|
Private First Class
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 31
|
Animal Cruelty Review | Suite101.com
Mans Best Friend - Scott Meltzer (Public Domain) Please note: the following is for information purposes and is not related to any one particular country. Some countries may take this issue seriously, while others may not. A lot of work is now being done in relation to animal cruelty and violence towards humans, there is much more to be done. The critical issue related to the topic of animal cruelty is that family welfare organizations, law enforcement authorities and researchers have not taken the issue seriously. In addition, attempts to correct the problem “may be impeded by society’s contradictory attitudes toward animals, as well as by the temptation to see animals as less worthy victims” (Solot, 1997, cited in Flynn, 2000, p. 94). Literature Review Recent research by Flynn (2000), Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman (2001), and Tallichet, Hensley and Singer (2005) are concerned with the link between animal cruelty in childhood and later violence towards humans. Their primary concern is the insufficient research that has been conducted in this field by social researchers and welfare workers, despite growing evidence supporting the view that childhood animal cruelty may signify a dysfunctional and/or violent family life (Flynn, 2000; Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman, 2001; Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005). The report and research by Flynn (2000) argues that the issue of animal cruelty can no longer be ignored for seven primary reasons: animal abuse is a serious antisocial behavior by children and adolescents; it is a relatively common childhood occurrence; it has potential negative developmental consequences; violence toward animals is related to interpersonal violence; it is connected to and may be a marker of family violence; the well-being of companion animals is being neglected; and it will help achieve a less violent society. In his 1997 survey of 267 undergraduate psychology and sociology students at a south-eastern university in America, Flynn found that there is significant evidence supporting “an alarmingly high” incidence of animal abuse (Flynn, 2000, p. 88). The survey asked respondents from various demographic backgrounds questions about their experiences with animal cruelty, along with questions relating to their families, attitudes towards violence against animals and demographics (Flynn, 2000). Respondents were asked whether they had ever: “(a) seen others hurt, torture or tease an animal to cause it pain; (b) seen someone kill an animal; (c) had another try to control them by threatening to hurt or actually hurting an animal; (d) seen another have ###### with an animal; (e) killed a stray animal; (f) hurt or tortured an animal to tease it or cause it pain; (g) killed a pet; (h) touched an animal ######ually; (i) had ###### with an animal; or (i) been forced by another to hurt an animal” (Flynn, 2000, p. 88). The 2000 study by Flynn found that males were more likely to have been <a href="http://www.splendidgucci.com/chloe-handbags-c-5.html"><strong>chloe handbags</strong></a> exposed to animal abuse than females, with two-thirds of male respondents claiming to have either witnessed or perpetrated animal abuse. Nearly half of the male respondents had seen another person kill an animal, and 43.4% had witnessed an animal being hurt or tortured. Males were six times more likely to have killed a stray animal, three times more likely to have hurt or tortured an animal, and nearly six times more likely to have killed a pet. Evidence shows that 34.5% of males had abused animals compared with 9.3% of females (Flynn, 2000, p. 88). Shooting and direct physical aggression (hitting, beating, kicking or throwing an animal against the wall), were the two most common methods of animal cruelty; shooting was the most common means for killing, while physical aggression was used to cause pain. Being forced to harm an animal by another person and having ###### with an animal was an extremely rare occurrence in this study (Flynn, 2000, p.89). Flynn concluded that animal abuse was first witnessed between the ages of six and twelve, however, “around three in ten initially observed cruelty during adolescence” (Flynn, 2000, p, 89), and most of the respondents who had killed a stray animal “did so first when they were in their teens”, while harming, torturing or killing an animal commonly occurred between six and twelve years of age (Flynn, 2000, p. 89). Flynn’s (2000) research has detailed an important issue relating to the link between childhood animal cruelty and the witnessing of animal abuse during childhood. It appears that demographics and a potentially violent family life may play a part in why children commit animal cruelty, and the methods <a href="http://www.splendidgucci.com/gucci-handbags-c-6.html"><strong>gucci handbags</strong></a> of cruelty used. His use of the seven motives for cruelty were used widely in the detailed study, which assisted in forming a concise, yet clear support of his study (that childhood animal cruelty is an extremely common occurrence). Further to a 1985 study by Kellert and Felthous in which nine motivations for animal cruelty were documented, Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman (2001) conducted a study hypothesizing that seven of the nine motivations for cruelty would be important with respect to the connection between animal cruelty and violence towards humans. The seven motives chosen were: to control an animal; to express aggression through an animal; to enhance one’s own aggressiveness; to shock people for amusement; to retaliate against another person; displacement of hostility from a person to animal; and nonspecific sadism (Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman (2001). The aim of the qualitative face-to-face study by the authors was to investigate the relationship between past acts of animal cruelty among violent and non-violent offenders, and whether animal cruelty may serve as an early warning sign of future human violence. The study involved a total of 45 nonviolent and 45 violent participants located in a maximum security prison in Florida. Two data collection instruments were used: the first being the Survivors’ Coping Strategies (SCS) Survey, developed by Heide and Solomon (1991), to gather demographic and social history background data about the participants; the second instrument, the Children and Animals Assessment Instrument (CAAI), developed by Frank R. Ascione in 1997, was used to gather data with respect to the participants’ experience with animals (Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman, 2001). The Ascione instrument divided animals into four categories: wild, farm, pet, and stray. The variables collected information on the frequency and severity of cruelty committed by the participant, and the response to the cruelty committed. The results from this study support previous research indicating a relationship between cruelty to animals committed during childhood and later violence perpetrated against humans (Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman, 2001). One of the weaknesses of the study relates to the possibility that some of the inmates may not have answered the questions truthfully (down-grading their cruelty or even embellishing it), despite the use of data collection instruments. Despite this weakness, the strength of the study involves having had access to known and convicted violent prison inmates with a history of both animal cruelty and later violence towards humans. This assisted in providing support for the link between animal cruelty in childhood and violence against humans later in life. Merz-Perez, Heide & Silverman (2001) provide a very concise and detailed study, clearly emphasizing the requirement of further studies relating to the field of animal cruelty and violence against humans. One of the first empirical studies linking childhood animal cruelty and later violence against humans was undertaken in 1963 by MacDonald (Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005), involving the study of 48 psychotic and 52 non-psychotic patients in a mental institution. MacDonald found that violent patients often shared three common childhood characteristics, referred to as a triad: enuresis, fire setting, and animal cruelty (cited in Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005). The aim of the study was to determine if the three traits could be used as a preventative method against violent behaviour (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2003); unfortunately, his findings did not support this (Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005). Hellman and Blackman (1966, cited in Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005) conducted further research in relation to MacDonald’s triad, on 84 participants at a psychiatric treatment center at St. Louis, Missouri. Hellman and Blackman (1966) found 74% of the subjects known to have committed aggressive <a href="http://www.splendidgucci.com/coach-handbags-c-2.html"><strong>coach handbags</strong></a> crimes displayed a background of the complete (or part of) the triad behaviors (cited in Tallichet, Hensley and Singer, 2005). The research by Tallichet, Hensley and Singer (2005) has drawn on empirical studies from 1963 and 1966 to detail the necessity for further empirical research linking animal cruelty in childhood and violence towards humans. The studies by MacDonald (1963) and Hellman and Blackman (1966), relating to the three characteristics of violent patients, are extremely interesting and valuable, regardless of having been conducted in the 1960’s. Despite the two studies conflicting findings, with the new and ample technology available to researchers today, further empirical studies relating to the triad would be most beneficial. Conclusion It is of great concern that despite the growing number of cases of animal cruelty occurring throughout the world, researchers and family advocates are not taking the issue of animal cruelty seriously. Animals, like children, are unable to protect themselves; as a result they are extremely vulnerable to abuse. The fact that they cannot speak out against the abuse is even more distressing for animal welfare advocates. Current and past literature from the last twenty years has detailed the importance of further empirical research in order to clearly understand the link between childhood animal cruelty and violence towards humans at adulthood. Research clearly indicates that a violent and/or unhappy family environment may play a role in childhood animal cruelty; if not dealt with quickly, this aggression may lead to aggression against humans. While the small quantity of empirical studies conducted over the years demonstrates that a link certainly does exist, it is imperative that social and family welfare researchers take the issue of violence more seriously. References Arluke, A., & Luke, C 1997, ‘Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 1975-1990’, Society and Animals, 5, 195-204. Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T 1997, ‘Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations’, Anthrozoös, 10 (4), 170-177. Boat, B. 1994, ‘Boat inventory on animal-related experiences’, Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati. Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R 1987a, ‘Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression against people: A review’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 710-717. Flynn, Clifton P 2000, ‘Why Family Professionals Can <a href="http://inbookmark.com/mybookmark.php"><strong>chloe bag</strong></a> No Longer Ignore Violence toward Animals’, Family Relations, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 87-95. Lockwood, R., & Hodge, G. R 1997, ‘The tangled web of animal abuse: The links between cruelty to animals and human violence’. In R. Lockwood & F. A. Ascione (Eds.), Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence (pp. 77-82). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Merz-Perez, Heide, Kathleen M & Silverman, Ira J 2001, ‘Childhood Cruelty to Animals and Subsequent Violence against Humans’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 556-573. Tallichet, Suzanne E; Hensley, C & Singer, Stephen D 2005, ‘Unraveling the Methods of Childhood and Adolescent Cruelty to Nonhuman Animals’, Society & Animals, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 91-107.
|
aj5 good
Linear Mode
