Prev
Next

Animal cruelty and the case for harsher punishment

Rita Panahi

by Rita Panahi

14 Jul 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Animal Cruelty, Crime, Justice, Psychology

39 comments

There’s something uniquely sickening about cases of animal abuse that outrages the community more than most crimes. To hear of a defenceless creature being brutalised by a cowardly attacker can get the blood of even the gentlest soul boiling.

Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer started on animals before moving onto humans. Photo: AP

This week we learnt of the shocking case of Snowy, a much loved family pet suffering horrific injuries at the hands of a torturer. The 18-month-old cat’s ears were mutilated and he had been set alight. Also this week charges against the man believed to have tortured Buckley, a puppy who had his ears and tail hacked off, were dropped amid fears that the case would not stand up in court.

In recent months there have been multiple cases of animals being tortured and killed in a trend that appears to be Australia wide. It seems no animal is immune from such callous attacks; pets, wildlife, even dolphins have been targeted by individuals who derive some sort of thrill from inflicting pain on an innocent creature. Despite the increasingly violent and sadistic nature of these attacks and the public’s growing disgust, offenders if caught can expect little more than a slap on the wrist.

More often than not these cases don’t reach the courts but the few that do demonstrate our judicial system’s failure to treat animal abuse as a serious offence. Magistrates can impose jail terms of up to 5 years but it is extremely rare for a custodial sentence to be handed down in an animal abuse case. Despite extensive evidence linking cruelty to animals to serious violent offences against people, the judiciary continue to treat such crimes as largely trivial matters.

If our system is designed to punish as well as prevent serious criminal offences then surely greater attention needs to be paid to those who mistreat animals, particularly those who torture and kill for fun. The direct relationship between animal abuse and violent crime has been recognised by the FBI since the 1970s. Many of the world’s most notorious killers have long histories of animal abuse; Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Edmund Kemper and Albert DeSalvo better known as the Boston Strangler were all fond of torturing animals. In Australia murderers such as Paul Denyer, Robert Barrett and Ivan Milat are known to have tortured animals long before they started killing people.

What greater motivation do our legislators and Courts need to treat animal cruelty with the utmost seriousness? Simply cautioning offenders is not good enough. 

In the US, there has been a growing trend towards toughening laws to make animal abuse a felony rather than a misdemeanour. Penalties for individuals who engage in deliberate animal cruelty have been increased, dramatically in some states. England has similarly strengthened its animal welfare laws but in Australia we continue to treat these heinous crimes as minor offences not worthy of lengthy custodial sentences despite profilers and psychologists telling us that one of the strongest precursors to violent crime including murder is a history of animal abuse. Tough penalties including incarceration must be handed down for serious animal abuse cases.

You don’t need to be a psychologist to work out that only a uniquely depraved individual could ignore the agonised cries of a defenceless animal and continue the ghastly business of inflicting maximum pain and suffering.

To allow such cruel and sadistic behaviour to go unpunished is not only morally reprehensible, it may very well have dire consequences when at some point these offenders turn their particular brand of rage and fury on the rest of us. 

Most commented

39 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Chris says:

      06:51am | 14/07/10

      Hear Hear,

      I like to think that there is a special place in hell for people who conduct this sort of behaviour.

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      08:53am | 14/07/10

      that is so true, this sort of treatment to any animal is horrible and indicates a sick individual who should be identified as a threat to the welfare of humans and animals. there is something very disturbing about someone who likes to inflict and observe an animals pain.

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      09:29am | 14/07/10

      I agree that animal torture is wrong and should be punished. I get concerned that it may not be animal torture that gets addressed by any law change, however. The work of PETA on things like mulesing suggests to me that a wedge issue is being created on the false premise that bad people will be stopped from their cruel acts, when the application becomes business is stopped from taking practical steps in maintaining their livestock..

      Reply

    • Jodie says:

      03:32pm | 14/07/10

      So… cruelty’s ok if it yields a profit? Like it or not, you can’t pick and choose acceptability of inflicting pain on animals depending on the social and industrial context. Pain is pain, cruelty is cruelty. Factory farming is just as abhorrent as some a-hole beating a dog, it’s just that one is deemed socially acceptable and one is not. So I understand your fear, DD Ball, because if the public really looked at farming practices rather than staying wilfully naive there would be an outcry. And it would be about bloody time.

      For the record- I don’t eat meat but nor do I endorse PETA’s methods. And I fully support harsher penalties for animal cruelty. ALL kinds. Hypocrites.

    • phil says:

      04:29pm | 14/07/10

      @Jodie,

      You have missed the point, the people doing these things to animals are doing it for kicks or to get off on the power of it or something. This has nothing to do with animals that are farmed for food etc they dont belong to someone as a pet.

      You can choose acceptability for what is going on, one is based around farming and food which does inflict its own pain or abuse to a small degree on animals which are killed for food.

      The other is for no gain apart from the amusement of the person doing the abuse or torture, inflicting great pain or suffering injuring the animal without killing it for fun or whatever they get out of it.
      These animals are someone’s pets, adults, children’s, families etc

    • DD Ball says:

      04:30pm | 14/07/10

      Jodie, you don’t know that mulesing is cruel. I know that allowing parasites to infest an animal is cruel. A small amount of meat is ok to eat. I look forward to the day when we don’t need to grow meat on animals.

    • Jodie says:

      07:25pm | 14/07/10

      Phil- I fail to see how ownership, emotional attachment or perceived positive outcome for the human makes any difference in terms of the degree of pain the animal suffers. I’m sure a cow that has had its calf taken away unweaned and the pig that is stuck upright in a pen for months on end can take comfort in the fact that the human doesn’t mean it any deliberate harm, or at any rate the harm is not the primary objective. And if you get a tasty meal at the end, well, such mistreatment is justified, I’m sure. Lack of malicious intent does not make cruelty any less unethical.

      DD Ball- I wasn’t referring to mulesing specifically, I was more using your post to illustrate my broader point about malicious cruelty versus the collateral damage caused by factory farming. Sorry if that was unclear.

      Look, I’m not some zealot who screams “meat is murder” at people eating steak. I just really, really wish people would at least consider the possibility that choosing which animals it’s ok to be cruel to based on how it benefits a human’s lifestyle is more than a little hypocritical. It’s the elephant in the room. You get to feel all virtuous for jumping up and down about how horrible it is to torture a cat (and don’t get me wrong, it is) all the while turning a blind eye to the horrendous practices still allowed by agribusiness. Donating money to the RSPCA while eating a burger from KFC. It makes no sense.

    • NK says:

      06:04am | 15/07/10

      Jodie, is there any particular reason why you exalt the animal kingdom above the human kingdom? Furthermore, where does the plant kingdom, fungi kingdom & bacteria kingdom fit into your hierarchy?

    • Dan says:

      07:08am | 15/07/10

      Jodie: ‘Donating money to the RSPCA while eating a burger from KFC. It makes no sense.’ Yes it does. While I have never eaten a burger from KFC, there is however nothing inconsistent about it if one knows that the animals KFC uses are treated humanely. I don’t know if KFC gets its meat from farmers who use humane methods, but if they do, then I see nothing wrong with also donating money to the RSPCA. One does not need to be a vegetarian to care about animals.

    • Jodie says:

      12:17pm | 15/07/10

      NK- It isn’t “exalting animals over humans” (and what exactly are humans, anyway, hm?) to suggest that it is hypocritical and unnecessary to continue inflicting cruelty just so that we can maintain a certain lifestyle preference. As for the other facetious chestnut (which, I can assure you, every vego has heard at least once) as far as we know, bacteria, plants and fungi are not sentient and as such do not feel pain. If the scientific community established that they did I would consider the question seriously.

      Dan- KFC are notorious for their use of producers with cruel and unsanitary battery practices. And it is naive to suggest that any form of animal slaughter practice in this country is “humane”. Therein lies my frustration. I’m not asking people to take my word for it, I’m asking that they do the research by themselves. But they won’t, because they don’t *want* to. They want to continue in their happy little bubble of ignorance so they don’t have to address the possibility that they’ve been complicit in animal cruelty by buying a steak.

      This is my field of study. I’m doing a degree that has required me to see intensive farming first hand, and it isn’t pretty. If any of you saw a dog or cat being treated the ways pigs, cows and chickens are, you’d be outraged. I’m not naive enough to assume my words will change people’s minds. All I’m asking is that you do some research. At least have the integrity to find out, truly, where your food comes from.

    • NK says:

      05:26pm | 15/07/10

      Jodie,

      Factory farming is what allows us to live in such abundance. Looking through history - post neolithic revolution - the slaughter of animals and mastery of the natural environment had to happen for humans to be where they are today.

      “It isn’t “exalting animals over humans””

      Yes it is, you reject the notion of individual and economic liberty; you wish to constrain certain human activities just because you disagree with it. You presumably have no problem with restricting a certain economic industry because in your words, facetiously, “cruelty’s ok if it yields a profit?”

      The answer to that question is yes! Animals survive by adapting to the environment around them, humans on the other hand survive by adapting the environment to them. Our history is one of transforming the environment into ever increasing abundance, we’re not going to stop now all of a sudden.

      Tricky question: do you support animal testing for medical research? It’s the exact same principle; I’m not comparing oranges and apples, so I’m interested in how you’d wriggle out of this dilemma. The Big Pharma companies do after all make a profit, is this kind of cruelty acceptable to you? I thought you didn’t like it when cruelty was justified by profit? Or would you ban animal testing in medical research?

      Furthermore, any intelligible theory of rights presupposes entities capable of defining and respecting moral boundary lines. But since animals are, by nature, unable to know, respect, or exercise rights, the principle of rights simply can’t be applied to, or by, animals.

      “All I’m asking is that you do some research.”

      Lived on a farm for over 2 decades, I have more first hand experience then the so-called ‘research’ you’ve done. Good to see universities still hand out toilet paper degrees (arts).

    • Dan says:

      05:20am | 16/07/10

      NK, I agree, however to call arts degrees ‘toilet paper degrees’ is absurd, offensive and extremely ignorant. Also, to suggest that animals lack rights is also absurd. I think we can all agree that they have the right not to be tortured (and no, I do not consider experimentation in the name of medical research to be torture.)

      Jodie, I will take your word on KFC’s practices (since I don’t buy meat products from there), however my point was that there is nothing inconsistent about supporting the RSPCA, and eating meat, if one knows that the animal was killed humanely. Now you might argue that it is impossible, since they are still being killed, however that comes down to a discussion on the merits or otherwise of vegetarianism. While there may not be many options, it is possible to buy meat which was killed humanely. For example, kosher.

    • Jodie says:

      10:38am | 16/07/10

      NK- I don’t have an easy answer to the medical research question. It is indeed a dilemma. I’m dead against testing for cosmetics, though. As for factory farming, we’ll have to agree to disagree, as it appears we have very different and irreconcilable moral codes. I don’t believe humans have dominion over other animals, you do. This is unresolvable. And, FYI, I’m not doing an arts degree, I’m doing vet science. And I will reference Jeremy Bentham, who suggested that it is less relevant that an animal can or can’t reason than that it can suffer.

      Dan- it’s not the death, per se, I object to. What a lot of people don’t realise is the transport and transition is not painless or humane. The animals suffer en route to their deaths, which is my main objection. If we could make the transition completely painless and untraumatic I would have less of a problem with it.

    • Ella says:

      10:31am | 14/07/10

      Are harsher punishments such as jail time actually going to stop these people progressing with their behaviour? Chances are they will come out of jail just as sick in the head. Perhaps people convicted of doing this kind of thing could get suspended sentencing if they agreed to under go counselling or psychiatric intervention

      Reply

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      02:32pm | 14/07/10

      Creating an indictable offence for animal abuse/cruelty would be good for starters, with mandatory gaol time and mandatory psychiatric assessment and counselling and a lifetime ban on ownership of any animal of any kind.  Close supervision after release and continuing psychological counselling.  Maybe I’m hoping for too much but we should start a campaign to get an indictable offence up and running as described above.

    • BK says:

      10:51am | 14/07/10

      I doubt that being punished for animal cruelty would have stopped these serial killers. Perhaps it would be better to arrange compulsory psychological counselling for these creeps, as well putting them on a police watchlist or extended parole.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      11:18am | 14/07/10

      No more counselling! Lock them up and give them the 5 year maximum when they torture and kill. I remember the outrage when Buckley was found mutilated and they just quitely dropped the charges against the guy without any fanfare.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      11:25am | 14/07/10

      Anyone who can harm an innocent animal intentionally is missing part of their brain or doesnt have a soul.
      Its the most horrible thing to do and yet the punishments are either non-existent or weak as.
      That said most laws in Australia are pretty weak all things considered, punishment isnt taken seriously here. If you can kill someone and be out in a couple of years they obviously arent going to hand down much of a sentence for killing or abusing an animal.

      close tabs should be kept on these sorts or wacko’s as it will only lead to bigger things.

      Reply

    • Alexander says:

      11:38am | 14/07/10

      Yes, the law definitely does not reflect the opinions of the public here.  Incarcerating the offenders is probably not the best solution as they are obviously people in desperate need of help, but criminal convictions for violence should definitely be considered.  Home detention with mandatory counseling are the most appropriate actions.

      Reply

    • dancan says:

      12:02pm | 14/07/10

      Five years in a prison would never deter or help these “people” and I use that term loosely.  Five years in a psychiatric ward might help them though or at least get them on some medication.

      To be honest I can’t see any jail term that isn’t life as a suitable way to protect the community from these people.  A jail time that isn’t life is just delaying the inevitable

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      12:35pm | 14/07/10

      But realistically we cant lock them away forever but at least making the punishment fit the crime would be a good start. Right now they just get a suspended sentence or community service and thats only when the police can be bothered to charge. Pyschopaths can’t be cured but not all of these people are psychopaths. A jail term would deter others who think its fun to kill animals.

    • Megan says:

      12:31pm | 14/07/10

      This issue seems to come up perpetually in this country when an animal cruelty case is heard…can someone tell me why magistrates won’t impose decent sentences? I’ve heard that, should they do so, the penalties will be overturned on appeal because of a lack of precendent…can someone with legal knowledge PLEASE enlighten us on this topic. We go around on this same merry-go-round every time and there must be a reason why nobody every pays a fair price for these abominations.

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      12:33pm | 14/07/10

      Well said, there was a recent article in the NYTimes online by a forensic vet who has worked very hard with their colleagues in the USA to build momentum for more appropriate judicial penalties for animal cruelty crimes. An increase in the awareness of the role of forensic vets in investigating such cases would lead to better quality evidence being led in all matters before the courts, hopefully with an accompanying increase in successful convictions, with support from the appellate jurisdiction.

      Reply

    • Seppi says:

      01:02pm | 14/07/10

      I agree with the article and the comments so far. The punishment for these crimes is woeful and do not prevent further cruelty to animals or people. 
      I believe these offenders should be permanently removed from society before they can hurt other people. The safety of the community should be paramount to the rights of these sub-humans. By committing acts of cruelty, they forfeit any right to freedom.

      Reply

    • Eye4anEye says:

      01:14pm | 14/07/10

      To my mind animal abuse should rank up there with child abuse in terms of punishment - I have no understanding of why people are able to torture animals in a most despicable way and get away with fines and good behaviour bonds.

      I also think there should be laws enabling people to defend their pets as if they were family - correct me if I’m wrong but if I catch someone beating my dog and I defend my dog I’m the one slapped with an assault charge (much like the idiotic law whereby someone breaking into your house and robbing you is protected if you hit them with anything i.e. baseball bat etc…unless they are also armed - fyi someone in my house probably at night in the dark is not getting a hey you armed before I whack them and I’ll face whatever consequences come my way afterwards happily knowing at least my family is safe).

      Reply

    • Shane says:

      01:39pm | 14/07/10

      Perhaps we should be examining more closely the belief, often expoused by Christians, that animals have been put on the Earth as lesser beings that are for our use. This can lead to the belief that experiences such as pain,  grief,  loneliness and fear are human conditions only. Empathy lasts about as long as it takes most people to pop down to their local fast food outlet to buy chicken that they already know were abused.  If our judiciary exists within this narrow dogmatism, I’m hardly surprised with outcomes like this.

      Reply

    • aiugfiu says:

      01:56pm | 18/07/10

      Yes Shane Christianity is to blame for animal cruelty. Sigh - what exactly are you (and people like you) trying to do with these moronic assertions - score cheap points with the masses? Bashing Christianity (and religious belief in general) is certainly the ‘in’ thing to do nowadays isn’t it? I’m assuming most (read: 99.9999*%) perpetrators of animal abuse aren’t in church on Sundays and are therefore atheists by default. To blame atheism for AC would be just as silly as blaming beliefs ‘expoused’ by Christians. Idiotic reasoning can be applied both ways Shane!!! BTW I am NOT a Christian.

    • Inna says:

      01:53pm | 14/07/10

      Snowy needs some help to raise some money for the skin grafts he needs. http://www.rspcansw.org.au/snowy  Please help if you can. 

      I’m sure if he could talk he would advocate locking these creeps up.  Why would you hurt a family pet, sickos.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      01:54pm | 14/07/10

      I agree that animal abuse is one of the lowest crimes that can be committed. To harm something that is defenceless for fun is just sick. Why aren’t those committing these acts getting stiff jail sentences? Even if they never hurt a human being they showed be in jail for torturing a defenceless creature.

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      03:57pm | 14/07/10

      I agree - sadistic and cruel acts against animals should be punished more, but give them anything more than a 2 year sentence and it starts becoming a harsher penalty than most people cop for killing another human being. As for the comment on mulesing - you do realise what it’s for don’t you? A few minutes of pain and it’s over - if they get flyblown then it’s a slow and agonising death.

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      03:58pm | 14/07/10

      I am sure if the sub humans who inflict torture on animals were to receive the same treatment that they dished out to animals, these sub humans may think twice about commiting the crime in the first place. However, not doubt they are very ‘sick people’ who commit these crimes and jail term with psychiatric treatment is most probably the only punishment.

      Reply

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      04:14pm | 14/07/10

      It isn’t just the judiciary that takes animal cruelty lightly. Often when a child has killed or tortured animals, lots of adults dismiss the behaviour as normal kid stuff. It isn’t normal! The kid has a serious problem and is going to grow up to have a bigger problem. How often do we need to witness this well established link between cruelty towards animals and cruelty towards humans before society as a whole recognises the problem and takes it seriously?

      Reply

    • Lewis K says:

      09:52am | 15/07/10

      I agree. Thats what the parents say until their kid starts hurting humans. Too often the police take the same attitude and don’t bother prosecuting.

    • wonko the sane says:

      06:51pm | 14/07/10

      It’s a point I make over and over yet the world seems never to listen.  So I am at least overjoyed that you have raised this issue.  Until we change our attitude to the helpless then we will never change the cruelty we inflict on others.

      Reply

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:59pm | 14/07/10

      If a celebrity makes a racist comment the media goes into a frenzy - but when one advocates an act of animal cruelty, it seems they couldn’t care less.

      Shane Warne recently Twittered his bitter disappointment at there being no cat around when he wanted to kick one after losing a poker tournament. This ignorant bogan openly advocates deliberately harming an innocent animal and not one comment was made about it in the mainstream media - NOTHING!

      Reply

    • Lewis K says:

      09:49am | 15/07/10

      Thank you for writing this. This needs to be an issue that we take to politicians and have the laws changed to reflect what the community wants. This is too important an issue to be glossed over.

      Reply

    • Random passer-by says:

      10:28pm | 16/09/10

      i just hope that i can get to eat meat everyday =D
      Don’t want to argue whether KFC meat is good or not. Just want to let ya know that there is a grey area between what is moral and what is immoral. Many people uses this grey boundary to get what they want.

      Reply

    • Sherwin Chen says:

      01:26pm | 04/05/12

      I could not read past the first paragraph. Oh what a terrible state! To consider that we are cultured, civil humans. Not!

      Reply

    • Emma Tameside says:

      01:22pm | 01/10/12

      There never is and will be an excuse for the atrocity that is animal cruelty.  I honestly will never understand how someone can put an animal through such torture, surely they must have some sort of empathy?  It’s truly detestable to even think about.

      This is why I believe an animal abuse registry is a must.  So that these people in question face the consequences of their actions and we can avoid putting another animal anywhere near them.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 21 May 13 07:36PM

Ray Hadley fires back at Carlton. Great @candacesutton1 get: http://t.co/7fQzk4Xixh

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 07:23PM

@Drag0nista Can't see it bring re l 'ship Cos lots of Ruddites don't back gay marriage (Joel, Bowen) and lot of Gillardians do.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 05:40PM

KRudd gives marriage equality folk hope, but odds still against it passing on June 6. http://t.co/QmQffMkSvH

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 04:29PM

ACL says gay marriage would lead to gay sex (how to do it) being taught in schools. You really haver to credit them with vivid imagination.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter