|
What
We Know About the Link
Between Animal Abuse and Human
Violence
Mary
Lou Randour,
Former
Program Director,
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (Society and Animals Forum)
Because
of the success of many animal advocacy groups, including
the two that I represent — Psychologists
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Society and Animals
Forum) 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 FBI’s investigation into the childhood
of serial killers, and their discovery of juvenile animal
abuse in most of these cases, drew the public’s 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.
Less
well known is the fact that many of the recent school shooters
also engaged in animal cruelty before turning their aggression
against their classmates, teachers, and parents. Kip Kinkel
was reported to have blown up cows and decapitated cats;
Luke Woodham tortured Sparkle, his own dog, to death, describing
her dying howls as a "thing of beauty";
and Andrew Golden reputedly shot dogs with a .22 caliber rifle. Golden’s
own dog "mysteriously" suffered a wound from a .22 just days before
he assaulted his classmates.
Serial killers and school shooters supply
dramatic currency to the link between animal abuse and human violence. Their
lurid nature attracts the attention of individuals and the media and, in this
way, can furnish an opening for a serious discussion of the many permutations
and implications of this important link. I think it is a tactical and strategic
mistake, however, for animal advocates to focus on this part of the link; it
is good for an opener, but we should quickly move on to the more substantive
evidence, which will have more far-reaching implications.
While
many of us can be momentarily drawn to the macabre very
few, if
any of us, think that our sons, daughters, nieces and nephews, or next
door neighbors are budding serial killers or school shooters. Let’s
face it: The odds of a child becoming a serial killer or school gunman
are quite remote. Very few people can identify with that prospect and,
I believe, that leads to the possibility of them dismissing, or overlooking,
evidence of animal cruelty that they might otherwise notice. Sure, their
nephew has been known to throw rocks at neighborhood cats, but they know
he is a "good kid" who
goes to church, does well at school, and has won badges in his Cub Scout
troop. What’s to worry about? He’s definitely not serial killer
or school shooter material.
If we should emphasize the empirical basis
for the link instead of the more dramatic examples, what exactly do we know?
What does the research say about animal abuse? Who commits it? How do they turn
out? What should we be looking for?
One
body of well-established research links animal abuse with
criminal behavior. For example, one well-designed study
conducted by Arnold Arluke and Jack Levin, two sociologists,
and Carter Luke of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), examined the records of
that agency for the years 1975 to 1996. They identified
153 men who had been prosecuted for animal cruelty and
compared their criminal records to a group of "next
door neighbors" — men who were 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.
 |
Another
group of research studies explored the childhood of individuals
who were incarcerated or committed to psychiatric hospitals
for criminal offenses, comparing them to "normal" men.
Would the childhood of the men in prison and psychiatric
hospitals for criminal behavior reveal more juvenile animal
cruelty when compared to a group of "normal" men?
After conducting a number of their own studies, and reviewing
the research of their colleagues, Kellert and Felthous
arrived at a definitive result. They stated that there
was a significant association between acts of cruelty to
animals in childhood and serious, recurrent aggression
against people as an adult.
As
further corroboration, in one study these researchers determined
that the most aggressive criminals had committed the most
severe acts of animal cruelty in childhood.
One
could conclude from these studies that animal abuse is
associated with other types of criminal and anti-social
behavior and that childhood animal abuse is an important
warning sign; not all children who abuse animals become
juvenile offenders or adult criminals, but they are more
likely than their counterparts who do not abuse animals
to do so. Being physically cruel to animals as one of the
criterion for a diagnosis of conduct disorder in childhood
was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders in 1987. Substantial proportions of children diagnosed with conduct
disorder continue to show behaviors in adulthood that meet criteria for Antisocial
Personality Disorder. The earlier the diagnosis of conduct disorder the greater
the risk for being diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder and Substance-Related
in adulthood.
 |
We
also know that animal abuse is closely associated with
family violence, and knowledge of this link has assisted
professionals in offering more effective services to people
and animals. In a number of studies — one national
and the others statewide — 71 to 83% of the women
entering domestic violence shelters reported that their
partners also abused or killed the family pet. Just as
animal abuse is related to domestic violence, so it is
also related to child abuse, another form of family violence.
A New Jersey study of 53 families under the jurisdiction
of the child welfare agency looked at the co-occurrence
of child abuse and animal abuse. Researchers observed animal
abuse in 88% of those families in which there was physical
abuse of children. Another study arrived at similar findings.
Awareness
of the link between animal abuse and family violence has
produced a number of innovative programs and procedural changes. For
example, intake questions for women seeking shelter now include one about the
need for a safe place for the family pets.
Cooperative
arrangements between domestic violence shelters and animal
shelters, humane societies, and sometimes veterinary associations
provide "safe pet" programs. Animal control
officers are being trained to look for signs of child abuse and domestic
violence when making their investigations, and to report their suspicions
to the proper agencies.
While animal abuse often appears in the context
of family violence, and is associated with juvenile delinquency and adult criminality,
it is important to remember that many other times the animal abuse offender does
not have a juvenile or adult criminal record, does not come from a dysfunctional,
violent family; and may appear to be "normal" or "typical." The
sad truth is that animal abuse is all too common; the prevalence rates for childhood
animal cruelty are shockingly high. There are now three studies of prevalence:
one is from a military sample and the other two used college students as subjects.
In the military sample 10% of the males
acknowledged committing juvenile animal cruelty and 16% reported that they had
witnessed it. In the two college samples, 34.5% of the males admitted to animal
abuse in childhood and 48% said they had witnessed it. We don’t know, of
course, whether any of the subjects in these three samples had criminal records,
although it is doubtful that many had very serious records since they were either
in the military or in college. And we don’t know how many came from situations
of family violence, but it is doubtful that all could have. Good portions of
animal abusers enter adulthood without any marks on their record, although they
do appear to have psychological marks.
In
one of the studies, the researcher asked his college subjects
if they thought it was o.k. to "slap your wife" or
to "physically punish your children." Those students who
had abused animals as children were much more likely to endorse these
forms of interpersonal violence.
We
need a lot more information about the extent of animal
abuse, the motivation for it, and how to intervene effectively.
And we need to accurately convey what the research tells
us to date and not to emphasize one category of animal
abuse findings over another. We need to continue to warn
students, parents, teachers, counselors, and other community
groups that childhood animal abuse is a definite danger
sign that should be heeded with a thorough assessment and
effective intervention.
We also need to alert these same groups
that animal abuse often is associated with child abuse and domestic violence,
and to enlarge our investigations to include all members of the family — human
and nonhuman. Finally, we need to acknowledge that some childhood animal abusers
appear to be "typical kids," so no parent, or teacher, or other professional
should be complacent.
Visit
The Animals Voice Factsheets on
the subject.
For more information on this issue, visit ORGANIZATIONS,
IMAGE GALLERY, FACT SHEETS, ETC., and BOOKS.
All are projects of The Animals Voice
Top
of Page | Close
Window |
