Animal Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Introduction

Animal abuse has been found to be disproportionally present in situations of partner abuse, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse, and sibling abuse. In the domestic setting, pets can be used as weapons of terror and psychological abuse by an aggressive family member to exercise power and control over more vulnerable family members. However, animal abuse often occurs as part of a suite of antisocial behaviors, and animal abusers demonstrate an elevated risk of offending in both violent and nonviolent offenses, and not limited to the domestic setting (Walters, 2014).

The scope of this chapter is to explore the connection between crimes against animals and other forms of violent criminal behavior. It should be taken in the context of broad generalities and understandings of typical animal protection laws while acknowledging that there are localized differences.

Defining Crime In the Context of Animal Abuse

While veterinary forensic sciences may be applied in the context of civil litigation, the majority of veterinary forensic work is related to investigating and documenting suspected criminal harm to animals. In the study of animal abuse as a crime, what constitutes “crime" varies from one culture to another and what counts as crime in a single culture changes over time. Further, what constitutes criminal animal abuse depends on local statutory and case law, and the definition of “animal” within that context.

The discussion of defining crime emerged in the early 20th century. "The most precise and least ambiguous definition of crime is that which defines it as behavior which is prohibited by the criminal code. It follows that a criminal is a person who has behaved in some way prohibited by criminal law” (Michael, 1933). It may be further interpreted that crime is behavior or an act that is in violation of criminal law (statutory and case law), committed without defense or excuse, and penalized by the state as a felony or misdemeanor.

It can be agreed that crimes are a violation of conduct norms and they cause social injury. They often violate human rights and they may reflect forms of deviance. It may be most useful to consider crime as a sociological problem where patterns of crime arise from the interplay of political, economic, social, and ideological structures in society.

Considering that the concept of crime is difficult to define in a single context due to the wide variety of laws in various jurisdictions, crimes that impact animals are even more difficult to define. The formal purpose of criminal law is to protect individuals from the wrongdoing of others. Laws protecting animals against abuse exist in the moral code or chapters of law (reflecting that harming animals is an affront to our social sensibilities) and also in property crimes (reflecting that animals are property and we are to be protected from property losses). Animal abuse is often considered a form of interpersonal violence because animals are beings with distinct sentient experiences (Beirne, 2000).

How Much Animal Abuse Is Occurring in our Communities?

The measurement and tracking trends of crimes against animals is a difficult and a “not yet ready for prime time” task. There are scant but growing collections of official crime data, and there are also some measures of unofficial crime data. Official crime data are collected by the government and its official agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBIJ and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Unofficial crime data are the nongovernmental data usually collected by private or independent agencies and researchers in a variety of methodologies.

Data Collection: It's Complicated

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) is compiled each year from statistics collected by the FBI; one component of the UCR is the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). A much-heralded change in the collection of statistics related to animal abuse in NIBRS was the change of designation on animal cruelty from a Crime Against Property (Type B crime) to a Crime Against Society (Type A crime) in 2016. As a designated Crime Against Society, data related to an animal cruelty incident is collected when it is reported. In the property crimes category, data of an incident is only recorded when an arrest is made. The FBI’s adoption of animal cruelty crime as a separate category in NIBRS acknowledges that animal maltreatment is associated with other offenses, and it is harmful to our society.

This change in reporting status to a Type A crime implies the FBI’s adoption of the concept that nonhuman animals are in a category other than that of property and that animal cruelty crimes are important to investigate and to charge. NIBRS has four subcategories for incidents of animal cruelty: A, simple abuse or neglect; I, intentional abuse or torture; O, organized animal abuse or fighting; and S, animal sexual abuse.

Prior to 2016, animal abuse data was collected in an aggregated “other" category, so there is no national reference database on the incidence or prevalence of animal abuse. The preliminary data are only just being reported.

It is important to note that only law enforcement agencies with automated data submission through a records management software system (RMS) and an Originating Agency Identification (ORI) number supply data to NIBRS. An ORI is a unique nine-character identifier that the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) has assigned to each law enforcement agency. It is estimated that approximately half of animal control offices (ACOs) are located within the jurisdiction of a police department or a sheriff’s office with an ORI. With the various placements of the animal control agencies, the training, investigatory, and arrest powers of animal service officers also vary widely within and across states.

ACOs are generally employed by municipalities, while humane law enforcement (HLE) departments are employed by private animal welfare organizations. HLE officers may have peace officer rights and responsibilities through a contract, memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other arrangement. In many cases, ACOs and HLE departments lack an RMS necessary to submit data directly to NIBRS and will in fact also require an MOU.

In communities where animal control is not within the public safety department or where animal cruelty investigations are delegated to HLE officers, the data are not automatically collected. Just 1126 incidents of animal cruelty were reported to NIBRS in 2016, and 40% of those were made in Delaware. This is because the HLE departments in Delaware are designated with an ORI number and have automated data submission. By 2021, NIBRS is scheduled to become the national standard for crime reporting in all states, and MOUs are encouraged to help non—ORI-based animal cruelty investigators submit data (DeSousa, 2017).

Who Investigates Allegations of Animal Abuse?

Animal abuse investigations are vital because animal maltreatment is a co-occurring and central aspect of interpersonal violence. However, a variety of agencies or authorities may respond to reports of animal cruelty in different communities, and there may be a failure to understand the roles among agencies. Law enforcement, animal control, town animal inspectors, the department of agriculture, and nonprofit organizations with police powers have a variety of rights and responsibilities with regard to allegations of animal maltreatment, depending on individual jurisdictions.

Because of a lack of clarity in reporting and response, animal victims sometimes do not benefit from an investigation, and their abusers may not be brought to justice. There is no uniform, reliable way to report animal cruelty and know that the case will be fully and appropriately investigated.

Reporting animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect is complicated. There are no national or statewide systems. Contrary to common understanding, local humane societies or societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCAs) are not branches or affiliates of any national organization. Each local animal welfare organization is independent, with its own board of directors, and law enforcement powers range from full to none. Many city or county animal control or animal services officers are empowered to enforce cruelty laws, but many are not—and many are limited in the scope of which laws or species they are allowed to assist. Individuals wishing to report allegations of animal cruelty are encouraged to call 911 and also to follow up with the local responsible agency. The National Link Coalition maintains a database of local responsible agencies organized by state and community (Arkow, 2018).

Not All Crime Is Reported, Not All Reported Crimes Are Solved

There is a prevailing “wisdom” that is often repeated, that police or prosecutors “don’t care” about animal abuse. There are barriers to the investigation and prosecution of all types of crime, and animal abuse crimes are no different. In an annual survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) victims of crime are asked whether they reported that crime to police. In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported to police.

Most of the crimes that are reported to police are not solved, at least using an FBI measure known as the “clearance rate.” That’s the percentage of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging, and referral of a suspect for prosecution. In 2016, police cleared 46% of violent crimes that were reported to them (Gramlich, 2018). In the future, more robust statistical analysis of crimes against animals will allow comparison of crimes against animals in the context of all crime.

Beyond Broken Windows

The “broken windows” theory of crime prevention stems from the work of two criminologists, George Kelling and James Wilson, who suggested that minor disorders, like vandalism and panhandling, acted as a gateway to more serious crime. By focusing on smaller offenses, often referred to as “quality of life” crimes, Kelling and Wilson proposed that violent crime and other undesirable activity would decrease.

The broken windows theory of policing has fallen out of favor, partially because of disproportionate enforcement. Later research found flaws in the broken windows theory of policing, finding that targeting minor crimes harms poor people, as well as minorities. The broken windows theory of policing led to a disproportionate number of drug arrests for blacks and Hispanics.

Selectively directing resources to crimes of violence, whether against people or animals, may have an interrupting effect that is more effective than a focus on petty or property crime. “It is definitely time for law enforcement to stop focusing on minor disorder and to target, instead, serious crimes involving guns and physical injury" (Harcourt, 2005). When animal abuse is approached as a crime of interpersonal violence it is a crime involving physical injury.