Animal abuser registry proposed in Michigan

Animal abuser registry proposed in Michigan

www.lansingstatejournal.com

People in Michigan who are cruel to animals should have to register just as sex offenders do, a state lawmaker says.

Rep. Harvey Santana, D-Detroit, introduced a bill to create an animal abuser registry similar to the Michigan Sex Offender Registry.

"Look at the serial killers that we've had in this country," Santana said Friday during a taping of public TV's "Off the Record" at WKAR-TV in East Lansing. "Haven't they all started off abusing animals?"

Under the bill, those convicted of animal abuse would have to register, pay a $50 fee and notify police of address changes.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I did a search, and could only find a similar story out of CA.

I think this is a great idea. Too many people are repeat offenders and should not be allowed to have pets. It would help people to know that the neighbor you have watched abuse or neglect their animal may have a history of this. Maybe more people will get involved.



www.lansingstatejournal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by chiefsmom


thanks for sharing OP ! S+F

i totally agree with you... i think animal abuse is disgusting, it makes me sick to think that there are so many people out there who get away scot free... so i think this idea is fantastic... i think also they should maybe start bringing back the animal licences... that way anyone who has a abused an animal can no longer have on, especially if they are on the animal abuse registry.... hope this goes through

I think this is a good idea. Then people who need to place an animal in a home have a little more help selecting the right owner.

As an animal lover I am a huge proponent for responsible animal ownership, and I believe that the intent of the registry is noble, however I just can't agree that an animal abuser registry is the right way to address this issue.

What problem are you really solving with such a database of personal information? Ar they going to require that before you sell or adopt out any animal you need to be screened? What purpose would it serve except to permanently punish someone? If a person is convicted of animal abuse and non-ownership of a pet is required during the sentencing process, then that needs to be enforced like any other judicial compliance issue. If such a stipulation doesn't exist, then to add someone to this registry would in essence add up to non judicial punishment. Animal abusers are criminals, but once they pay their debt to society they should be free of being branded by a registry like this.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


Well, I agree that just like with the sex offender lists, there are going to be issues.
But honestly, if this saves a animals life, isn't it worth it.
An animal shelter or a breeder can at least have some point of reference to start with a potential new owner.
As of right now, in MI, you basically get a fine in most cases, unless it is multiple animals.

I guess another reason why I think this is a good idea is that a friend that just posted a photo of a neighbors blind dog, that was IN ITS KENNEL, had acid thrown on its face.

So, it's ok that that person, hopefully caught soon, only gets a $50.00?

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by ~Vixen~

 

Well, I agree that just like with the sex offender lists, there are going to be issues.
But honestly, if this saves a animals life, isn't it worth it.

While it *MAY* save an animals life, it *WILL* forever punish anyone added to that registry.

Animal rights are important, but human rights are of paramount importance.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
I guess another reason why I think this is a good idea is that a friend that just posted a photo of a neighbors blind dog, that was IN ITS KENNEL, had acid thrown on its face.

So, it's ok that that person, hopefully caught soon, only gets a $50.00?

What you describe is animal cruelty that should be dealt with as in any criminal case. Investigating the crime, arresting the perpetrator, trying them in court, and punishing them for their misdeed would be the appropriate way of handling that.

What would a registry have prevented in that case?

A registry would prevent the attacker from *maybe* purchasing an animal, but in this case the attacker wasn't the animal owner, so that would be irrelevant. The attacker would still have committed the crime. If he was caught and brought to justice, the court may prohibit him from owning a pet of their own, but a monster who maliciously injures someones pet with acid usually isn't the type of person who would seek to adopt an animal, nor would they be deterred from getting one by inclusion on any registry list.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


People commit crimes, they go to jail and have their life taken away. I don't see how this is any different. They make the concious decision to break the law.

Though I do believe you should have more then one instance to go on the registry.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

While it *MAY* save an animals life, it *WILL* forever punish anyone added to that registry.

Animal rights are important, but human rights are of paramount importance.

You don't think some of these people are abusing people, too?
You don't think that they may move on to people at some point if they haven't already?

I think this is a great idea. Most people who abuse animals have no conscience and won't think twice about hurting any living thing. I say "bring on the registry!". It should be accessible to the public. Even those who are dating someone new can check it out. This is critical nformation so you can find out if your new boy/girlfriend, neighbor, pet customer, etc. has a violent streak.


Edit to Add: One of Michael Vick's dogs can be the poster dog for the registry.

It will be interesting to see if they put some type of limitations or time limits on this.

For instance:
2 occurrences in 6 months or multiple animal gets you on the list. Or one instance with no other occurrence in X amount of years gets you off the list.
I do hope they at least give the full details.

Also, it does say in the article that many serial killers start with animals.

reply to post by chiefsmom


I see where you're going, but I don't believe that there should be any time limits. Once you're on, you can't get off. I have no pity for anyone who abuses an animal.

Even in the instance of animal hoarders who had good intentions originally, they should not be able to keep any more.

I can imagine how many people have abused animals and not been caught, so this would be an easy out for them. Most serial killers started with animals and the registry could at least be evidence in court if they moved on to people.

I look at it this way: If a foster parent is caught/found guilty of abusing the children they're supposed to be protecting and providing for, would you take them off a list after five years so they can begin fostering again?
I wouldn't trust them.

Originally posted by Afterthought

You don't think some of these people are abusing people, too?
You don't think that they may move on to people at some point if they haven't already?

I think this is a great idea. Most people who abuse animals have no conscience and won't think twice about hurting any living thing. I say "bring on the registry!". It should be accessible to the public. Even those who are dating someone new can check it out. This is critical nformation so you can find out if your new boy/girlfriend, neighbor, pet customer, etc. has a violent streak.

No, I don't automatically label an animal abuser as being guilty of other unproven crimes. I believe that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and just because one was found guilty of animal abuse doesn't mean that they're also a serial killer, child molester, rapist, armed robber or any other scum of society.

Furthermore, you would propose that the list be used for purposes of profiling, which I feel is a huge breech of personal privacy. A registry of this sort wouldn't serve any legitimate purpose towards animal protection, and would only serve to permanently stigmatize and penalize individuals.

reply to post by Afterthought


Oh, I don't want any conditions. Just wondering if someone will try to add them, thinking it may help it get passed.
You know, trying to opes some people.

reply to post by chiefsmom


Yes, they do have to get approval from the majority.

The ones I see that may get in the way are those who race and bet on horses and greyhounds. I know that Detroit has a pretty large gambling crowd, so these people may not be too happy if those who dope racing animals are deemed abusers. It is a shame the way they treat animals who aren't capable of winning anymore.

reply to post by ~Vixen~

stigmatize and penalize individuals.

People make their own beds and they should lie in them.
None of these people have my sympathies. I still beleive that those who are capable of hurting animals have the ability to hurt people. It's just a proven fact. So, if the registry is enacted, these folks just better keep themselves in check.

Ok, I just woke up so I hope what I say makes sense. On one hand, I think this is a great idea. On the other hand, a thought jumped into my head when I first read this. What constitutes animal abuse? Would someone be put on the list for failure to get it's pets teeth cleaned? How about if your pet isn't fed the top of the line dog food? etc. I love animals and take good care of mine, but I know some people are extreme in their ideas of how animals should be taken care of. I can see a good thing getting out of hand and making it hard for people to have and keep their pets. If this registry does get started, I think there should be strict guidelines to what constitutes abuse. I may have to come back when I'm fully awake and edit this.

I am against all "registries". They go against the very notions of law that we are supposed to have. Once you pay your debt to society, the debt should be cleared....

reply to post by virraszto


I think the instances you listed would be an exaggeration and hopefully wouldn't be considered abuse.

Here in Florida, we've had many reports of livestock farmers abandoning their farms and the animals are found starving or dead. I think as long as you're feeding them an adequate diet, you're within reason and care about your animal(s). As a livestock/pet owner, if you cannot afford to feed your animal(s) anymore, it's your responsibility to find a home that can afford to keep them healthy.

In line with what you're talking about, one instance that may be considered abuse is allowing your pet(s) to get grossly obese. This is bad for their joints and health in general. This may be the grey area you were talking about.