• Yes we should

    Our pets are the ones that are there for us when we need them,the ones who can make us smile when life seems impossible,LIVING CREATURES who love us to pieces! Why wouldn't we want them to be as safe as possible?There are people,no monsters out there who are willing to go out of their way to hurt our beautiful family.We register those who abuse humans,so not registering animal abusers is like saying animals are less important than we are.

  • Definitely: register animal-abusers

    People who go out of their way to inflict pain on animals are not just ill. They’re guilty of committing an evil act. Statistically they also pose an unusually high risk to other people’s safety and peace of mind. We need to protect animals AND society from them, and we need to do it now.

  • Increase penalties by 20 fold! Animal abuse should always be a felony!

    GO GET EM. Increase penalties by 20 fold and the abuser must be in the registry for a bare minimum of 35 years! We need to know where these scumbags live so we can protect our precious friends. The animals that live with us are our family and friends. Lest we not forget!

  • Of course animal abusers should be registered!

    People have the duty - and the power - to prevent animal abuse. The first step is to know where to look to find abuse. One of the places to look is where and who have done it before. It's a no-brainer. If we don't work to prevent it, we are saying it's acceptable. It's not.

  • It will protect the public and more animals.

    People should be able to check somewhere about the people they may consider buying an animal from and the people who may be hired to watch their pet. Animals should have more protection from people who could harm them. The issue of mental health should not be an issue that gets in the way of these protections for the public and animals.

  • We should punish the crime, regardless of who the victim is

    Treating human abuse and animal abuse as two different things reminds me of the unequal punishment in medieval times depending on who the victim was. We would never make that formal distinction now, and punish someone more harshly because they are rich or prominent. In practice justice is not equal for all, but that's an ideal we should be striving toward.

  • Definitely yes! Yes!

    Anyone who abuses a living creature that feels pain lacks the ability to emphasize, and that inability has been shown in studies by psychologists to be inherent in psychopathical behavior of humans. Not all animal abusers evolve to abusing or killing people, but most who do have a history of starting with animals. We humans have used animals throughout the ages to help us, and many have been domesticated by us. We have learned that all of them feel pain as we do. They look to us for love, care, safety, etc. Abusers should be punished, fined, jailed, etc, and their crimes against these innocents should somehow be registered as such for all to view.

  • Definitely should be

    We have heard & seen countless cases of young animal abusers turning into murderers when they get older. Animals and all living creatures deserve to be safe. We are a society that love our pets as family and if they are abused while in our care it's heartbreaking. They are innocents and should be kept from of any abuse.

  • Same principle as sex offenders

    If we can identify people who are/have been cruel to animals, we can prevent putting them into situations where they could continue to abuse animals if they intend to. Having a registry of animal abusers will allow us to prevent them from having pets or an occupation where they are in contact with animals, just as we prohibit sex offenders from living in close proximity to potential victims and from having occupations where they can have access to potential victims.

  • Animal abuse often is the beginning of violence against humans

    There is much evidence that animal abusers move on to hurting people. Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animal abuse. A 1997 study by the MSPCA and Northeastern University found that 70% of animal abusers had committed at least one other criminal offense and almost 40% had committed violent crimes against people.
    A 1986 study reported that 48% of convicted rapist and 30% of convicted child abusers admitted perpetrating acts of animal cruelty in their childhood or adolescence.

  • Way to serious, Humans are more important than animals

    A very natural idea is that, yes, while it is important for animal abusers to be punished, they need not be treated like sex offenders. A budge that would be set up for animal abusers registration would be money wasted, and perhaps your next door neighbor would be a sex offender unannounced because of the stupid animal abuse budget.

  • No

    While animal abuse is clearly wrong and immoral, there is a finite difference in society between people and animals. Most importantly, our government is set up to follow the concept of the social contract, where people provide their services to the nation in order to receive fair protection. Animals do not partake in this contract, and therefore cannot be extended the equal rights that people receive for their protection. Animals live independently of the government, under full subjection of their owners. I know it sounds bad that way, but if you don't agree with it, don't own pets. On the other hand, in the domestic animal community, animal abusers can be labeled similarly to how sex offenders are labeled in society, for the protection of animals.

  • NO they should not

    While animal abusers are most definitely bad people, this does not necessarily mean that they are a threat to people. I personally feel that there is already enough fear in our current society and having every animal abuser listed would only increase that fear of each other. Another problem is that not all animal abusers are what you probably think of like “a man kicking a wounded dog”. The abuser could just be a crazy cat lady. This list would create more fear than any positive result.

  • Authoritarianism and hypocrisy from emotional reactionism

    Current laws in almost all states level charges and fines against animal abusers; this proposal is ill-thought, unnecessary and irrational.

    Creating this type of registry will, whether it is an intended consequence or not, level an associative social judgment of an animal abuser being, in some perspectives, equal to a sex offender. Those attempting to deny such an outcome would most obviously be expressing an intellectually dishonest position, as well as outright denial. Facebook, Twitter, doxxing, etc., and the observable behaviors on from such platforms are all presently available evidence.

    This is directly espousing authoritarian extremism, which is unconstitutional and expressly dangerous to the society and nation, in totality.

    Those advocating for this proposition are neglecting to use analysis and forethought: setting unnecessary precedent today leaves a loaded weapon for a future adversary. When they use your precedent against you, will you claim rights violation? Extremism? False judgment from emotional pretense?

    History, and modern social behavioral norms, show that will most plausibly be the consequent outcome.

  • Registries are useless and nothing but shaming.

    Why do we think a registry is worthwhile? First it was sex offenders, then drunk drivers, now animal abusers. Just wait, folks, you'll be on one next! Let's have a registry for speeders, for adulterers, for shoplifters. Or here's an idea: let's quit relying on Big Daddy Government and invasions of privacy as our means of solving community issues. Maybe if we put down our phones and TALK to each other, we may be a little less of a mentally ill country.

  • Good concept, execution would be costly and ineffective.

    It's a nice sentiment, no one should ever abuse a living creature. We can all agree that's wrong.

    However, registering wouldn't pack much of a punch or even prevent future crimes. With sex offenders they are required to undergo inspections, get addresses approved, report new relationships so the law can check for children, computer access restrictions, and other measures to ensure safety to the community. An animal abuse registry would merely be a wall of shame. I'm not sure what making records public would do aside from create hostility from neighbors.

    We already have criminal background checks that an animal abuse charge would show up on. In all reality, we don't have the resources to enforce registration, we don't even have enough resources to track down people with warrants and bring them in.

    A better and more cost effective idea would be to give shelters grants to do background checks for free on potential adopters so all dogs go into the right hands.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.