Understanding animal cruelty WARNING!!! CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES - VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!

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.

Passive Cruelty (Act of Omission)

Passive cruelty is typified by cases of neglect, where the crime is a lack of action rather than the action itself - however do not let the terminology fool you. Severe animal neglect can cause incredible pain and suffering to an animal. Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing a collar to grow into an animal's skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and failure to seek veterinary care when an animals needs medical attention. In many cases of neglect where an investigator feels that the cruelty occurred as a result of ignorance, they may attempt to educate the pet owner and then revisit the situation to check for improvements. In more severe cases however, exigent circumstances may require that the animal is removed from the site immediately and taken in for urgent medical care.

Active Cruelty (Acts of Commission)

Active cruelty implies malicious intent, where a person has deliberately and intentionally caused harm to an animals, and is sometimes referred to as NAI (Non-Accidental Injury). Acts of intentional cruelty are often some of most disturbing and should be considered signs of serious psychological problems. This type of behavior is often associated with sociopath behavior and should be taken very seriously. Animal abuse in violent homes can take many forms and can occur for many reasons. Many times a parent or domestic partner who is abusive may kill, or threaten to kill, the household pets to intimidate family members into sexual abuse, to remain silent about previous or current abuse, or simply to psychologically torture the victims, flexing their "power".

CRUELTY CONNECTIONS

According to 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 connections since the 1970's, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most has killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animals cruelty among perpetrators of 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 subsitue 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 a 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 itself."     

Do you see the pattern here?

The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable off 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 a history of animal abuse in their past, and since there's no way to know which animals abuser is going to continue on to commit violent humans 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," Lookwood 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," Lookwood 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, Lookwood 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 Lookwood, 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 situation, women are often afraid to leave the home out of fear the abuser will abuser will harm the family pet, which has lead to the creation of Animal Safe house 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," Lookwood said.

Those who abuse animals for no obvious reason, Lookwood 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 Shiriner, 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, has repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.
• Alber DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in oranges crates and shoot 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 lost count. Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had decapitated a cat.
• Serial killer Jeffery Dahmer had impaled dogs heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.

More recently, high school killers such as 15 year old Kip Kinkel in Springfeild, 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. 

The fact is that the serial killer examples are only the ones that are sensational enough to make the news. These are 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 in fact, lessen the impact, because it makes this connection appear to be something that only exists in serial killers and "psycho's" when it 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 who pets said their partner 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 Safe-house Program allows victims to leave their animals in foster care while they seek medical attention, counseling and help. For a nation listing of Animal Safe house/Safe Haven organizations, visit the HSUS Safe Haven Directory.


                            
 

What can be done?

Children who have abused animals should learn through teachers, social situations, and good parenting that abuse is wrong, and correct their behavior. This is a critical time, and if any one of those corrective elements is missing, that child is high risk for potentially becoming more abusive later on. As said by Anthropologist Margaret Mead, "One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is kill or torture an animal and get away with it". There are things that can be done. Get involved, there are small things you can do now that will help to raise your children to be caring adults - and to be sure to educate others about the abuse connection. 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 in violence. There 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.

Factors in the Assessment of Dangerous of Dangerous in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty

by Randall Lockwood, Ph.D

We are frequently called upon to assist cruelty investigators, law enforcement officers, court officials or mental health professionals in evaluating the significance of an individual's involvement in a particular act of animal cruelty as and indicator of dangerousness or possible risk for involvement of further acts of violence against others. The relatively low level of attention given to even the most serious acts of animal abuse has made it difficult to systematically or quantitatively assess the various factors that should be considered in evaluating the potential significance of various violent acts against animals. However, the following factors are suggested as relevant criteria in such evaluations. They are based on several sources including:

1. Retrospective studies of acts of cruelty against animals reported by violent offenders.
2. Studies and reports of acts of animal cruelty committed prior to or in association with child abuse and or domestic violence.
3. Extrapolation from criteria used in threat assessment by the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
4. Extrapolation from numerous studies on general characteristics of habitual violent offenders

There is, as yet, no absolute scale that determines when a particular collection of factors reaches critical levels. It is suggested, conservatively, that more than five of these factors should be cause for serious concern, and that more than ten can indicate a high potential that the offender has been or will be involved in a serious act of violence against people. 

1. Victim vulnerability - Acts of violence against victims that are particularly small, harmless or nonthreatening by virtue of species, size, age, injury or disability are indicative of perpetrators particularly willing to gain a sense of power and control through violence against those likely to retaliate, and thus should be considered at higher risk of aggression to children, the elderly, the disabled and other vulnerable victims.
2. Number of Victims - The selection of multiple victims killed or injured in the same instance suggests a greater potential for uncontrolled violence.
3. Number of instances within a limited time frame - Several separate instances (e.g. attacks on animals at two or more locations) within a 24 time period reflects a predatory style of attack that is suggestive of organized and premeditated violence against others.
4. Severity of injury inflicted - (on continuum from minor injury to death of victim)
5. Multiple forms of injury to individual victim(s) - Perpetrators who inflict two or more forms of injury (e.g. burn and bludgeon) should be considered a higher risk.
6. Repetition of injuries to individual victim(s) -  In general, perpertartors who have inflicted multiple blows, stab wounds ect, on one or more victims should be considered a higher risk.
7. Intimacy of infliction of injury -Abuse that involves direct physical contact or restraint and obvious opportunity to witness the victims response (e.g. beating, stabbing, 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 otherwise rendering the animal incapable of escape (e.g crippling) is suggestive of a higher degree of intention, 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. Degree of per-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 process as contributing factor.
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 barriers, breaking and entering, ect.) 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 act, and thus an indicator of risk for other violence.
14. Other illegal acts were committed at 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, ect. Acts of violence against animals conducted with this motivation can be considered indicative of a high risk response to social problems.
18. Absence of economic motive - While an economic motive (e.g. killing and stealing animal for food) does no excuse animal cruelty, the presence of an economic motive, in the absence of other aggravating factors, may suggest a mitigating factor that could decrease the assessment of risk for future violence. Conversely, the lack of such a motive suggests the act was rewarding to the perpetrator by itself.
19. Past history of positive interaction with victim - Instances of animal abuse in which the perpetrator has previously interacted positively or affectionately with the victim (e.g. acts against ones own pet) suggest an instability in relationships that can be predicative of other types of cyclic violence such as domestic abuse.
20. Animal victim was subjected to mutilation or postmortem dismemberment - Mutilation is usually associated with disorganized motives of power and control which are often associated with interpersonal violence.
21. Animal victim was sexually assaulted or mutilated in genital areas or perpetrator indicated sexual arousal as consequence of the abuse - The eroticization of violence should always be considered a potential warning sign for more generalized violence. A past history of sexual arousal through violent dominance of animals has been characteristic of many serial rapists and sexual homicide perpetrators.
22. Act of cruelty was accompanied by indicators of sexual symbolism associated with the victim - Written or spoken comments indicating that the perpertrator viewed the animal as representive of a subsiute human victim (e.g. that pussy had to die or the bitch deserved it) should consitute a serious warning sign for the potential for secalation of violence to a human target.
23. Perpetrator projected human characteristics onto victim - If other evidence suggests perpetrator viewed the animal victim as a specific human individual or class of individuals, this may indicate that the violence could be a rehearsal for related acts against human victims.
24. Perpetrator documented the act of animal abuse through photographs, video or audio recording, or diary entries - The memorialization or documentation of cruelty indicates that acts of violence are a continuing source of pleasure for the perpetrator, a serious indicator that such violence is strongly rewarding and very likely to be repeated and/or escalated.
25. Perpetrator returned at least once to the scene of abuse, to relive the experience - As above, the continuation of the emotional arousal experienced during the perpetration of cruelty is and indicator of significant likelihood of reenactment, repetition or escalation of the violence to reach the same rewarding emotional state.
26. Perpetrator left messages or threats in association with the act of cruelty - Using violence against an animal as a form of threat or intimidation is often symptomatic of more generalized violence. The additional intimidation of written or verbal threats (e.g. notes left with an animal body or letters sent to someone who cared about the animal), are strongly indicative of potential for escalated violence.
27. Animal victim was posed or otherwise displayed - Positioning or displaying the body victim (e.g. on front steps, in mailbox,) or wearing or displaying parts of the remains (e.g. skins, paws) can be indicative of the use of such violence to gain feelings of power, control and domination - or to alarm or intimidate others. This should be considered a serious warning sign of the potential for escalated violence 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 normas or attempts to seek power and control through magical thought processes, which may escalate to fasincaiton with the application of such ritual 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 though disorders that could contribute to acts violence against human victims.
31. Perpetrator reportedly experience 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 to 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. 

source- pet-abuse.com