and 2,047 children
(Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council, 1994). In 1995, the figures were 1,974 and
2,722, respectively (Diane Stuart, personal communication, January 25, 1996).
2. For information on this program, contact the Director, Loudoun County Department of
Animal Care and Control, Rt. 1, Box 985, Waterford, VA 221901TEL 703 777-0406.
Are battered women in domestic violence shelters forced to chose between their personal
safety and that of the pets they left behind when they fled? What policies and procedures do
enlightened shelters employ to deal with the issue of pet abuse by batterers as a means of
manipulation? What assistance can be provided? What are the psychological ramifications of
pet abuse in a domestic violence context? Dr. Frank Ascione provides the answers in Safe
Havens for Pets: Guidelines for Programs Sheltering Pets for Women Who Are Battered. This
vital work is available FREE thanks to funding from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.
Click here for all the details. This book is must reading for every domestic violence worker,
advocate, student, and supporter.
You can get more information on this subject from our Resources section Animal Abuse and
Domestic Violence.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of
normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46(1, SerialNo. 188).
Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, H. C., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey of problems and
competencies among four to sixteen-year-olds. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
56 (Serial No. 225).
Adams, C. (1994). Bringing peace home: A feminist philosophical perspective on the abuse of women,
children, and pet animals. Hypatia, 9(2), 63-84.
American Humane Association. (1995). Children's Division Policy StatementsViolence toward children and
animals. Protecting Children, 11(1), 14d.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed. rev.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Arkow, P. (1995). Breaking the cycles of violence. Alameda, CA: The Latham Foundation.
Arkow, P. (1996). The relationships between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Family Violence
and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 12, 29-34.
Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of aiumals: Generalization to
human-directed empathy. Anthrozoos, 5, 176-191.
Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for
developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6(4), 226-246.
Ascione, F. R. (1995, October). A call for collaboration between child abuse and domestic violence advocates.
Child Protection Leader. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (in press). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty
dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Battered partner shelter survey (BPSS). Logan: Utah State University.
Brassard, M. R., Hart, S. N., & Hardy, D. B. (1993). The Psychological Maltreatment Rating Scales. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 17, 715-729.
Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press.
Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes, and policy implications.
American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.
Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing
dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 96- 113). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
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.
Dutton, M. A. (1992). Empowering and healing the battered woman. New York: Springer.
Dykstra, C. (1995). Domestic violence and child abuse: Related links in the chain of violence. Protecting
Children, 11(3), 3-5.
Edleson, J. L., & Brygger, M. P. (1986). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidents. Family
Relations, 35, 377-382.
Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Labert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of
interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258-265.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the
differences among them. Psychological Bulletin 116(1), 476497.
Hunt, S. (1996a, November 13). Battered women's syndrome? Salt Lake Tribune, p. B3.
Hunt, S. (1996b, November 15). Battered wife is acquitted of murder. Salt Lake Tribune, p. Bl.
Jade, P. G., & Sudemlann, M. (1995). Child witnesses of woman abuse: Research and community responses. In
S. M. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence (p. 213-222). Minneapolis: National
Council on Family Relations.
Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Keita, G. P., & Russo, N. F. (1994). No safe haven:
Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Man gets five years in cat-torture case. (1995, April 20). The Seattle Times, p. B2.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. R (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children's
mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.
O'Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violent families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
lO(1) 3-25.
Patrignani, A., & Ville, R. (1995). violence in the family: An international bibliography with literature review.
Rome, Italy: United Nation's Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Peled, E., & Davis, D. (1995). Groupwork with children of battered woman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ritter, A. W., Jr. (1996). The cycle of violence often begins with violence toward animals. The Prosecutor, 30,
31-33.
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence,
5, 301-309.
Rosen, B. (1995). Watch for pet abuseit might save your client's life. Shepard s Elder Care/Law Newsletter,
5(No. 5), 1-7.
Schecter, S., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). In the best interest of women and children: A call for collaboration
between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies. Protecting Children, 11(3), 6-11.
Silvern, L., & Kaersvang, L., (1989). The traumatized children of violent marriages. Child Welfare, 68, 421436.
Sternberg, K J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F.
(1993). Effects of domestic violence on children's behavior problems and depression. Developmental
Psychology, 29(1), 44-52.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Identifying offenders in criminal justice research on domestic assault. American
Behavioral Scientist, 36, 587-600.
Stuart, E. P., & Campbell, J. C. (1989). Assessment of patterns of dangerousness with battered women. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, l O. 245-260.
Sub, E. K., & Abel, E. M. (l990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of the abused. Journal of
Independent Social Work, 4, 27-34.
Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V., & Groves. B. M. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their
mothers. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15(2), 120-123.
Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council. (1994). Five year state master plan for the prevention of and
services for domestic violence. Salt Lake City: Utah State Department of Human Services.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing.
Walker, L. E. (1989). Terrifying love. New York: Harper and Row.
Wiche, V. R. (1990). Sibling abuse. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wiche, V. R., & Herring, T. (1991). Perilous rivalry: When siblings become abusive. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
SUBMITTED: 07/12/96 ACCEPTED: 12/16/96
Andrew Vachss and The Zero would like to congratulate Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., on his receipt of the 2001
Distinguished Scholar Award from the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations
and the International Society for Anthrozoology. We have been honored to feature Dr. Ascione's work
regarding the links between personal violence and animal cruelty on the website, and add our respect to that
of the Society's.
pervasive, fundamental lack of empathy. The sociopath attends to only his own needs, and
feels only his own pain. If the pain of others interferes with his needs, it is casually ignored.
And if the pain of others becomes his need, it is relentlessly pursued.
Despite enormous (and sometimes almost worshipful) media attention, we know very little
about such creatures. We "profile" them endlessly, but we have never been able to predict
them.
Few believe we can "treat" such predators. All agree we must incapacitate them. But what if
we were granted the opportunity to interdict them? To actually alter the course of their
development so that, when they reach full bloom, they are not toxic to others?
This stunning new workthe crown jewel in a career Frank Ascione has devoted to
demonstrating the importance of understanding animal abuse in a developmental contextnow
offers us just such an unprecedented opportunity.
This book reveals what interactions between children and animals tell us about ourselves. Its
premise is brilliantly direct: we have a window of opportunitychildhoodwithin which to
redirect the production of sociopaths. The antidote is the development of empathy. And
observation and analysis of children's interaction with animals is the key to that door.
Ascione persuasively argues that a society which carefully records acts of vandalism by youth
and considers such to have both symptomatic probity and predictive valueshould do no
less with acts of cruelty to animals. The correlations between animal abuse in the household
and domestic violence are inescapable. And the link between animal abuse by children and the
concurrent abuse of those same children by their "caretakers" is indisputable. Ascione's
evidence is so overwhelming that I believe this book conclusively makes the case for sharing of
reports between child protective and animal protective agencies.
As a lawyer, I am confident I now have the evidence to argue successfully that any report of
animal abuse is sufficient probable cause to trigger a child protective investigation of the home
in which it occurred. As a citizen, I intend to lobby for such changes in the law to be enacted.
But while those changes would enable detection of ongoing cases of child abuse, they would
not prevent any child from initially being abused. Ascione's work is unique in that it does offer
the opportunity to engage in true "primary prevention."
He points out that empathy isn't administered as an injection; it is learned over time. The young
child who throws a rock at a flock of pigeons isn't so much endangering a bird as he is giving
us the chance to intervene at the crossroads: We can teach empathy, or we can encourage
cruelty. The classic "triad" known to all criminal investigatorsenuresis, fire-setting, and
animal abusehas never been especially convincing to me. My own experience is that it is the
caregiver's reaction to the bed-wetting that determines the outcome. A loving, supportive
environment takes the child right out of the "triad." But a punitive, humiliating response impels
him toward the other path.
The abuse of animals, especially chronic, escalating abuse, is a "gateway" indicator. Whether
committed in the home environment of a child, or committed directly by the child, it never
occurs in a vacuum. It never fails to tell us it is time to act. But, first, we must to learn to
listen.
The sociopath may lack empathy, but he (or she) is an expert at exploiting it in others. Any
domestic violence professional knows of women who remained with abusers because of threats
to harm a beloved pet. Any CPS caseworker can tell you about cases in which a child abuser
also hurtor killedthe victim's pet. Any sex crimes detective can tell you that child
molesters know a puppy or a kitten is a far more effective lure than candy.
I've had protection dogs all my adult life. This doesn't mean vicious dogs, it means trained
dogs. Professional trainers have a disparaging term for so-called "guard dogs" that mindlessly
attack anything that approaches: "fear-biters." Typically, such animals have been "trained" by
repeated beatings and other forms of maltreatment. It's time that we reached that same
understanding about children.
Animal abuse is now one of the diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder in children. That's a
beginning, but it barely scratches the surface. Pets reside in the households of the
overwhelming majority of Americans. As Ascione so clearly illustrates, they offer not only the
opportunity to teach empathy, they serve as early warning systems for the child protective
profession, if only we learn to recognize the signposts.
The abuse of animals should be a mandatory portion of all interviewing and data-collection
concerning "at-risk" children, because, as this book demonstrates with such striking clarity, it
has the potential to tell us so much.
Animal abuse and childrenas perpetrators or as witnessesmay be the Rosetta stone to
predatory psychopathology. All of us concerned with public safety have been sailors on a vast,
uncharted sea. Now, Frank Ascione has given us a new, and extraordinarily promising,
navigational instrument.
Children and Animals: Exploring the Roots of Kindness and Cruelty should be required
reading for everyone involved in child protection and law enforcement. It should be part of the
training curriculum in schools of social work and in police academies. And it will be
appreciated by every citizen who is willing to invest the time and trouble it takes to make our
policymakers do the right thing.
I don't write well enough to adequately express the importance of this book. Fortunately, I
don't have to: it speaks for itself. And it will inform and empower everyone who gives it the
chance to do so.
2004 Andrew Vachss. All rights reserved.
To purchase Children and Animals: Exploring the Roots of Kindness and Cruelty by Frank R.
Ascione, Ph.D., click here.
current or past pet ownership, 71% reported that their partner had threatened and/or actually hurt or killed one
or more of their pets. Actual (as distinct from threatened) harm to pets represented the majority (57%) of
reports. Fifty-eight percent of the full sample of women had children and 32% of these women reported that
one or more of their children had hurt or killed pet animals; in 71% of these cases, the women had also
reported animal abuse (threatened or actual) by their partner. This study represents one of the first empirical
analyses of the prevalence of animal maltreatment in a sample of battered women. The high prevalence rate of
batterers' threatened or actual harm of animals and the relatively high rate of animal abuse reported for the
children in this sample are relevant for future research and policy analyses. [Article copies available for a fee
from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworth.com]
Pets were terribly important to her; they were her only source of comfort and affection. One
afternoon, Billy said he had had it with her damn cats and started screaming that he was going
to kill them. Kim didn't take it too seriously. (Browne, 1987, p. 154)
. . . Aubrey got angry with the family dog for straying outside their yard. He loaded one of his
nine guns, then shot and killed it. The kids began to sob, devastated. He grabbed (one child's)
hair . . . slapped another of the kids, then began crying himself. Joyce tried to comfort them all.
But her feelings of anger were mixed with genuine terror: in a moment of rage, she knew,
Aubrey could kill any one of them and cry about it afterward. (Walker, 1989, pp. 20-21)
These examples associating partner abuse with cruelty to animals and, in one case, child
maltreatment are but two of the many anecdotal references to the abuse of animals in the
literature on domestic violence (Adams, 1994). Following an analysis of existing research and
policy issues relevant for understanding the relation between domestic violence and animal
maltreatment, the results of a small-scale descriptive study of the prevalence of animal cruelty
experiences in a shelter sample of battered women are reported. Implications for future
research and for the well-being of women and children experiencing family violence are then
discussed.
respectively. Walker also reported that, when with a batterer, 16% of the women reported
directing their own anger at their "children or pets"; when with a non-batterer, the figure was
3%. In a similar vein, cruelty to animals may be implicit in measures of psychological
maltreatment. Brassard, Hart, and Hardy's (1993) categories of "Terrorizing" (including ". . .
threats directed toward loved ones or objects . . .") and "Exploiting / Corrupting" (including
". . modeling antisocial acts . . . ") are examples.
Occasionally, specific items related to animal maltreatment appear in domestic violence
questionnaires or checklists. Renzetti's (1992) study is one example. Another is Dutton's
(1992) "Abusive Behavior Observation Checklist" in which being "required to be involved with
an animal in a sexual way" is an item under the "unwanted sexual behavior" category (p. 160)
and "abused your/his/her family pets" is listed under "Psychological Abuse-Intimidation" (p.
161).
Domestic violence and cruelty to animals are, at times, examined together in discussions of
assessing partner dangerousness or lethality (Campbell, 1995). One assessment, proposed by
Straus (1993) to facilitate identification of "high risk violence," includes the item, "threats or
actual killing or injuring a pet." However, another dangerousness assessment inventory does
not mention animal maltreatment in any form (Stuart & Campbell, 1989).
Children's Abuse of Animals
The literature on the effects of exposure to domestic violence on children's mental health has
been recently reviewed by Jaffe and Sudermann (1995) who note the complexity and variability
of such effects from one study to another. Cruelty to animals as a childhood reaction to
exposure to domestic violence has not been directly explored. Suggestive information,
however, can be derived from studies of children of battered women in which externalizing
problems and/or conduct disorder symptoms are examined [since the 1987 revision, both the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition revised) and the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) (American Psychiatric
Association 1987, 1994) include physical cruelty to animals as a symptom of Conduct
Disorder].
One recent study that included a sample of both sheltered and community battered women and
their 6-12 year old children found that domestic violence was related to ". . . children's general
psychopathology . . ." (McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995). The authors report that
women's partners' hurting or killing pets did load (albeit, at a low level) on a factor labeled,
"escalated aggression," a factor that included other severe forms of threatened or actual
interpersonal aggression. Other studies have also found a relationship between observing
domestic violence and externalizing psychological symptoms both in preschool-age children at
a shelter or residing at home (Fantuzzo et al., 1991) and in an older (8-12 year old) sample of
Israeli children living at home (Sternberg et al., 1993). However, it is unclear how often
externalizing symptomatology manifests itself in the form of cruelty to animals since reports
rarely describe, understandably, results for individual items on assessment inventories. It should
also be noted that in Sternberg et al.'s study, and in a similar study with a shelter sample
(O'Keefe, 1995), child outcomes may vary depending on whether the child was physically
abused in addition to being exposed to partner abuse.
Given the recent upsurge in concern with the deleterious effects of community or
neighborhood violence on children (e.g. Taylor, Zuckerman, Harik, and Groves, 1994), it is
appropriate that greater attention be given to violence that is perhaps even less escapable for
children: violence among family members in one's home. This issue is receiving cross-cultural
and international attention (Levinson, 1989; Patrignani & Belle, 1995). However, examination
of the confluence of partner abuse, child abuse, and the maltreatment of animals is in its
infancy. Greater attention is being given, at a national policy level, to the overlap between
partner abuse of women and child maltreatment (Ascione, 1995; Dykstra, 1995; Koss et al.,
1994; Schecter & Edelson, 1995), and between the abuse of children and violence toward
animals (American Humane Association, 1995; Deviney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). The
associations among all three types of domestic violence (which may also include sibling abuse:
Suh & Abel, 1990; Wiehe, 1990; and elder abuse: Rosen, 1995) are only beginning to be
explored (e.g., Arkow, 1995). For example, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse have been
noted by Wiehe and Herring (19913 as components of sibling abuse. In the area of emotional
abuse, these authors explicitly include the torture or destruction of a pet as one form of
psychological maltreatment. One can only speculate if siblings, in some cases, may abuse
animals as a result of observing similar abuse performed by batterers.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study included determining: (1) the prevalence of pet ownership
in a sample of women entering a shelter for battered partners in northern Utah, (2) the
prevalence of threatened and/or actual harm to pets by the women's partners, and (3) evidence
for animal maltreatment by the women's children. In addition to quantitative information,
qualitative information on the types of animal maltreatment described were examined. Ways
that information about cruelty to animals could assist professionals who serve families
experiencing domestic violence and who address animal welfare are also examined.
METHOD
Sample
Thirty-eight women seeking in-house services (as distinct from crisis telephone services) at a
shelter for battered partners in northern Utah agreed to be interviewed by shelter staff about
their experiences with maltreatment of pets (in a 1990 report, Rollins and Oheneba-Sakyi
found Utah spouse abuse prevalence to be comparable to national estimates). The women
ranged in age from 20 to 51 years (mean age = 30.2) and reported the following marital status:
married-57%, separated-3%, divorced-8% and single-32%. This was the first visit to the
shelter for 54% of the women; the remaining women reported an average of 1.9 prior visits
(range 1-6). For the 58% of women with children, the mean number of children was 2.8 (range
1-8) and their ages ranged from 8 months to 20 years.
Procedures
Women were interviewed by shelter personnel within a few days of their entry into the shelter
and after the initial crisis circumstances had subsided. It was stressed that participation was
confidential (only shelter staff would know participants' identities) and voluntary, and that
decisions to agree to or refuse participation would not affect shelter services. None of the
women approached declined participation.
The interview used an early version of the Battered Partner Shelter Survey (BPSS - Pet
Maltreatment Assessment (Ascione & Weber, 1995). Given the stress associated with entering
a shelter, the number of questions was kept to a minimum. Interviewers did report, however,
that many of the women were appreciative that someone had finally asked them about concerns
they had for their pets.
The BPSS included the following questions:
Have you had a pet animal or animals in the past 12 months? If yes, what kinds?
Has your partner ever hurt or killed one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Has your partner ever threatened to hurt or kill one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Have you ever hurt or killed one of your pets? If yes, describe.
Have any of your children ever hurt or killed one of your pets (if client has children)? If
yes, describe.
Did concern over your pet's welfare keep you from coming to this shelter sooner than
now? If yes, explain.
Completed BPSS forms were coded by shelter staff and then provided to the author for
tabulation and analysis. Shelter staff also provided aggregate information on participants'
marital status, presence and number of children, and women's reports of prior visits to the
shelter.
RESULTS
Seventy-four percent of the women reported current pet ownership or pet ownership in the 12
months prior to the women's entry into the shelter. Of these women, 68% owned more than
one pet. Dogs and cats were most common; one woman reported horses as pets, and fish,
birds, chickens, rabbits, and a goat were also mentioned.
Nearly three-quarters (71%) of the women with pets reported that their male partner had
threatened to hurt or kill and/or had actually hurt or killed one or more of their pets. Examples
of the former included threats to put a kitten in a blender, bury a cat up to its head and "mow"
it, starve a dog, and shoot and kill a cat. Actual harm or killing of animals was reported by 57%
of the women with pets and included acts of omission (e.g., neglecting to feed or allow
veterinary care) but most often acts of violence. Examples reported included slapping, shaking,
throwing, or shooting dogs and cats, drowning a cat in a bathtub, and pouring lighter fluid on a
kitten and igniting it.
Of the women with pets, two (7%) reported that they had hurt or killed one of their own pets.
Both incidents were described as accidental (stepping on a kitten and running over a dog
chasing the woman's car). In one case, there was also partner cruelty to animals, in the other
there was none.
Twenty-two women had children and 32% (N = 7) of these women reported that one of their
children (three girls and four boys) had hurt or killed a pet or pets. Behaviors ranged from
sitting on a kitten and throwing a kitten against the wall to cutting a dog's fur and tail, pulling a
kitten's head out of its socket, and sodomizing a cat. For 5 of these 7 cases (71%), the mother
had also reported that her partner had threatened to or actually hurt or killed pets.
Eighteen percent of the women with pets reported that concern for their animals' welfare had
prevented them from coming to the shelter sooner. Their concerns included worries for the
animals' safety, fear of relinquishing pets to find affordable housing, placing pets with
neighbors, and abandoning a pet to keep it away from the partner.
DISCUSSION
Although this study did not include comparison samples of non-battered women or battered
women who are not currently in shelters, the substantial rate of partner cruelty to animals is
clearly a cause for concern. Caution must be exercised in generalizing from this study's small
sample to state and national samples; however, extrapolation of this study's findings may help
estimate the scope of the potential problem. For example, 3 million is a conservative estimate
of the number of U.S. women assaulted by their male partners each year (see Browne, 1993).
If half of these women have pets (again, a conservative estimate [Ascione, 1992]), 71% partner
cruelty to animals represents hundreds of thousands of families where pet victimization, actual
or threatened, is part of the landscape of terror to which some women are exposed. Using the
most recent Utah state statistics, over a thousand women in Utah alone may experience partner
abuse of their pets. Abuse may include either threats or actual harm or both. Threats may be
considered a less significant problem; however, Edleson and Brygger (1986) note that
interventions for male batterers may reduce the frequency of abusive acts to a greater degree
than threats of abuse. The latter may be more disturbing to some women.
There is some evidence that the results obtained in the present study are not unique to this
particular sample of women. Arkow (1996) recently noted two surveys, one conducted in
Colorado and the other in Wisconsin, in which 24% and 80%, respectively, of women seeking
domestic violence assistance reported animal abuse by their partner.
Two women in the present sample admitted to hurting or killing their own pets, both described
as accidental incidents. As noted earlier, Walker (1984) reported that some battered women
admit to directing their anger at their children or pets and the fact that some batterers may hold
women's pets hostage (Walker, 1989) may lead women to abandon their animals rather than
leave them home as prey for batterers. These abandonments are understandable since shelters
for battered women may not accept pets and alternative animal care may be financially difficult
for a woman to arrange if she is seeking shelter for herself and her children. Programs to
address this need are beginning to emerge, such as a collaborative effort in Loudoun County,
Virginia among Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter, Loudoun County Animal Care and Control,
the Humane Society of Loudoun County, and privately owned boarding kennels. In cases
where an animal has already been hurt or killed, women (and their children) may be
experiencing unresolved grief about pet loss that may need to be acknowledged and addressed
by shelter staff or counselors.
A number of practical and policy issues are raised when implementing programs to board
animals of women who enter shelters (health, space, and animal / child management issues
usually preclude allowing pets in such facilities). First, domestic violence shelter staff need to
be trained about the potential significance of separation from pets and animal cruelty as
additional emotional stressors for their clients, both women and children. Intake forms should
include items related to women's experience of animal abuse and these items should also be
added to the list of questions asked by crisis telephone line workers. Second, information about
animal abuse may be valuable in developing safety plans for women who remain at home with
their abusers and for those women planning to return home after a shelter stay. Third, if a
woman places her pet for boarding, animal shelters need to develop policies ensuring the
confidentiality of such placements and methods to deal with a batterer who attempts to claim a
pet (in some cases, as a method of further coercing or intimidating his partner).
The reported prevalence of cruelty to animals by children in this sample is further cause for
concern and is comparable to levels reported for mental health clinic samples of children,
assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and its variants (Achenbach & Edelbrock,
1981; Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991), and to data from a sample of children who
had been sexually abused (William Friedrich, April, 1992, personal communication). Friedrich
noted that in a sample of 2-12 year olds who were substantiated victims of sexual abuse, 35%
of the boys and 27% of the girls were reported to be cruel to animals on the CBCL (figures for
a comparison group of nonabused boys and girls were 5% and 3%, respectively). In another
report (Deviney et al., 1983), 26% of children who were physically or sexually abused and/or
neglected displayed animal maltreatment. Although causal relations cannot be determined given
the present study's descriptive strategy, children observing their parents' abuse of animals
(along with other forms of violent and destructive behavior) may foster imitative cruelty.
Educating battered women about the significance of children's cruelty to animals as a potential
symptom of psychological distress may be warranted since some women may believe such
behavior is cathartic. As one of our participants said, "We were all concerned about the cat and
the dog but I figured it was better that the animals were dealing with his hostility instead of the
kids or myself, the spouse."
IMPLICATIONS
Information about children's cruelty to animals may be relevant for interventions for children
exposed to domestic violence. In some cases (e.g., Peled & Davis, 1995), therapy may involve
asking children to identify with an animal to assist children in expressing emotions. Some
children may also identify with animals as symbols of vengeance against a battering parent
(e.g., Silvern & Kaersvang, 1989). Children may also identify themselves or their battered
parent with a pet the children themselves have harmed. Therapists may be advised to routinely
obtain information about cruelty to animals prior to using animal-related exercises.
Furthermore, information about children's positive relations with and concern for their pets and
other animals was not assessed in the present study but could also serve therapeutic ends (see
Figure 1 where a 9 year old child has drawn himself cowering behind a couch as his mother
and beloved pet bird are threatened by an abusive stepfather).
Figure1:drawingby9yearoldboy.(Courtesyof
theCenterforWomenandChildreninCrisis,Inc.,
Provo,Utah)
Legal Implications
The potential for cruelty to animals to be an indicator of the capacity for interpersonal violence
has, in part, led to some states increasing their criminal penalties for severe animal
maltreatment (one recent example is the State of Washington's 1994 revised cruelty-to-animals
law). Increased penalties, including incarceration, for such cruelty can help remove violent
individuals from the family and community and place them in settings where there is the
potential for receiving therapy. In 1995, an Everett, Washington man received a one-year
sentence (in addition to four years for intimidating a witness) after pleading guilty to firstdegree animal cruelty for burning his partner's kitten in a kitchen oven ("Man gets 5 years in
cat-torture case," 1995). He had also been charged with raping his partner (the witness he
intimidated) but these charges were dropped in a plea bargain (the rape charge was dropped
because the woman refused to press charges). As noted by one prosecutor, "We must, as
prosecutors, recognize that it is unacceptable to excuse and ignore acts of cruelty toward
animals. Anyone who can commit such cruelty is in desperate need of incarceration, counseling
or other immediate attention. We cannot afford to accept such violence, nor will the public let
us" (Ritter, 1996, p. 33).
Case Example
A vivid example of the confluence of spouse battering, child abuse (emotional and physical),
and cruelty to animals is provided in recent reports of a murder trial in Salt Lake City. "Peggy
Sue Brown was acquitted Thursday of fatally shooting her husbandthe first time a defendant
has used battered women's syndrome as a defense in a Utah murder case" (Hunt, 1996b, p.
B1). "Brown testified she killed her husband after he beat, raped and locked her in a closet for
days without food or water during their seven-year marriage. She said Bradley Brown, 23, had
made her a virtual prisoner in their home. He also beat and terrorized their young children" (p.
B8). One of Ms. Brown's children testified that Mr. Brown had on one occasion kicked her one
year old brother into a wall.
The level of terror Mr. Brown apparently instilled in his family members is illustrated by
another incident noted during the trial. "(He) hung a pet rabbit in the garage and summoned his
wife. When she came with the baby on her shoulder, her husband began skinning the animal
alive. Then he held the boy next to the screaming rabbit. 'See how easy it would be?' Bradley
said" (Hunt, 1996a, p. B3).
Recommendations
In addition to the relatively small and volunteer sample, this study has a number of limitations
that should be addressed in future research. First, we relied solely on women's reports of their
partners', own, and children's behavior regarding the treatment of animals. Sternberg et al.
(1993) have cautioned that interreporter agreement about child problems, for example,
between family members experiencing domestic violence, may be low. Edleson and Brygger
(1986) found that partners in battering relationships may not agree on levels of different forms
of violence a batterer perpetrates. In their sample of battered men who had undergone
intervention, women's and men's exact agreement, at intake, on the men's actions or threats
against pets was 24%. Clearly, multisource assessments are needed in this area.
Second, sample size precluded examination of differential effects based on children's gender
and age, issues Jaffe and Sudermann (1995) urged more thorough study. The present study also
did not assess the levels of violence these women experienced and to which their children may
have been exposed.
Third, there was no attempt to rate severity of partner cruelty to animals. More empirical
information is needed about the forms, severity, and chronicity of partner cruelty to animals
and its value for risk assessment (Straus, 1993), and the development of topologies of batterers
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). We have developed a protocol for assessing the animal
cruelty performed by children and adolescents (Ascione, Thompson, & Black, in press) which
may be applicable to adults who abuse animals.
Finally, we do not yet understand how the dimensions of partner and/or child cruelty to animals
differ for families where the mother seeks shelter or decides to remain at home. Do children's
relations with pets differ in these circumstances? For example, Fantuzzo et al. (1991) note how
the shelter experience often entails separating children from buffers in their home environment
(e.g., toys, peers). Separation from beloved pets, who may be significant sources of
psychological support and attachment, may be an unaddressed issue for both the child and the
battered parent.
NOTES
1. In 1992, Utah state agencies provided shelter for 1,634 women and 2,047 children
(Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council, 1994). In 1995, the figures were 1,974 and
2,722, respectively (Diane Stuart, personal communication, January 25, 1996).
2. For information on this program, contact the Director, Loudoun County Department of
Animal Care and Control, Rt. 1, Box 985, Waterford, VA 221901TEL 703 777-0406.
Are battered women in domestic violence shelters forced to chose between their personal
safety and that of the pets they left behind when they fled? What policies and procedures do
enlightened shelters employ to deal with the issue of pet abuse by batterers as a means of
manipulation? What assistance can be provided? What are the psychological ramifications of
pet abuse in a domestic violence context? Dr. Frank Ascione provides the answers in Safe
Havens for Pets: Guidelines for Programs Sheltering Pets for Women Who Are Battered. This
vital work is available FREE thanks to funding from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.
Click here for all the details. This book is must reading for every domestic violence worker,
advocate, student, and supporter.
You can get more information on this subject from our Resources section Animal Abuse and
Domestic Violence.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of
normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46(1, SerialNo. 188).
Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, H. C., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey of problems and
competencies among four to sixteen-year-olds. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
56 (Serial No. 225).
Adams, C. (1994). Bringing peace home: A feminist philosophical perspective on the abuse of women,
children, and pet animals. Hypatia, 9(2), 63-84.
American Humane Association. (1995). Children's Division Policy StatementsViolence toward children and
animals. Protecting Children, 11(1), 14d.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed. rev.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Arkow, P. (1995). Breaking the cycles of violence. Alameda, CA: The Latham Foundation.
Arkow, P. (1996). The relationships between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Family Violence
and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 12, 29-34.
Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of aiumals: Generalization to
human-directed empathy. Anthrozoos, 5, 176-191.
Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for
developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6(4), 226-246.
Ascione, F. R. (1995, October). A call for collaboration between child abuse and domestic violence advocates.
Child Protection Leader. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (in press). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty
dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Battered partner shelter survey (BPSS). Logan: Utah State University.
Brassard, M. R., Hart, S. N., & Hardy, D. B. (1993). The Psychological Maltreatment Rating Scales. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 17, 715-729.
Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press.
Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes, and policy implications.
American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.
Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing
dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 96- 113). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
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.
Dutton, M. A. (1992). Empowering and healing the battered woman. New York: Springer.
Dykstra, C. (1995). Domestic violence and child abuse: Related links in the chain of violence. Protecting
Children, 11(3), 3-5.
Edleson, J. L., & Brygger, M. P. (1986). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidents. Family
Relations, 35, 377-382.
Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Labert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of
interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258-265.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the
differences among them. Psychological Bulletin 116(1), 476497.
Hunt, S. (1996a, November 13). Battered women's syndrome? Salt Lake Tribune, p. B3.
Hunt, S. (1996b, November 15). Battered wife is acquitted of murder. Salt Lake Tribune, p. Bl.
Jade, P. G., & Sudemlann, M. (1995). Child witnesses of woman abuse: Research and community responses. In
S. M. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence (p. 213-222). Minneapolis: National
Council on Family Relations.
Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Keita, G. P., & Russo, N. F. (1994). No safe haven:
Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Man gets five years in cat-torture case. (1995, April 20). The Seattle Times, p. B2.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. R (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children's
mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.
O'Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violent families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
lO(1) 3-25.
Patrignani, A., & Ville, R. (1995). violence in the family: An international bibliography with literature review.
Rome, Italy: United Nation's Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Peled, E., & Davis, D. (1995). Groupwork with children of battered woman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ritter, A. W., Jr. (1996). The cycle of violence often begins with violence toward animals. The Prosecutor, 30,
31-33.
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence,
5, 301-309.
Rosen, B. (1995). Watch for pet abuseit might save your client's life. Shepard s Elder Care/Law Newsletter,
5(No. 5), 1-7.
Schecter, S., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). In the best interest of women and children: A call for collaboration
between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies. Protecting Children, 11(3), 6-11.
Silvern, L., & Kaersvang, L., (1989). The traumatized children of violent marriages. Child Welfare, 68, 421436.
Sternberg, K J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F.
(1993). Effects of domestic violence on children's behavior problems and depression. Developmental
Psychology, 29(1), 44-52.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Identifying offenders in criminal justice research on domestic assault. American
Behavioral Scientist, 36, 587-600.
Stuart, E. P., & Campbell, J. C. (1989). Assessment of patterns of dangerousness with battered women. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, l O. 245-260.
Sub, E. K., & Abel, E. M. (l990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of the abused. Journal of
Independent Social Work, 4, 27-34.
Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V., & Groves. B. M. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their
mothers. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15(2), 120-123.
Utah Domestic Violence Advisory Council. (1994). Five year state master plan for the prevention of and
services for domestic violence. Salt Lake City: Utah State Department of Human Services.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing.
Walker, L. E. (1989). Terrifying love. New York: Harper and Row.
Andrew Vachss and The Zero would like to congratulate Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., on his receipt of the 2001
Distinguished Scholar Award from the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations
and the International Society for Anthrozoology. We have been honored to feature Dr. Ascione's work
regarding the links between personal violence and animal cruelty on the website, and add our respect to that
of the Society's.
OVERVIEW
This study represents the first attempt to assess animal maltreatment in samples of women
seeking safety at shelters for women who are battered (101 women) and community samples of
women who were not battered (60 women). We developed instruments to measure pet abuse
from women and children's reports and assessed levels of family violence (not including pet
abuse) using the well known Conflict Tactics Scale. Current and past pet ownership (in the past
12 months) was high for all samples (ranging from 64.1% to 96.6%) but the shelter sample
reported lower current pet ownership than the community sample. There were also lower
levels of regular and emergency veterinary care and pet vaccination rates in the shelter sample.
Pet "turnover" over the past 5 years was higher in the shelter group. Partners (e.g., husbands,
boyfriends) of shelter women were less likely to help care for animals than partners of
community sample women.
Shelter women were more likely to report that their partners had threatened to hurt their pets
(52%) than community sample women (16.7%). The severity of these threats was also higher
in the shelter sample. Actual hurting or killing of pets was reported by 54% of the shelter
women but only 3.5% of the community women. In the majority of cases, shelter women
reported that multiple incidents of hurting or killing pets had occurred. In the shelter group,
nearly one in four women reported that concern for their pets had kept them from coming in to
the shelter sooner.
Approximately half of the shelter women reported that their children had witnessed pet abuse
in contrast to less than four percent of the community sample women. One in four shelter
group women and one in five community group women reported that one of their children had
hurt or killed pets. The severity of hurting pets was lower, however, for the community group
children. Shelter group children also displayed higher behavior problem scores on a
standardized measure than community group children.
Shelter group children (N=39) were also interviewed directly and two-thirds reported
witnessing pet abuse (including the strangling, poisoning, or shooting of a pet). Nearly half
(46.4%) of the incidents involved the father, stepfather, or woman's boyfriend as the
perpetrator. The severity of the abuse was rated as involving pain or discomfort to the animal
or rated as torturing or killing of the animal by 88.5% of the children reporting witnessing of
pet abuse, with 92.6% of the children indicating they were "sort of upset " or "very upset" by
the incidents. Although 92.1% of the children said they helped take care of pets, l 3.2%
admitted to hurting pets and 7.9% reported hurting or killing other animals. Nevertheless,
51.4% of these children said they had protected pets, in some cases by directly intervening to
keep pets from being harmed.
Over two-thirds of the children (67.6%) said they would like to see pets in their home treated
"better than they are now treated".
Use of the Conflict Tactics Scale verified that the levels of minor and severe physical
aggression were substantially higher in the shelter than in the community groups. The highest
levels of severe physical aggression (e.g., beating, burning, threatening with a gun or knife)
occurred in the shelter groups when either threats to or hurting/killing of pets was present in
these households.
The results of this study illustrate the landscape of terror in which many women, children, and
their pets reside and should prompt renewed attention to the confluence of family violence and
animal maltreatment.
The current research was designed to correct these research flaws and limitations on
generalizations from the earlier results.
METHOD
Samples
We collaborated with five Utah crisis shelters for women who are battered to enlist
participation by women who had experienced domestic violence. We also sought participation
by women, in the community, who did not have a history of domestic violence. The main
criteria were that women currently have pets or had pets in the past year and, for part of the
sample, that they had a child between 5 and 18 years of age who would be willing to
participate. The Appendix contains the protocol used for selecting participants as well as
samples of the informed consent documents used with participants. These materials as well as
the overall project protocol had been approved by Utah State University's Institutional Review
Board for research with human participants and the state agency overseeing shelter operations.
It should be emphasized that all participants were volunteers.
Shelter participants were invited to take part in the project by shelter staff and community
participants were enlisted through newspaper ads and posters placed throughout the
community. Our initial plan was to secure the shelter sample and then match its demographic
characteristics with the community sample. However, the prolongation of securing the shelter
participants (due to director and staff turnover at shelters) required us to begin testing
community volunteers before the majority of shelter participants were tested. The generous
time extensions granted by the Dodge Foundation did allow us to meet the target sample size
and, with assistance from Utah State University's Vice President for Research, we were able to
increase the community sample's size beyond that specified in the original proposal.
To facilitate reporting sample characteristics and results, I will use the following abbreviations
throughout the remainder of this report. Participants were categorized into these four groups:
S-C This group included women entering shelters for women who are battered and
who agreed to allow interviewing of one of their children. The number (N) who were
assessed was 39.
S-NC This group included sheltered women who did not have children, had children
whose ages did not meet our selection criteria, or who elected to not include their
children in the project. N=62.
NS-C This group included community women without a history of domestic violence
who agreed to report on one of their children (community children were not
interviewed due to the potentially disturbing nature of some of the assessment
questions). N=30.
NS-NC This group included community women without a history of domestic violence.
None of these women had children. N=30.
Since the Ns varied between groups, when sample characteristics or results are reported, they
will be reported as percentages. This also facilitates reporting in cases where one or two
respondents either failed to complete an item in the assessment or did not provide a scorable
response.
The age range of participants was 17 to 57 years with the following breakout for groups' mean
age: S-C 34.05 yrs; S-NC 30.23 yrs; NS-C 40.33 yrs; NS-NC 25.67 yrs. Although the mean
age of the S-C group was lower than the NS-C group and higher for the S-NC than NS-NC
group, the overall mean age of the shelter women (31.7 yrs) was comparable to that of the
community women (33 yrs.).
Reported marital status for the entire sample was: married - 64%, divorced - 9.9%, single 24.8%, and widowed -1.2%. There was greater diversity of marital status in the shelter samples
with more women falling into the divorced, single, and widowed categories.
Ethnic status was also more varied in the shelter samples but closely matched demographics
from a state-wide study of women who had been battered (Thompson, 1994). For the S-C
group, 71.8% were European American, 17.9% Hispanic, 2.6% Native American, 5.1 %
African American, and 2.6% "other" (e.g., mixed, Samoan). The corresponding figures for the
S-NC group were 66.1%, 9.7%, 9.7%, 9.7%, and 4.8%. The community samples were
overwhelmingly European American but the NS-C group included 6.7% Native Americans.
The number of years of education women reported for themselves and their partners was
lower, by two or three years, for shelter than community group women. The mean years of
partners' education for the S-C, S-NC, NS-C, and NS-NC groups were 11.83, 11.80, 15.5, and
14.4, respectively. Corresponding figures for women were 12.61, 12, 14.57, and 15,
respectively.
We used information about education and type of employment in computing Hollingshead
ratings of social status. In general, the shelter group scored lower than the community group
on this index. However, the results varied depending on whether both a woman and her partner
were employed, only the woman was employed, or only the partner was employed. The group
scores fell primarily in the semiskilled worker to minor professional / technical worker
categories. Specific Hollingshead scores are listed in the Appendix and will be reported when
this research is prepared for submission to an academic journal.
Assessments
Shelter women and children were interviewed by shelter staff once the initial crisis of entering
the shelter had subsided. Community women were interviewed by a psychology graduate
assistant. Women were informed about the nature of the project, the type of assessments,
methods for insuring the confidentiality of data, and the payment they would receive. Informed
consent forms and payment receipts were kept at the shelters to maintain the confidentiality of
shelter participants. Community participant forms and receipts were kept in locked university
files.
The primary assessments were the 30-item Battered Partner Shelter Survey (BPSS)/Pet
Maltreatment Survey (Ascione & Weber, 1996 revised) and a similar Families and Pets Survey
(PAPS; Ascione & Weber, 1996) for use with community women, the 17-item Children's
Observation and Experience with Their Pets (COEP) Survey (Ascione & Weber, 1995) used
only with the S-C group, and the 19-item Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1993) used with
all adult participants. Copies of these instruments are included in the Appendix. In addition, SC and NS-C women completed the 113-item Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991) on
"the child who has the most contact (positive or negative) with pets" in their families. The
content of these instruments will be elaborated in the Results section of this report.
Completed assessments were transformed into computer-ready data using a 24-page
codebook. In addition, open-ended comments and other qualitative information were
transcribed and used for descriptive purposes (e.g., other pet-related issues women chose to
share with the interviewers).
RESULTS
Information about demographics, history of pet ownership, pet care, and violence toward pets
was assessed with the BPSS and the PAPS.
Pet Ownership
We found that virtually all the women had pets in the past 12 months (SC 92.1%; S-NC
90.3%; NS-C 96.6%; NS-NC 100%), but shelter women were less likely to currently own a
pet (S-C 64.1%; S-NC 70.5%; NS-C 90%; NS-NC 83.3%). When women were asked about
the number of pets they had over the past five years, the mean number of pets was generally
higher for the two shelter groups (S-C 9.19 pets; S-NC 6.15; NS-C 5.6; NS-NC 5.4)
suggesting a higher rate of pet "turnover" in the shelter groups. If one deletes the highest
outlier figure for number of pets owned in a five-year period, the ranges for the four groups
differ remarkably: S-C 1-40 pets; S-NC 1-30; NS-C 1-16; NS-NC 1-13.
Pet Care
Reports of veterinary care for pets also differed for the shelter and community groups. Pets
were reported to receive regular veterinary care by 55.4% of the shelter women, but by 85% of
the community women. Emergency veterinary care was reported by 31.7% of shelter and
48.3% of community women. Pets were reported to have received their vaccinations by 73%
of shelter and 93.1 % of community women. These data suggest generally lower levels of
veterinary care for pets in families where there is domestic violence.
When asked whether their partners (e.g., husbands, boyfriends) helped to care for pets in their
homes, shelter women were less likely to respond positively. The percentage "Yes" responses
to this question for the four groups were: S-C 51.3%; S-NC 69.4%; NS-C 86.7%; NS-NC
86.7%.
A number of items asked about the variety of care for pets provided by partners. When asked if
the only care their partner provided was to feed pets, "Yes" responses were as follows: S-C
50%; S-NC 46.7%; NS-C 11.5%; NS-NC 3.8%. Partners of community women were clearly
more involved in a variety of pet-related activities beyond feeding, including walking,
grooming, and playing with pets. Partners' caring for pets by taking them to the veterinarian
was also more common in the community samples: S-C 0%; S-NC 4.4%; NS-C 15.4%; NSNC 19.2%.
Here again, there was a substantial difference between the reports of shelter and community
women. When asked if their partners had ever actually hurt or killed one of their pets, 69.2%
of S-C, 44.3% of S-NC, 7.1% of NS-C, and 0% of NS-NC group women said "Yes."
Regardless of group membership, some women indicated that pets had been hit or kicked, or
had been shot. The more horrific instances seemed to be restricted to the reports of shelter
women who reported the following examples (among many others): pet was drowned, pet was
nailed to the woman's bedroom door, pet was given alcohol and poison, pet's entire fur coat
was shaved during the winter, and pet was thrown out of a moving car. Most of the incidents
involved cats or dogs, but in the shelter groups, birds, gerbils, and rabbits were also mentioned
as victims of abuse or killing. Although community women indicated that actual harm or killing
only occurred once, 70% of S-C and 52.6% of S-NC group women indicated such incidents
occurred "multiple times." Of the women reporting, 83.3% of S-C and 88.9% of S-NC groups
noted that they were "very close" to the pet that was harmed.
Although community women cited the pet's biting or "discipline" as the reason pets were
harmed, most of the shelter women (70.4% for S-C and 60.7% for S-NC) could not give a
reason why pet abuse occurred. Those in the shelter groups who did provide a reason often
mentioned either the animal's behavior, the partner's attempt at coercion, or both.
Four of the shelter group women and two community group women indicated that they
themselves had hurt a pet. Except for one NS-NC group woman who said she once killed an
animal ("At a time in my life when I was sick"), the other women described the incidents as
accidents, mainly involving vehicles.
them and their children had increased. Increases in willingness to use violence toward pets was
reported by 30.8% of S-C and 29% of S-NC women.
The next section describes results from women's reports on their children's behavior with pets.
Recall that S-C and NS-C groups were asked to select a child who had the most contact
(positive or negative) with pets (herein referred to as "target children"). Shelter women (both
SC and S-NC) were also asked to report on children who were not targeted for additional
assessment in this research or, for the S-NC group, children women did not want included in
the study. Also, recall that none of the women in the NS-NC group had any children.
reported either no siblings or up to seven siblings. Current pet ownership was acknowledged
by 52.6% of the children and pet ownership in the past 12 months by 92.3% of children, which
corresponds well with maternal reports.
The items range from VERBAL TECHNIQUES (e.g., "discussed an issue calmly"), VERBAL
AGGRESSION (e.g., insults, swearing), MINOR PHYSICAL AGGRESSION (e.g., pushing,
grabbing, shoving), to SEVERE PHYSICAL AGGRESSION (e.g., burned, scalded, used a
knife, fired a gun). These four subscales yield different levels of mean scores since the number
of items in each subscale differ and some subscales, for example Severe Physical Aggression,
use a weighting procedure. Each item is scored as to the tactic's presence and its frequency of
use. Except for the Verbal Techniques subscale, higher scores reflect higher levels of
problematic verbal or physical aggression.
The following table lists the mean CTS subscale scores for women's self-ratings and ratings on
their partners for each of the four groups.
S-C S-NC NS-C NS-NC
Verbal Techniques
Women's reports on self
31.4 26.6 23.6 27.9
Women's reports on partners 12.2 12.2 23.1 21.8
Verbal Aggression
Women's reports on self
78.7 78.9 21.8 23.6
Women's reports on partners 102.1 100.1 15.8 18.5
.5
1.3
.1
.83
These data suggest that shelter women and community women were similar in their use of
Verbal Techniques during problem solving, but that partners of shelter women used these
techniques at a lower rate. The remainder of the table verifies that the shelter groups scored
higher on Verbal Aggression, Minor Physical Aggression, and Severe Physical Aggression than
the community groups. This was true for both the women's self ratings and their ratings of their
partners. The reported levels of minor and severe physical aggression in the homes of shelter
women are in sharp contrast with the levels in the homes of community women, supporting the
effectiveness of our selection procedures for securing samples of women with and without
violence in their homes. The most severe tactics (beating, burning, using a gun) were virtually
absent in the non-shelter comparison groups.
We examined Severe Physical Violence subscale scores for women's partners in relation to the
presence or absence of threats to or actual harm and killing of pets. For both shelter groups (SC and S-NC), we found the highest scores on partners' Severe Physical Violence in cases
where these men had either threatened pets or had threatened and actually hurt or killed a pet.
We also correlated the severity of threats to pets and the severity of actual harm to pets with
CTS subscale scores. For S-C women's self ratings on the CTS, we found the following
significant correlations (there were no significant correlations in the S-NC, NS-C, and NS-NC
groups):
Verbal Techniques
Verbal Aggression
Minor Physical Aggression
Severe Physical Aggression
Threat Severity
not significant
-.52 (p=.03)
-.41 (p=.09)
-.71 (p=.002)
Severity of Harm
not significant
-.50 (p=.02)
-.57 (p=.004)
-.45 (p=.03)
These correlations suggest that lower levels of aggression performed by S-C women were
associated with higher levels of threat and harm severity toward pets by partners.
A similar analysis for women's CTS reports on their partners yielded significant correlations
only for the NS-C group and only for threat severity (harming was too infrequent for analysis):
Threat Severity
Verbal Techniques
not significant
Verbal Aggression
-.85 (p=.03)
Minor Physical Aggression -.75 (p=.09)
Severe Physical Aggression not significant
These data suggest that, in the community sample with children, a partner's lower use of verbal
and minor physical aggression was associated with more severe threats toward pets. These
results suggest the existence of different dynamics in the relation between partner violence and
pet abuse for the shelter and community groups.
Finally, women were asked, "Are there any other pet or animal-related issues you'd like to
discuss?" The shelter women invariably mentioned a litany of pet abuse including a partner
prompting a dog fight, trying to hit a pet with a car, forcing his wife to have sex with a dog,
threatening to drop an animal from the fourth floor of a building, and starving an animal to
death. The community women, in contrast, mentioned positive features of pet ownership,
including the role of pets in relieving stress, grief over a lost pet, a pet's role in helping a child
overcome her fear of animals, and the calming effect of riding a horse.
IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study replicate and extend the results of an earlier study (Ascione, 1997) of
38 women who were battered and their reports of their partners' and children's maltreatment of
pets. In the earlier study, 71% of the women with pets reported that their partner had either
threatened or had actually hurt or killed one of their pets, and actual pet abuse was reported by
57% of the women. In the present study, 70.3 % of women in the shelter group reported either
threats to or actual harm of pets with 54% reporting actual harm. Threats to pets were
reported by 16.7% of non-shelter women and only 3.5% of these women reported actual harm
of pets, a sharp contrast to the shelter group data. The advantages of the current study include
the larger sample of shelter women (101 vs. 38), the inclusion of women from five different
shelters instead of only one, and a comparison group of community women who did not report
backgrounds of domestic violence. We now have more evidence that the results of the earlier
study were not idiosyncratic and that families with domestic violence may experience
significant levels of threats to and abuse of their pets.
Our incorporation of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) in this study also serves to tie this
research to the broader literature on family violence. We found that partners' use of extreme
physical aggression toward their wives or female companions in the shelter sample was
associated with the presence or absence of threats and harm to pets. However, it should be
recalled that the severity of these threats and harm was inversely related, only in the shelter
sample with children, to women's own use of more aggressive conflict tactics. One possible
interpretation is that when women are themselves less violent, this may make a partner more
prone to threaten or harm pets in a more serious manner, at least in families where children are
present. Conversely, women who are more violent may have partners who are less prone to
seriously threaten or hurt pets. For the community sample with children, we found that severity
of threats (but not harm since the N was too small) was inversely related to partners' use of
verbal and minor physical aggression (but not related to severe physical aggression). Thus, in
generally nonviolent homes with children, partners' greater use of verbal and minor physical
aggression is related to less severe threats toward pets. These potentially different dynamics, in
the shelter and community samples, between CTS scores and threat/harm severity deserve
further research attention.
Shelter women's emotional responses to their pets' victimization has not been explored in
previous research. The intensely negative emotional responses these women had to threats to
or harm of their pets suggests this is another form of trauma with which these women must
cope. Both the women and their children acknowledged that young people in these families had
witnessed pet abuse and the shelter children's emotional reactions to pets being hurt were also
negative. One can speculate that the abuse of pets (and seeing how this affects their children)
may prompt some women to decide to leave their violent partner yet, in a substantial minority
of cases, women in our shelter sample said that concern for their pets' welfare actually delayed
their leaving the home environment to seek shelter. This finding reinforces the importance of
programs that provide women who are battered with a method of placing their pets in a safe
haven when women decide to seek shelter. Other considerations for such programs are the
generally lower level of veterinary care we found in our shelter sample (e.g., fewer animals
having their vaccinations) and the apparently higher rate of pet "turnover" in these families as
suggested by the number of pets owned in the past five years.
To further extend the findings from earlier research (Ascione, 1997), we documented higher
rates and more severe levels of animal abuse by the children of shelter women. Although only
one in ten of the S-C group women identified a target child as abusive of pets, 27.3% of S-C
and 34.2% of S-NC women identified other children in their families who had abused pets (the
rate found in Ascione [1997] was 32%). These rates of child-perpetrated cruelty to animals are
comparable to other studies of psychologically compromised children. The fact that more
shelter than community group children scored in the clinical range on the checklist of child
behavior problems also suggests that the symptoms of these children's psychological
disturbance are not limited to animal abuse. Exposure to domestic violence is clearly a risk
factor for children and it might be useful to consider exposure to pet abuse as a further
compounding of risk.
And yet, despite the less than optimal rearing environments experienced by shelter group
children, the vast majority of these children also provided care for pets and over half of the
children reported that they had protected their pets from harm, often through active
intervention that could have been dangerous to the children themselves. We know that children
will sometimes try to intervene in altercations between their parents - we now know that they
may also intervene to rescue their pets from harm. Future research should attend to the
admixture of caring and cruelty present in children reared in violent homes. A better
understanding of the factors that lead some children to vent their pain on those less vulnerable
than themselves (for example, younger siblings or pets) and other children to cope with their
pain by becoming more nurturing could inform prevention and intervention efforts. Given the
discouraging national statistics on domestic violence, it is clear that many children and their
pets would benefit from the application of this knowledge and understanding.
LIMITATIONS
Although the samples of women we recruited for this study were comparable in age and in
their volunteer status, we were discouraged by our failure to match the shelter and community
samples more closely on demographic variables such as education and social status, ethnic
diversity, and marital status. The unanticipated difficulty in recruiting and testing shelter women
within our original time frame required us to begin testing community women before the
demographics of the shelter sample became available. To address this limitation, we were
fortunate to receive supplementary funding from Utah State University's Vice President for
Research and will attempt to recruit additional samples of community women who do match
the demographics we now have available. If we are successful, we will forward the results for
these women to the Dodge Foundation as an addendum to the project report. It should be
noted, however, that the demographics of our shelter sample did correspond well to the
demographics of a state-wide population of spouse abuse victims studied in Utah (Thompson,
1994).
Future research should also include direct assessment (through interviews and use of the Child
Behavior Checklist) of children from homes without domestic violence. We are currently
examining the ethical issues involved in such research (since children would be asked about
potentially disturbing incidents). We are doing this, in part, by becoming more familiar with the
ethics of research on children's reports of community violence.
A final area of inquiry that should be noted is the need to interview domestic violence
perpetrators about animal maltreatment. Partners may differ in their perceptions about the
significance of cruelty to animals, especially its effects on children who witness it. Addressing
animal abuse might also be a critical component of intervention programs for those who direct
their violence toward intimate partners, their children, and their pets.
FUTURE PLANS
One of our primary goals is to prepare a report of this research suitable for submission to a
scholarly journal in the area of interpersonal violence. We continue to review existing and
newly published research in this area and monographs that deal with childhood and adolescent
psychopathology. We are subjecting the data to appropriate statistical analyses and, once these
are completed, will prepare a manuscript for submission to a journal. We will forward the
Dodge Foundation a draft version of this document.
We will also prepare graphic representations of some of the results of this study for use in
national presentations to animal welfare, child welfare, and domestic violence prevention
programs. These will include a presentation in October at Michigan's annual state-wide
conference for domestic violence specialists and submission for a proposed workshop at the
12th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998.
The sponsorship of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation will be acknowledged in each of these
efforts at dissemination.
BUDGET
The attached listing of budget expenditures, provided by the Department of Psychology's
administrative assistant, includes buyouts for the principal investigator and research assistants
(Weber and Thompson). "Participants" refers to the women and children included in the
samples and payments listed for Ctr. For Women - Provo, YCC of Ogden, Brigham YWCA,
YWCA (Salt Lake City), and CAPSA (Logan) refer to the five cooperating shelters for women
who are battered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Claudia Weber for her coordination and training efforts, often challenging to say the
least, Teresa Thompson for her sensitive and professional assessment work, David Wood for
his collaboration, and the directors and staff at each of the five shelters, without whose
cooperation, there would have been little on which to report. Karen Ranson responded to the
many phone inquiries we had about this project and facilitated the preparation of printed
materials. Her professional secretarial contributions were invaluable.
A final and heartfelt thanks to the women and children who allowed us glimpses into their lives,
their fears, their distresses, and their hopes to reside in landscapes of peace.
Are battered women in domestic violence shelters forced to chose between their personal
safety and that of the pets they left behind when they fled? What policies and procedures do
enlightened shelters employ to deal with the issue of pet abuse by batterers as a means of
manipulation? What assistance can be provided? What are the psychological ramifications of
pet abuse in a domestic violence context? Dr. Frank Ascione provides the answers in Safe
Havens for Pets: Guidelines for Programs Sheltering Pets for Women Who Are Battered. This
vital work is available FREE thanks to funding from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.
Click here for all the details. This book is must reading for every domestic violence worker,
advocate, student, and supporter.
You can get more information on this subject from our Resources section Animal Abuse and
Domestic Violence.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-8. University of Vermont, Burlington.
Ascione, F. R. (1997). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals.
Journal of Emotional Abuse.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Battered Partner Shelter Survey (BPSS!/Pet Maltreatment Survey. Logan:
Department of Psychology, Utah State University.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Battered Partner Shelter Survey (BPSS!/Pet Maltreatment Survey
(Mother/child version!. Logan: Department of Psychology, Utah State University.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1995). Children's Observation and Experience with Their Pets (COEP!. Logan:
Department of Psychology, Utah State University.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. (1996). Families and Pets Survey 1996. Logan: Department of Psychology, Utah
State University.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Conflict Tactics Scales forms. Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire.
Thompson, K. D. (1994). Officially reported characteristics of spouse abuse victims seeking assistance in Utah.
1992. Unpublished master's thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
Andrew Vachss and The Zero would like to congratulate Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., on his receipt of the 2001
Distinguished Scholar Award from the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations
and the International Society for Anthrozoology. We have been honored to feature Dr. Ascione's work
regarding the links between personal violence and animal cruelty on the website, and add our respect to that
of the Society's.
to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of
worthless human lives," wrote humanitarian Albert Schweitzer. "Murderers...very often start
out by killing and torturing animals as kids," according to Robert K. Resler, who developed
profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Studies have now
convinced sociologists, lawmakers, and the courts that acts of cruelty toward animals deserve
our attention. They can be the first sign of a violent pathology that includes humans.
A Long Road of Violence Animal abuse is not just the result of a minor personality flaw in the
abuser, but a symptom of a deep disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows
that people who commit acts of cruelty against animals don't stop there; many of them move
on to their fellow humans.
The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears
in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and
treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic
criterion for conduct disorders.(1)
Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to have abused
animals as children than criminals considered non-aggressive.(2) A survey of psychiatric
patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of
aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy.(3) To
researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the lives of serial rapists and
killers.(4)
Notorious Killers
History is replete with notorious examples: Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post
office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to
attack and mutilate them.(5) Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-yearold boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs'
rectums and strung up cats.(6) Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing
two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting
their tails on fire.(7) Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped
dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.(8) Carroll
Edward Cole, executed for five of 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of
violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.(9) In 1987, three Missouri high school students
were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of
animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed he had killed so many cats he'd
lost count.(10) Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates they
had decapitated a cat.(11) Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs' heads, frogs, and cats
on sticks.(12)
Sadly, many of these criminals' childhood violence went unexamineduntil it was directed
toward humans. As anthropologist Margaret Mead noted, "One of the most dangerous things
that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it."
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had
been abused.(13) Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been
identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.(14)
While animal abuse is an important sign of child abuse, the parent isn't always the one harming
the animal. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home; like their
parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the
only individual in the family more vulnerable than themselves: an animal. One expert says,
"Children in violent homes are characterized by...frequently participating in pecking-order
battering," in which they may maim or kill an animal. Indeed, domestic violence is the most
common background for childhood cruelty to animals.(15)
References
1.Goleman, Daniel, "Child's Love of Cruelty May Hint at the Future Killer, "The New York
Times, Aug. 7, 1991.
2."Animal Abuse Forecast of Violence," New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan. 1, 1987.
3.Felthous, Alan R., "Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People," Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 1980, 10: 169-177.
4.Goleman.
5.International Association of Chiefs of Police, "The Training Key," #392, 1989.
Says Robert Ressler, founder of the FBIs behavioral sciences unit, These are the kids who
never learned its wrong to poke out a puppys eyes. (5)
Notorious Killers
History is replete with notorious examples: Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post
office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to
attack and mutilate them.(6) Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-yearold boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs
rectums and strung up cats.(7) Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing
two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting
their tails on fire.(8) Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler who killed 13 women, trapped
dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.(9) Carroll
Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of
violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.(10) In 1987, three Missouri high school students
were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of
animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats
hed lost count. (11) Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates
that they had decapitated a cat.(12) Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs heads,
frogs, and cats on sticks.(13)
More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and
Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees.(14)
Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12
classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their
friends.(15)
There is a common theme to all of the shootings of recent years, says Dr. Harold S.
Koplewicz, director of the Child Study Center at New York University. You have a child who
has symptoms of aggression toward his peers, an interest in fire, cruelty to animals, social
isolation, and many warning signs that the school has ignored.(16)
Sadly, many of these criminals childhood violence went unexamineduntil it was directed
toward humans. As anthropologist Margaret Mead noted, One of the most dangerous things
that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it.(17)
Animal Cruelty and Family Violence
Because domestic abuse is directed toward the powerless, animal abuse and child abuse often
go hand in hand. Parents who neglect an animals need for proper care or abuse animals may
also abuse or neglect their own children. Some abusive adults who know better than to abuse a
child in public have no such qualms about abusing an animal publicly.
In 88 percent of 57 New Jersey families being treated for child abuse, animals in the home had
been abused.(18) Of 23 British families with a history of animal neglect, 83 percent had been
identified by experts as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.(19) In one study of battered
women, 57 percent of those with pets said their partners had harmed or killed the animals. One
in four said that she stayed with the batterer because she feared leaving the pet behind.(20)
While animal abuse is an important sign of child abuse, the parent isnt always the one harming
the animal. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home; like their
parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the
only individual in the family more vulnerable than themselves: an animal. One expert says,
Children in violent homes are characterized by frequently participating in pecking-order
battering, in which they may maim or kill an animal. Indeed, domestic violence is the most
common background for childhood cruelty to animals.(21)
Stopping the Cycle of Abuse
There is a consensus of belief among psychologists that cruelty to animals is one of the
best examples of the continuity of psychological disturbances from childhood to adulthood. In
short, a case for the prognostic value of childhood animal cruelty has been well documented,
according to the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.(22)
Schools, parents, communities, and courts who shrug off animal abuse as a minor crime are
ignoring a time bomb. Instead, communities should be aggressively penalizing animal abusers,
examining families for other signs of violence, and requiring intensive counseling for
perpetrators. Communities must recognize that abuse to ANY living individual is unacceptable
and endangers everyone.
In 1993, California became the first state to pass a law requiring animal control officers to
report child abuse. Voluntary abuse-reporting measures are also on the books in Ohio,
Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. Similar legislation has been introduced in Florida. Pet
abuse is a warning sign of abuse to the two-legged members of the family, says the bills
sponsor, Representative Steve Effman. We cant afford to ignore the connection any
longer.(23)
Additionally, children should be taught to care for and respect animals in their own right. After
extensive study of the links between animal abuse and human abuse, two experts concluded,
The evolution of a more gentle and benign relationship in human society might, thus, be
enhanced by our promotion of a more positive and nurturing ethic between children and
animals.(24)
What You Can Do:
Urge your local school and judicial systems to take cruelty to animals seriously. Laws must
send a strong message that violence against any feeling creaturehuman or other-than-human
is unacceptable.
Be aware of signs of neglect or abuse in children and animals. Take children seriously if they
report animals being neglected or mistreated. Some children wont talk about their own
suffering but will talk about an animals.
Dont ignore even minor acts of cruelty to animals by children. Talk to the child and the childs
parents. If necessary, call a social worker.
References
1. Daniel Goleman, Childs Love of Cruelty May Hint at the Future Killer, The New York
Times, 7 Aug. 1991.
2. Animal Abuse Forecast of Violence, New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1 Jan. 1987.
3. Alan R. Felthous, Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People, Child Psychiatry and
Human
Development, 10 (1980), 169-177.
4. Goleman.
5. Robert Ressler, quoted in Animal Cruelty May Be a Warning, Washington Times, 23 June
1998.
6. International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Training Key, No. 392, 1989.
The FBI sees animal cruelty as a predictor of violence against people and considers
past animal abuse when profiling serial killers.
National and state studies have established that from 54 to 71 percent of women
seeking shelter from abuse reported that their partners had threatened, injured or killed
one or more family pets (Anicare Model workshop, Tacoma, 2004. Created in 1999,
the AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse treats people over 17 by bringing
abusers and animals together. A companion program treats children.)
In assessing youth at risk of becoming violent, the U.S. Department of Justice stresses
a history of animal abuse.
More than 80 percent of family members being treated for child abuse also had abused
animals. In two-thirds of these cases, an abusive parent had killed or injured a pet. In
one-third of the cases, a child victim continued the cycle of violence by abusing a pet.
A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and
Northeastern University found that 70 percent of animal abusers had committed at least one
other crime. Almost 40 percent had committed violent crimes against people.
The researchers also compared matched groups of abusers and non-abusers over a 20-year
period. They found the abusers were five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the
non-abusers.
Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application, Frank
R. Ascione, author and Randall Lockwood, editor
AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse, Animals and Society Institute
Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does
not confine itself to animal abuse. "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living
creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives," wrote humanitarian
Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And according to Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the
FBI, "Murderers very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids."
Animal abuse is not just the result of a minor personality flaw in the abuserit is a symptom of a deep
mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty
toward animals rarely stop there; many of them move on to their fellow humans.
The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appear in its computer
records of serial rapists and murderers. The standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and
emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.
A study conducted by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA found that people who abuse
animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. The majority of inmates who are
scheduled to be executed for murder at California's San Quentin penitentiary "practiced" their crimes on
animals, according to the warden.
HUMAN VIOLENCE
Home
MADACC
ABOUT
US
ABOUT
DOGFIGHTING
ABOUT
DOGFIGHTING
NEWS EVENTS
ABOUT
PITBULLS
HOW TO
RESOURCES
HELP
HUMAN
VIOLENCE
SA
COMM
Whenever an animal is abused, a chain reaction begins in our community. Not onl
innocent animal get injured, but the person who commits the offense often falls in
could ultimately result in violence against other people. Often, cruelty to animals
aspect of a social environment marked by violence.
People wh
animals ar
more likely
violent crim
huma
Animal abuse, like many other forms of abuse, is about power and control over a
victim. It is intolerable. By taking action against animal cruelty, we not only preve
suffering, but also uncover and perhaps prevent additional crimes. Understand the
animal abuse seriously. Hurting an animal hurts us all.
The link between animal abuse and more violent conduct has clearly been establis
dismembered remains of dogs and cats today could well be that of children tomor
often suffer alongside human dependents in neglectful homes. Such disregard for
recognize species lines and may turn into violence.
Violent acts against animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangero
psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. Many studies in psychology, s
criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders star
cruelty toward animals, and dont stop there; many of them move on to humans.
While animal abuse is an important sign of child abuse, the parent isnt always the
the animal. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at hom
parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is d
One expert says, Children in violent homes are characterized by ... frequently pa
pecking-order battering, in which they may maim or kill an animal. Indeed, dom
is the most common background for childhood cruelty to animals.
Researchers have found that a batterers first target is often an
animal living in the home, the second a spouse or child. Often,
batterers are able to control their victims, such as a spouse, by
threatening, torturing, and/or killing the victims animal
companions. A 1997 survey found that out of the 50 largest
shelters for battered women in the United States, 85% of the
women and 63% of the children entering shelters discussed
incidents of pet abuse in their family.
The neglect
exploitation
promote vio
neighborh
fami
Three separate studies have documented that from 18% to 40% of women seekin
crisis center reported that concern for the welfare of their pet prevented them fro
shelter, in some cases for more than two months. If you need help, the Sheltering
Abuse Victims (SAAV) Program is an all-volunteer nonprofit organization that pr
temporary, and confidential shelter for the pets of domestic abuse victims fleeing
www.saavprogram.org for more information.
Many animal abusers have a history of other antisocial or criminal activities, inclu
vandalism, assault, and arson, and many are the victims of physical or sexual abus
cruelty is often associated with children who do poorly in school and have low se
few friends.
Animal cruelty, like any other form of violence, is often committed by a person w
powerless, unnoticed, and under the control of others. The motive may be to sho
intimidate, or offend others or to demonstrate rejection of societys rules. Some w
to animals copy things they have seen or that have been done to them. Others see
animal as a safe way to get revenge on someone who cares about that animal.
The recent arrest of Interpol fugitive Luka Magnotta served as a rude reminder that animal
cruelty is not a crime to be taken lightly. Magnotta was arrested in Germany for murdering,
mutilating and cannibalizing a young man in Montreal, Canada. Magnotta recorded video of
the murder, then posted it on the Internet.
For two years prior, animal activists had been searching for a young man who had posted
videos of himself online, torturing and killing cats. Montreal law enforcement has since
identified the animal abuser as Magnotta.
The Link between Animal Cruelty and Violent Crime
Analyses by sociologists, psychologists and criminologists during the past 25 years show that
perpetrators of animal cruelty frequently do not stop with animal victims. Many will move on
to commit acts of violence against humans. A 1997 study by Northeastern University and the
Massachusetts SPCA reported that nearly 40% of animal abusers had committed violent crimes
against people.
A FBI survey of convicted serial killers found that most serial killers tortured or killed animals
as children or teens, before moving on to human victims. Among them were Jeffrey Dahmer,
who had impaled dogs' heads, frogs and cats on sticks as a teen, as well as Columbine High
School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who bragged about mutilating animals to their
friends, before shooting and killing 12 classmates and taking their own lives.
Studies also show a strong correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence. National
surveys have found that among battered women who owned companion pets, as many as 71%
reported that their male partners had threatened to harm their pets, or had in fact injured or
killed their pets. Survey results also show a detrimental effect on children who witness animal
abuse in their families: among the same group of battered women, 32% reported that one of
their own children had also engaged in animal cruelty.
The Humane Society of the United States estimates that nearly 1 million animals a year are
abused or killed in connection with domestic violence. Acknowledging the significance and
severity of this problem, 22 states have passed laws empowering courts to specifically include
pets in domestic violence protection orders.
Felony Animal Cruelty
Today all 50 states have enacted laws prohibiting animal cruelty. The statutes criminalize two
types of actions: (1) intentional acts, such as killing, torturing, or deliberately injuring an
animal; and (2) the failure to act, as in the failure to provide adequate food, water, shelter, or in
some states, reasonable veterinary care, for an animal.
Recognizing that animal abusers are likely to commit acts of violence against humans as well,
state legislatures are strengthening animal protection laws. Before 1986, only 4 states had
felony animal anti-cruelty laws. Today, all but 3 states have enacted felony animal cruelty
provisions. (The three states currently with no felony provisions are Idaho, North Dakota and
South Dakota.) Of the 47 states with felony provisions, 43 allow first-time offenders to be
charged with a felony in cases of intentional and aggravated cruelty. Many states have enacted
felony provisions for repeat offenses, even if the first offense was only a misdemeanor.
Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves
Repeat offenses by animal abusers are not uncommon. Recidivism among animal hoarders is
estimated to be 100%. Once the initial case is resolved, the hoarder will set up shop again in a
different -- or even the same -- jurisdiction in which their first case was prosecuted.
To prevent recurrences of animal abuse, animal welfare advocates nationwide are rallying state
and local legislators to establish animal abuser registries. The proposed registries are patterned
after the child molester registries established by Megan's Law. With the the names and
locations of convicted animal abusers made public, animal shelters, rescues, breeders, pet
shops, groomers and veterinarians could help ensure that no additional animals are placed into
the hands of convicted abusers.
Suffolk County in New York was the first jurisdiction to establish an animal abuser registry
requirement in 2010. Today, 25 states, including New York and California, are considering
legislation to establish animal abuser registries.
The registries may help save more than just animals' lives."We know there is a very strong
correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence," says Jon Cooper, the sponsor of the
Suffolk County animal abuser registry bill. "Almost every serial killer starts out by torturing
animals, so in a strange sense we could end up protecting the lives of people."
***
Albert 'Boston Strangler' DeSalvo was responsible for killing 13 women after a sexual
assault they were strangled with their own clothing.
Killer teenagers Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold from (Columbine High School), and Kip
Kinkel were also known for their past history of animal cruelty, and would gloat about
what they had done to stray cats, only weeks before they embarked on a massacre killing 12
students and a teacher as well as wounding 23 others,
Why is it a concern?
Animal cruelty can be one of the earliest and most dramatic indicators that an individual is
developing a pattern of seeking power and control by inflicting suffering on others.
Source
Source
A recent Newsweek article titled "Why the Young Kill," reports juvenile
homicide is twice as common today as it was in the mid-1980s. Bad
parenting, media and societal violence, and America's gun culture are
the chief culprits.
Tragically, the link between animal abuse and human violence is well
established. Serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam"
A 1994 report from the FBI stated that cruelty to animals is one of the
traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and
killers: "The future killer's childhood concentration on violence will
lead to an adulthood violence focus."
Source
Pen Pals
by Jacquelyn Gibbons
A Rodale Press contribution
When people think of the bond between animals and humans, the first relationship that springs to mind usually isn't pri
pets. Sister Pauline Quinn, founder of the Prison Pet Partnership Program, is changing all that.
The program, which teaches prisoners to train, groom, and board dogs within prison walls, was started as a collaborativ
in 1981 by Sister Pauline, a Dominican nun, and the late Dr. Leo Bustad, former chair of Washington State University's
veterinary program.
Their belief was that inmate rehabilitation could be facilitated by the animal-human bond. With that thought in mind, inm
the Washington State Corrections Center for Women began to reach out to the community by training special dogs tha
assist disabled people. (Since then, other programs have been initiated in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Maine.)
All inmates have to do a three-month apprenticeship prior to getting a dog and have two or more years remaining in th
confinement, as it takes about 8 to 12 months to train the service dogs.
Those dogs involved in the program who lack the necessary temperament to be trained as service dogs are trained in
obedience skills and placed in the community as "Paroled Pets." Many of the animals in the program are taken from an
rescue organizations.
Since the program's inception, more than 700 dogs have been placed as service, seizure, and therapy dogs for childre
adults with disabilities and as pets in families.
In addition to saving the lives of dogs on "death row" at local shelters, the program also positively affects the lives of in
who learn valuable and marketable job skills they can use when they resume life outside prison walls. Prisoners work t
care technician certification or companion animal hygienist certification.
Most importantly, however, inmates are given the chance to give love and be loved in return. "The prisoners feel really
about themselves when they train a dog to help someone," says Sister Pauline. "There is no greater feeling than knowi
helped people change their life."
At this time, 100 percent of the inmates involved in the program who have been released have found employm
the recidivism rate has been zero.
One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill and torture an animal
and get away with it.
Margaret Mead
Human beings' treatment of animals has been acknowledged for centuries to reflect an
individual's attitude to fellow human beings. We are not born with a cruel gene, it develops as a
consequence of environment and society. In 1905 Freud suggested that clinicians pay special
attention to children who are cruel to animals.
Today there is growing evidence that childhood violence toward animals is often a sign
something is terribly wrong, and acts as a warning of future violence against humans. With
guidance from adults children can be taught to empathise with the sentience of other creatures.
Without intervention and/or positive mentoring they may become locked into a lifetime of
perpetuating cruelty. Violence - whether the victim has two or four legs, wings, or fins - is
violence.
In the last decade social scientists and law enforcement agencies have begun to study in detail
the roots of violence connecting child maltreatment, spouse and partner abuse and aggression
in our neighbourhoods. Law enforcement officials, prosecutors, victim service providers,
physicians, mental health providers, and child/adult protective service officials are teaming with
animal control officers and veterinarians to protect the most vulnerable in our community.
Above is a reproduction of a billboard created in the USA for the Washington Humane Society.
The text reads:
People who abuse animals rarely stop there
Studies show that people who abuse their pets are also likely to abuse their kids. So if you see
an animal mistreated or neglected, please report it. Because the parent who comes home and
kicks the cat is probably just warming up.
It is foolish and dangerous to dismiss childhood cruelty with "kids will be kids".
If a child is a bully or is cruel to animals, that child is warning the community he or she
needs help.
Reasons include:
Lack of family involvement as a child Pets
who are not part of the family and locked
outside Children who are exposed to
spousal abuse even spousal dating of
many Children who are unfamiliar with
proper disciplinary actions Because of the
success of many animal advocacy groups,
including the twothat I represent
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals and
the Doris Day Animal Foundation many
professionals from a variety of disciplines
What We Know
About the Link Between
Animal
Abuse
Violence
And Human
Pets who are not part of the family and locked outside
Children who are exposed to spousal abuse even spousal dating of many
Because of the success of many animal advocacy groups, including the two that I
represent Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Doris Day
Animal Foundation many professionals from a variety of disciplines as well as the
general public have become aware of the link between animal abuse and human
violence. The FBIs investigation into the childhood of serial killers, and their
discovery of juvenile animal abuse in most of these cases, drew the publics attention
to this link initially. When I make presentations to various audiences whether
educators, mental health professionals, police, prosecutors, domestic violence
advocates, child protection workers, or animal control officers most know that
serials killers started their grisly careers by torturing and killing animals.
Mary Lou Randour is the Program Director of Psychologists for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.
RESOURCES
Beyond Violence: The Human-Animal Connection is a kit that contains both a video
and a Discussion Guide. Available from Pscyhologists for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals.
Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application
by Randall Lockwood (Editor), Frank R. Ascione (Editor); paperback, 424 pages,
Purdue Univ Press; ISBN: 1557531064
Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of
Compassion for Prevention and Intervention by Frank Ascione (Editor), Phil Arkow
(Editor), paperback, 480 pages, 1999, Purdue University Press, ISBN: 1557531439.
[TOP]
For a thorough search of the subject on the Internet, visit Google and use the
keywords "animal abuse and human violence."
Humane Groups Applaud Menendez Bill to Make Animal Cruelty a Separate Category in
Crime Data Reporting System
(December 10, 2007)The Humane Society of the United States and the Humane
Society Legislative Fund today welcomed the introduction of new legislation in the
U.S. Senate, introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), directing the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to include animal cruelty crimes as a separate category in the
agencys crime data reporting system.
"Having the ability to track animal cruelty cases anywhere in the country is a long
overdue step that would not only help animals, but would also give law enforcement
agencies the tools they need to prevent violent offenders from escalating their
terrible behavior," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The Humane
Society of the United States, and president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
"We are grateful to Senator Menendez for introducing this important anti-crime bill,
for the sake of animals, and for public safety and security in our communities."
The Tracking Animal Cruelty Crimes Act of 2007 directs the U.S. Attorney General
to modify the FBIs crime data reporting systems, which include the Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, the National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the yet-tobe released Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx), to list cruelty to
animals as a separate offense category.
"Clearly, giving police and policymakers accurate information about animal cruelty
crimes would help attack the persistent problems of family violence, combat the
increasingly lucrative industry of dogfighting, and help stop violent criminals and
gangs before they commit even worse crimes," said Sen. Menendez.
Although all states have anti-cruelty laws and 43 states provide felony-level
penalties, local police agencies do not have a place in their reporting forms to enter
these crimes. The result is that animal cruelty crimes are assigned to miscellaneous
categories that provide no further guidance to law enforcement agents or
policymakers. Without accurate tracking, there is no way to access important
information such as trends or the relationship to demographic and geographic data,
on which to base policy development and resource allocation.
Research clearly demonstrates that there is a close association between animal abuse
and family violence, as well as other crimes. In addition, animal abuse frequently is
one of the first signals of a child, and family, at risk. For example:
Pet abuse was identified as one of the four predictors for intimate partner
violence in a recent study conducted by a nationally-recognized team of
domestic violence researchers;
Among children, pet abuse is an early indicator of anti-social behavior. All the
experts agree that early identification and intervention is the key to helping
children at risk;
Adults who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to participate in other
criminal activities, including violence against people, drug and substance
abuse, and property offenses;
During the 1980s, in developing profiles of serial killers, the FBIs Behavioral
Crime Unit discovered that all serial killers had engaged in repeated acts of
animal cruelty;
"We know that early identification and intervention is a key to solving the problem of
violence in our communities," said Mary Lou Randour, Ph.D., director of
human/animal relations for The Humane Society of the United States. "The addition
of animal cruelty to the FBI crime database would provide an important tool for
those efforts."
Sen. Menendez was joined in introducing the bill today by co-sponsors Sen.
Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Carl Levin (DMich.). In the House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Chairman John
Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have been leading the effort
to add animal cruelty to the FBIs crime data reporting system.
--30-Media contact: Jordan Crump: 301-548-7793, jcrump@humanesociety.org
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a social welfare organization incorporated
under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and formed in 2004 as a
separate lobbying affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States. The HSLF
works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the
public about animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.
On the web at www.hslf.org.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection
organization backed by 10 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a
half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through
advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting
cruelty On the Web at humanesociety.org
/0
Best
Serial killer Moninder Singh has probably killed more than 30 children and young women over
the last two years. His servant says he brought them in and Moninder Singh raped and killed
them. We do not know how many he has killed before. He could not have just started his
killing spree in middle age. It has to have been a continuous thing for Moninder Singh is a
sociopath a man without emotions who kills purely for pleasure. A man from a rich family,
educated in the best schools and colleges , married with a son , lots of friends , the man led a
carefully
calculated
double
life.
If our police forces used modern techniques they would have recognized the symptoms ages
ago. The man went hunting from the age of six, he killed animals continuously, his parents
encouraged him with guns and even had all his killings framed . His houses have pictures of
him as a child , standing with dead animals. He went hunting long after the laws came in 1972
banning it. He couldnt be bothered about the law , the pleasure of the kill was far too
irresistible. For him a small child, specially a village child, is the equivalent of an animal : see
how he lures them in , how meticulous the chase and its preparation, the house is made ready,
the child is watched for weeks , then enticed with sweets or the offer of work. Once in, the
child is raped by this sociopath , not for the sexual pleasure but because it is the ultimate
subjugation of a wild animal.Then killed and efficiently disposed off. He and his servant even
eat
some of the organs that
is what you do with animals.
Moninder Singh fits into the pattern of all psychopathic killers. As children they start with
killing small animals and their parents applaud them for their daring. Most children can be cruel
to animals, such as pulling the legs off of spiders, but future serial killers often kill larger
animals, like dogs and cats, and frequently for their solitary enjoyment rather than to impress
peers.
Studies done of serial killers all over the world , and of deliberate killers who are wantonly
violent have only one thing in common they were all cruel to animals first. As a child, serial
killer and rapist Ted Bundy who murdered more than 40 women witnessed his fathers violence
toward animals, and he himself subsequently tortured animals.Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped
and stabbed boys, was known in his neighborhood for hanging cats and torturing dogs.David
Berkowitz ( Son of Sam), who pleaded guilty to 13 murder charges, shot a neighbors
Labrador retriever.Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a California school, killing two children
and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often setting their tails on
fire.Serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of dogs and cats on sticks.
I
n 1999 in Colorado Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot to death 12 fellow students and a
teacher and injured more than 20 others. Both teens boasted about mutilating animals. In 1998,
Oregon, Kip Kinkel, 15, killed his parents and opened fire in his high school cafeteria, killing
two and injuring 22 others. He had a history of animal abuse and torture, having boasted about
blowing up a cow and killing cats and squirrels by putting lit firecrackers in their mouths. In
1998, Arkansaw Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11 shot and killed four classmates
and a teacher. Golden used to shoot dogsall the time with a .22. In 1997, Kentucky Michael
Carneal, 14, shot and killed three students. Carneal had thrown a cat into a bonfire. In 1997,
Mississippi. Luke Woodham, 16, shot and killed two of his classmates and injured seven others
after stabbing his mother to death. Woodhams journal revealed that, in a moment of true
beauty, he and a friend had beaten, burned, and tortured his own dog to death.
Violent acts toward animals have now been recognized as indicators of a dangerous
psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. Anyone who has accustomed himself to
regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of
worthless human lives, wrote Dr. Albert Schweitzer. Murderers very often start out by killing
and torturing animals as kids, according to Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of
serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Studies have now convinced
sociologists, lawmakers, and the courts that acts of cruelty toward animals can be the first sign
of violence that includes human victims. The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals
is one of the traits that regularly appear in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers,.
From 1987 the standard medical book for psychiatric and emotional disorders, the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists cruelty to animals as a criterion . A study
conducted by Northeastern University found that people who abuse animals are five times
more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. The majority of inmates scheduled to be
executed for murder at Californias San Quentin penitentiary practiced their crimes on
animals,
according
to
the
warden.
All too often, animal cruelty is viewed as a childhood prank. None of us, think that our
children or next door neighbors are budding serial killers. Therefore most dismiss or overlook
evidence of animal cruelty that they might otherwise notice. But it is foolhardy to ignore
statistics that show that kids who hurt animals may be on a dangerous path that will only get
worse if not corrected. A 1999 Canadian study of 63 suspects who were charged with animal
crueltyranging from severe animal neglect to intentional killingfound that 78 percent of
them had also been charged with offenses involving violence against people. A 1997 study
revealed that 46 percent of criminals convicted of sexual homicide had previously committed
acts of cruelty toward animals. A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured
dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well.
Studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated
that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and
repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its
analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as
children. Research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of child
abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers
animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.
A a study done in Massachusetts from 1975-1996 by sociologists identified 153 men who had
been prosecuted for animal cruelty and compared their criminal records to a group of men
similar in age, ethnic background, neighborhood, and economic status. Their findings were
convincing: men who abused animals were five times more likely to have been arrested for
violence against humans, four times more likely to have committed property crimes, and three
times more likely to have records for drug and disorderly conduct offenses.
Violence towards animals is a very serious issue, and it needs to be taken seriously by not only
animal advocates like myself, but by those who are concerned about violence in our society. I
would suggest that all hunters be examined for human brutality Salman Khan kills animals
and people with the same insouciance. So does another filmstar currently wanted on a gun
charge for helping blow up Mumbai. Peerzada who photographed himself with dead animals
everyday in and around Chandigarh was also involved in the General Vaidya murder. Pataudi
will turn up with quite a few skeletons in his cupboard.
Maneka Gandhi
Zoosadism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims
made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be
removed. (November 2007)
Zoosadism is a term coined by Ernest Borneman referring to pleasure (sometimes sexual
pleasure) derived from cruelty to animals. Zoosadism is part of the Macdonald triad, a set of
three behaviors that are a precursor to sociopathic behavior.[1]
Contents
1 Research
2 Legal status
3 Insects
4 Notable zoosadists
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Research
Schedel-Stupperich (2001) state that some horse-ripping incidences have a sexual connection,
and in general, the link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with
humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their
childhood, with some of them also practicing bestiality. Ressler et al. (1988) found that 36% of
sexual murderers described themselves as having abused animals during childhood, with 46%
of them reporting that they had abused animals during adolescence, and (1986) that eight of
their sample of thirty-six sexual murderers showed an interest in zoosexual acts.
In 1971, American researchers profiled the typical animal harmer as being a nine-and-a-halfyear-old boy, with an I.Q. of 91 and a history of gross parental abuse. The UK "Young Abusers
Project" sees children as young as five who have a record of sexual offences or "extremely"
violent behavior. Of such people, child psychiatrist Dr Eileen Vizard, commented:
"They stomp on small hamsters or mice. Squeeze them or burst them, set fire to their fur.
Gratuitous cruelty for which there can be no justification."[2]
Dr Vizard commented:
"cruelty to animals, if accompanied by a sexual interest in animals, is a high-risk indicator of
a future sex offender."[2]
Studies have shown that individuals who enjoy or are willing to inflict harm on animals are
more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies,
including antisocial personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals.
According to the New York Times:
"the FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears
in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and
treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic
criterion for conduct disorders."[3]
Alan R. Felthous reported in his paper "Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People" (1980)
that
"A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them
had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a
boy."[4]
This is a commonly reproduced finding, and for this reason, violence (including sexually
oriented violence) toward animals is considered a serious warning sign of potential serious
violence towards humans.
Over the past fifty years, modern research has confirmed that not all sexual activity with
animals is violent nor dangerous. This preconception has been criticized by researchers, for the
bias that can result within bona fide research into zoosadism and abuse. Older research often
focused on known abusers such as violent juvenile offenders, and generalizations from such
studies have often been criticized post-publication as being tainted by circular reasoning,
arguments from incredulity, and other fallacies:
"There are different people who engage in sex with animals and not the kind of interaction but
first and foremost the quality of the relationship seems to distinguish between them. This
emotional relation or at least the respect they show towards the will of the involved animal
should be more closely investigated, when conducting research that includes bestiality. Because
[it is] this, the quality of the interaction and the relationship that may be loving, neutral, or
violent and not the fact of a sexual interaction [which] is important, and provides information
for a better understanding of bestiality and zoophilia and their significance in relation to other
phenomena."
Andrea Beetz, [5]
Kidd and Kidd (1987) identified that
"most of these older research and models rarely took the variety of possible interactions and
relations into account, studying the physical acts in isolation."[6]
Andrea Beetz comments that, perhaps because of this,
"In most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically
implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather,
sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."[5]
In the same manner, Dr. Stephanie Lafarge, an assistant professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the
New Jersey Medical School and sex therapist, who is the Director of Counseling at the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and works with the New York
correctional system, is quoted in a 1999 newspaper article as saying that "It's important to
make the distinction [between animal sexual abuse and zoophilia]" and that
"There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's
not the case. We do make the link between other forms of physical violence against animals as
being a predicator of physical violence against women and children. I would go on to say that
someone who is sexually violent with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that
toward people." [7]
Professors Martin Weinberg & Colin J. Williams of the Kinsey Institute stated in testimony to
the Missouri House in 1999:
"No one can argue about the objective harm resulting from a behavior like rape. Such harm
arises from the absence of consent and the trauma that accompanies and follows from the
act ... Our research suggests that forcing sex on an unwilling animal is rare among adult
zoophiles ... The question of consent is usually conflated with the question of harm, which we
believe to be the better question. Zoophiles appear to be extremely caring and concerned for
their animal(s) and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [the
bill] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse."
Beetz states categorically:
"Former, as well as the here presented research, suggests that zoophilia itself does not
represent a clinically significant problem and is not necessarily combined with other clinically
significant problems and disorders, even if it may be difficult for some professionals to accept
this."[5]
Legal status
In the United States, since 2010, it has been a federal offense to create or distribute "obscene"
depictions of "living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians ... subjected to serious
bodily injury".[8] This statute replaced an overly broad 1999 statute [9] which was found
unconstitutional in United States v. Stevens.
Insects
Zoosadism towards insects is also exhibited by some. The classic example of this subvariety of
"schoolyard viciousness" is the child who pulls off a fly's wings. The Roman writer Plutarch, in
his Parallel Lives, claims that the Emperor Domitian amused himself by catching flies and
impaling them with needles.
Notable zoosadists
Dennis Rader
Jun Matsubara
Kenny Glenn
Jim Jones
Otis Toole
Rostislav Bogoslevsky[10]
Richard Chase[12]
See also
Animal abuse
Bearbaiting
Bloodsport
Cat-burning
Crush film
Zoophilia
References
1.
2.
3.
^ Goleman, Daniel (7 August 1991). "Child's Love of Cruelty May Hint at the
Future Killer". New York Times
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
^ Cowan, Rosie (11 August 2005). "Childhood cruelty to animals may signal
violence in future". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 20 April 2010.
12.
PROGRAMMES GUIDE
See also:
09 May 00 | UK
Animal abusers investigated
10 Jan 00 | UK
Man jailed for cooking cat
11 Mar 00 | UK
Are Britons still animal
Cruelty to animals is a "sign
things are going wrong"
crackers?
The Scottish Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes there is a strong 23 Mar 00 | UK
Crufts judge admits animal
connection between harming animals and wider criminal
cruelty
behaviour.
12 Oct 98 | UK
Charities join forces to fight
"Every serial killer in the UK this century started as an
abuse
animal abuser and we ignore that fact at our own peril,"
16 Jul 98 | Health
said a spokeswomen.
When the abused turns
In 1998, the organisation launched the First Strike
abuser
awareness project, drawing heavily on research into
Internet links:
animal cruelty carried out in the United States.
RSPCA
Step forward
Scottish SPCA
NSPCC
The SSPCA's Libby Anderson welcomes the new survey
being carried out by the RSPCA south of the border as a
The BBC is not responsible
"great step forward".
for the content of external
By understanding what motivates
such shocking cruelty, experts
may also explore the link between
these acts and the progression to
violence against other humans.
"When you point the link out to people they say: 'It's
obvious that violent people are going to be violent to
animals."
Ms Anderson says spotting
evidence of animal cruelty in a
household can be valuable in
exposing a range of other
problems.
The men who attack animals, for
the bulk of offenders are male,
often also perpetrate domestic
assaults and child abuse,
according to a New Jersey study in
1983.
internet sites
Links to other UK stories are
at the foot of the page.
Dr Eileen Vizard,
child psychiatrist
In the 2010 statute (above), Congress reasserts its findings that there are "certain extreme acts
of animal cruelty that appeal to a specific sexual fetish. These acts of extreme animal cruelty
are videotaped, and the resulting video tapes are commonly referred to as 'animal crush
videos. " The statute defines 'animal crush video' as "any photograph, motion-picture film,
video or digital recording, or electronic image that
(1) depicts actual conduct in which 1 or more living nonhuman mammals, birds, reptiles, or
amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise
subjected to serious bodily injury . . . . and
(2) is obscene.
Note that the definition does not include insects.
The statute specifically exempts any visual depiction of
(A) customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices;
December 14, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Current Affairs, First Amendment, Sexuality,
Speech | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0148c6b76647970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Animal Porn - Criminalized by Federal Law
Again:
Comments
So the SEXUAL interest here is key. Videos appealing to sadism or other psychological states
that are NOT sexual are not criminalized?
And who defines whether a psychological state is sexual? Erotic interest is so broad, from the
sensuality of fine linen to the fragrance of flowers.
Is non-masturbation "proof" of a non-sexual motivation?
Posted by: marty klein | Dec 20, 2010 3:33:15 PM
thanks admin
Posted by: lax | Dec 22, 2010 9:33:50 PM
I noticed that in the new law, Congress' explanation of the "Miller Test" seems to be lacking,
namely in the fact that they forget that the first prong of MILLER applies to an "average
person", and not just one individual or group of individuals. Also, they cleverly omit the part
about "sexual conduct or excretory functions" from the second prong.
The average person applying contemporary community standards is not going to find crush
videos or dog-fighting videos to appeal to sexual interests. Simply because somewhere
someone does, doesn't satisfy the MILLER test. Somewhere there's at least someone who finds
the state of the union address to appeal to the sexual interest, but that still doesn't satisfy the
MILLER test.
Share 4
Childhood cruelty to animals can be an early warning of a propensity for violence against other
people, a report published yesterday said.
The research wing of animal rights charity, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals),
has compiled a study of the links between severe animal abuse by children who later committed
acts of extreme violence - in some cases, murder.
Several cases have been well documented. Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane killer, enjoyed
shooting animals and squashing rabbits' heads beneath car wheels as a youth. Robert
Thompson, who was 10 years old when he and John Venables killed two-year-old Jamie
Bulger, pulled the heads off live birds.
David Mulcahy and John Duffy, the so-called Railway Rapists, who raped and murdered three
women and raped or assaulted 12 more in the 70s and 80s, shared a teenage fascination with
tormenting animals.
Peta, which has sent its report to the Crown Prosecution Service, MPs and all UK police
forces, believes there should be closer cooperation between police and social services and
organisations such as the RSPCA, so that those at risk of becoming dangerous criminals can be
spotted, and perhaps helped, as early as possible.
The FBI, which already uses reports of animal abuse to analyse criminal threat potential, has
found a childhood history of cruelty to animals is prevalent among many serial rapists and
murderers.
Robert Ressler, founder of the FBI's behavioural sciences unit, said: "These are the kids who
never learned that it was wrong to poke a puppy's eyes out." Alan Bradley, an FBI special
agent, said: "Some offenders kill animals as a rehearsal for targeting human victims and may
kill or torture animals because, to them, animals symbolically represent people."
The Peta study found abuse of pets in the home was often linked to domestic violence, with
adult perpetrators tormenting family pets, as well as children and partners.
Peta's research found that some children in abusive homes copy the abusers' behaviour.
"Children in violent homes are characterised by frequently participating in pecking-order
battering, in which they maim or kill an animal. Domestic violence is the most common
background for childhood cruelty to animals."
Scotland Yard's homicide prevention unit, set up last year to examine the psychological profile
of violent offenders in an effort to thwart future crime, is also interested in the links between
various patterns of cruelty.
Laura Richards, a senior behavioural consultant with the unit, said there was a definite link
between domestic violence and stranger rape.
Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to have
abused animals as children than criminals who are considered non-aggressive. A
survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found
that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well. According to
a New South Wales newspaper, a police study in Australia revealed that 100
percent of sexual homicide offenders examined had a history of animal cruelty.
To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the
backgrounds of serial killers and rapists. According to the FBIs Ressler, These
are the kids who never learned its wrong to poke out a puppys eyes.
Apparently, even as adults such individuals are still violent toward animals.
I know I learned to hunt and fish when I was young, and lots of other kids do too.
It seems unlikely that all of us will turn out violent someday. Perhaps there's
something about the demographic that learns to do such things at a young age
that predisposes them toward violence, or maybe individuals making this claim
have a narrower definition of violence than I.
At any rate, is there any evidence of a correlation between childhood violence
toward animals and violent behavior as an adult (or vice versa)?
Notorious Killers
As a child, serial killer and rapist Ted Bundyultimately convicted of two killings but
suspected of murdering more than 40 womenwitnessed his fathers violence towards
animals, and he himself subsequently tortured animals.
Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped and stabbed a 7-year-old boy, was known in his
neighbourhood for hanging cats and torturing dogs.
David Berkowitz (a.k.a. Son of Sam), who pleaded guilty to 13 murder and attempted
murder charges, shot a neighbours Labrador retriever.
Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a California school, killing two children and injuring nine
others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often setting their tails on fire.
Serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of dogs and cats on sticks.
police, animal protection groups and citizens will have more power to stop the senseless abuse
of animals that could lead to cruelty to humans:
The Honourable Shri T.R. Baalu
Union Cabinet Minister
Government of India
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
Encourage your local police to take animal cruelty cases seriously. PETA has prepared an
instructional video for police on the unlawful manner in which animals are transported and
slaughtered to motivate them to take strong action against unlawful cruelty in these cases.
Write to PETA for a copy to share with your local police: PETAIndia@petaindia.org.
Urge your local school and state government to take cruelty to animals seriously. Laws must
send a strong message that violence against any feeling creaturehuman or non-humanis
unacceptable.
Be aware of signs of neglect or abuse in children and animals. Take children seriously if they
report animals being neglected or mistreated. Some children wont talk about their own
suffering but will talk about an animals.
Dont ignore even minor acts of cruelty to animals by children. Talk to the child and the
childs parents. If necessary, call a social worker.
animal abuse
Subscribe
0 Email
animal abuse
Abuse
neglect
Children
Violence
human
Advertisement
Violent acts against animals are considered recognized as indicators of a disease of the
psyche that is not limited to animals. "anyone who has once accustomed to the life of
any living being as unworthy of life, there is a risk that one day he also comes to the
conclusion that human life is worthless, "wrote humanitarian Albert Schweitzer.
"Murderers ... their dubious careers often start as children to kill or torture animals," said
Robert K. Ressler, the profiles of serial killers created for the FBI.
Studies have convinced sociologists, lawmakers and the courts that acts of cruelty against
animals deserve our attention. It can be the first sign of a mental disease that does not stop
from violence against humans too.
A long history of violence and animal abuse is not solely the result of a slight split personality
of Tierqulers, but a symptom of a profound disturbance. The research in the field of
psychology and criminology shows that people who commit violent acts against animals, do
not stop there.
Many of them are expanding their deeds to affect humans.
The FBI has found that repeated acts of violence against animals is one of the features that are
usually stored in their computers, accounts of serial rapist and murderers appear. And guidance
for diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a
diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.
(1)Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to abuse animals
and children as criminals those who are classified as non-aggressive. (2) A study of psychiatric
patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats, has shown that all of them also had high
levels of aggression towards people, including one patient who had actually killed a boy. (3)
For scientists, the outgoing of animal cruelty fascination draws a thread through the lives of
serial rapists and killers. (4)
Notorious murderers: History books are full of examples: Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14
employees where he previously worked and then shot himself, was already known to have
abused and killed, pets' and then release his own dog on them to to mutilate them. (5) Earl
Kenneth Shriner, who raped a 7-year-old boy stabbed and mutilated, and was well known for
having putting firecrackers in the anus of stray dogs. (6) Brenda Spencer, who killed a school
teacher in San Diego with a semi-automatic rifle with a shot to the head of a teacher and the
janitor and then injured nine others, had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats, in many cases by
lighting their tails on fire. (7) Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women,
began in his youth torturing and killing dogs and cats in crates and shot them with arrows. (8)
Carroll Edward Cole, who for five of the 35 murders of which he was indicted, was executed,
said that the first violent act was passed as a child was to strangle a puppy. (9) In 1987, three
high school - students indicted in Missouri, killed a classmate. They were well known for the
repeated cases of animal mutilations, they had begun years earlier. One of them admitted that
he had already killed so many cats that he no longer could count them. (10) Two brothers who
murdered their parents had previously told classmates they had decapitated a cat. (11) Serial
killer Jeffrey Dahmer the list is endless. Young people are sometimes sentenced to prison terms
without parole.
Animal cruelty and family violence: Domestic abuse is directed more against the weaker animal
and child abuse go hand in hand usually. Parents who ignore the needs of an animal or abused
animals tend also to transfer this to their children.
In 88 percent of 57 families in New Jersey who were in treatment for child abuse, were also
pets' had been abused. (12) Of 23 British families with cases of animal abuse, 83 percent of
them were convicted of child abuse expert or at risk for neglect. (13) While animal abuse is an
important sign of child abuse, it is not always a parent who is tormented by the animals.
Children who abuse animals to repeat so often, what they have learned at home. Like their
parents, they react with violence to anger and frustration. Their violence is directed against the
only member of their family, which is even weaker than himself: a 'pet'. One expert said:
"Children with a violent family background characterized by the fact that they often ..... participate in battles against the weak - like a pecking order of chickens," during which they
also mutilate animals or kill. It is a fact that is just family violence as a breeding ground for
childhood cruelty to animals. interrupt the cycle of violence , it is "among psychologists
consensus view is .... that animal cruelty is one of the clearest examples of the persistence of
mental disorders from childhood to adulthood. This means that the significance of predictions
of childhood animal cruelty is extensively documented, "says the Institute of Veterinary
Medicine at Cornell University. (14) to dismiss schools, parents, local authorities and the
courts, the animal cruelty as "minor" offenses, thus ignoring a time bomb. Instead, authorities
and courts to punish society representative of the animal cruelty sharply to investigate the
underlying families for further signs of violence and require intensive counseling for offenders.
The authorities must recognize that abuse towards ANY living being is unacceptable and
constitutes a danger to anyone. In addition, children should be taught to respect animals and to
take care of them, in their own interest. After extensive studies of the link between animal and
child abuse, two other experts concluded that: "The development of relationships in human
society, marked by emotion and goodness, could be accelerated if we have a positive and
lasting ethic between children and animals. "
(15)What you can do: - Apply pressure on your local school and judicial authorities to take
cases of animal abuse seriously. The laws must speak for themselves, so that each is clear that
violence against any sentient beings - whether human or animal - is not acceptable. - Keep eyes
and ears open when it comes to neglect or abuse of animals or children.
Do you accept the testimony of children seriously if they report such cases?
Some children may not talk about their own abuse, but do so in relation to animals. - Do not
ignore less important cases of cruelty to animals by children. Talk to the children and their
parents. And if necessary, make contact with a social agency.