Animal Harm and Public Policy
Chapter 9
Animal Harm and Public Policy
Given the variety of animal harm offences and differences in criminal behaviour involved in animal harm any legal system aimed at dealing with animal harm faces a challenge: how can the disparate nature of animal harm be adequately reflected in public policy? Schaffner (2011) identifies that legislative policy is dependent on the drafting entity and its function as well as the manner in which legal rules are interpreted or implemented by regulatory authorities. Thus the importance given to animal harm within legal systems is dependent on a number of factors; beyond the basic text of any legislation the scope and jurisdiction of the regulatory bodies responsible for animal harm are factors and this reflects the social construction of animal harm and its place within public policy. Such attitudes change over time so that animal harm may become an issue of core importance in public policy when the public demands that it should be, or is considered to be a fringe issue at other times (Arluike and Sanders 1996). However given the wide-ranging scope of animal harm and its links with other types of crime there is an argument for it to be considered alongside mainstream criminal justice policy.
This chapter assesses the current public policy approach to animal harm and initiatives aimed at dealing with animal harm. It argues that the current public policy approach is primarily one of detection and punishment rather than being based on early intervention where animal harm is known to occur or crime prevention measures to prevent it from happening. The chapter argues that animal harm, whether abuse or wildlife crime, should be seen as part of an overall criminal profile rather than being dealt with separately as an environmental or animal welfare issue. The chapter considers the links between animal abuse/wildlife crime and other types of offending and how these crimes are currently dealt with by global crime control/criminal justice policy and in national policies.
Consideration of animal welfare by social, political and public policy theorists also informs the assessment of its benefit to society. Green criminology’s concern with the study of crimes against the environment and animals, accepts that it is often difficult to disentangle environmental harms from the abuse of non-human animals. Beirne and South argue that ‘animals live in environments, and their own well-being – physical, emotional, psychological – is absolutely and intimately linked to the health and good standing of their environments’ (2007: xiii–xiv). Effective animal welfare policies thus provide for both tangible and intangible public benefits through the improvement of the environment and integration of policy initiatives that could protect the public.
Animal Harm and Social Policy
A general perspective from the animal rights literature is that violence towards animals harms human beings by making us more violent and prone to a more violent type of society. In his controversial book Eternal Treblinka, Patterson theorizes that ‘since violence begets violence, the enslavement of animals injected a higher level of domination and coercion into human history by creating oppressive hierarchical societies and unleashing large-scale warfare never seen before’ (Patterson 2002). The book argues that better treatment of animals, which is frequently achieved through robust, effective animal welfare laws, is necessary to minimize breakdowns in society and continue the development of enlightened society. Wise makes a similar point in relation to the case for legal rights for animals, arguing that ‘as our domestication of wild animals served as an unprincipled model for our enslavement of human beings, so the destruction of human slavery and all its badges can model the principled destruction of chimpanzee and bonobo slavery’ (2000). Like Regan (1983), Wise argues that legal recognition of the harm caused by animal abuse and the development of statutory rights for animals contributes to the development of society, a view supported by Connelly and Smith in a broader sense in their philosophical arguments that protecting the environment (and animals) is for the common good and should be a core part of public policy (1999). Yet a more compelling argument is made when exploring the links between animal abuse and violence towards humans. While not all theorists go as far as Patterson’s provocative query as to whether human ‘enslavement’ of animals was the first step on the road to the Holocaust, it is now becoming accepted that animal abuse may be a precursor of violence towards humans and should be the subject of attention by the criminal justice agencies. Yet the reality is that animal harm, while the subject of attention from green criminologists, NGOs and some in law enforcement, continues to remain outside of the criminological mainstream. This fact means that its implications for other offending and its overall impact on crime rates and offending behaviour are not always adequately considered.
Animal Harm and Criminal Justice Policy
As the causes of crime vary, policies needed to deal with their causes may also vary and need to change over time. The political ideology promoted by and influencing a particular government’s policy determines the nature of their criminal justice policies and also determines criminal justice priorities. Thus in reality animal harm is subject to two main political ideologies: conservative perspectives which are generally tough authoritarian approaches which emphasize discipline, deterrence and punishment; and social-democratic (or radical) approaches which tend to accept that economic, social and cultural deprivation are the causes of crime. While these are generalized descriptions of the two main political ideologies that dominate in the UK and the United States, analysis of policy documents issued by the main political parties (Conservatives and Labour in the UK, and Republican and Democrat in the United States) demonstrate how these policies are implemented in practice. In the UK in the run up to the 2010 general election the Conservatives (2007) announced that the focus of their criminal justice policy is the criminal, suggesting a belief in radical choice theory. The Conservatives’ policy document, It’s Time to Fight Back, proposed a more punitive law enforcement regime based on increased discipline in schools, the end of the early release scheme for prisoners, an increased prison building scheme, more police officers and an extension of stop and search powers. Introducing the report, party leader (now Prime Minister) David Cameron asserted family values and the need for discipline by saying that ‘widespread minor crime is the direct product of a broken society, including the failure or inability of the police to assert control of the streets’ (Conservatives 2007). Both the Conservatives and Republicans believe in a smaller role for government with a broadly authoritarian approach to crime as being determined by rational choice, but also incorporating law enforcement perspectives that emphasize personal choice and free enterprise in keeping with liberalism as their dominant ideology. Thus, under the conservative perspective government generally refrains from imposing regulation that stifles private enterprise and impacts on business owners. This extends to environmental regulation which conservative perspectives might consider to be burdensome on business (Cabinet Office 2011), preferring self-regulation as a route to compliance.1 As a result environmental regulation is generally weaker under conservative perspectives, allowing business to continue operating under a lighter regulatory regime and generally permitting the killing of animals to protect business interests.
Social-democratic approaches attempt to address the conditions that cause crime. In the UK, Labour Party policies are based on creating ‘strong vibrant communities’ (Labour Party 2008) using neighbourhood policing considering the causes of crime and developing a culture of respect. Labour policies thus favour education and collaborative working with NGOs in order to address animal harm issues and encourage the public to become involved in reducing animal harm. Both approaches, however, tend to rely heavily on the use of imprisonment as a primary means of addressing the crime problem once detection and prosecution has occurred. Bright explains that:
In the United States, the existence of a federal enforcement agency for wildlife crime provides a means through which both social-democratic and conservative policies can be incorporated within the law enforcement perspective. This allows for the use of a dedicated enforcement agency to target action at the individual offender and implement detection and prevention as the core focus of policy. But the remit of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA also allow for some educational work aimed at the causes of wildlife and environmental crime within a law enforcement perspective. However, Bright argues that the evidence does not substantiate the perceived effectiveness of the law enforcement perspective and faith in imprisonment given that substantial increases in expenditure have been ‘rewarded’ by increases in crime rates and by high rates of re-offending by those given custodial sentences. Home Office figures for the UK regularly show re-offending rates in excess of 50 percent (Cuppleditch and Evans 2005) and repeat offending is hardly unknown in the United States. Various sets of figures are used to assess reoffending rates. In the UK the Prison Reform Trust concluded that 47 percent of all adults released from prison were reconvicted within one year ‘rising to 57% for those serving sentences of less than 12 months and almost 70% for under 18 year olds’ (Prison Reform Trust 2012: 3). While there may be some fluctuation in the annual reconviction rates, the reliance on custody may be misplaced if at least half of those offenders incarcerated as a result of their entry into the criminal justice system simply re-offend.
Given that animal harm can have many different causes, policies intended to reduce such crime and prevent further offending will need to address each of the different causes. Policies aimed at providing good housing, education and low unemployment, diverting people from crime by increasing their life chances and providing a healthy society where there are alternatives to crime and by also reducing opportunities for committing crime are the proposed social-democratic responses to mainstream crime. There is, however, evidence of failure in employing this ‘common sense’ approach to crime. James Q. Wilson (1985), a former presidential crime advisor, explains that in the 1960s United States the Kennedy and Johnson administrations embarked on aggressive programmes aimed at addressing the social causes of crime and that the United States entered its greatest and longest sustained period of prosperity that, at time of Wilson’s writing in 1985, it had ever seen. The expected result was a radical decline in crime levels but, as Wilson explains, the reality was somewhat different and, in fact, ‘crime soared. It did not increase a little; it rose at a faster rate and to higher levels than at any time since the 1930s and, in some categories than any experienced in this century’ (Wilson 1985: 14). Young called this the aetiological crisis, explaining that the conventional wisdom on how to address crime failed and that the dominant paradigm of social-democratic positivism which believed that crime could be addressed by political intervention needed to be reconsidered. Young (1999) argued that the challenge for criminology was to find an integrated approach that involved intervention at all levels, the social cause of crime, social control exercised by the community and the formal agencies and on the victim. But the three policy perspectives outlined by Bright remain at the core of public policy on crime prevention (Grimshaw 2004) and the perceived wisdom that bad behaviour by individuals can be theoretically controlled remains the basis of most policy decisions concerning crime. Whether that behaviour is controlled via direct action aimed at the motivation of the offender, action aimed at making it harder or less desirable for the offender to commit crime or wider social measures aimed at making it unnecessary for the offender to commit crime varies from time to time and with the political persuasion of the policymakers (Grimshaw 2004).
However in the case of animal harm there are other factors to be considered. As earlier chapters have outlined, animal harm is the cause of a variety of offender motivations and behaviours, not all of which consider the animal as the focus of the crime. Thus the idea that all animal offending is a product of rational choice can be directly challenged and policy needs to also consider the reality of animal offending as being an indicator of other criminality (discussed in more detail later in this chapter) and influenced by factors other than the offender’s desire for profit. An understanding of the different aspects of animal harm and various factors that determine whether it will take place is important in developing appropriate policy. Research into the psychology of animal abuse has demonstrated that individuals who are abusive towards others, including animals, are characterized by low empathy and low impulse control. Beirne (1999) argues that animal cruelty should be drawn into the realm of criminological inquiry as it has importance on multiple levels:
1. animal cruelty may signify other actual or potential interpersonal violence;
2. animal cruelty is, in many forms, prohibited by criminal law;
3. violence against animals is part of the utilitarian calculus on the minimization of pain and suffering (the public good);
4. animal cruelty is a violation of rights; and
5. violence against animals is one among several forms of oppression that contribute, as a whole, to a violent society.
Beirne’s arguments (1999) reflect the emergence over the last 30 years or so of the view by many law enforcement and social welfare professionals in the United States (and increasingly in other countries) that there is a link between animal abuse and violence to humans or antisocial behaviour (see for example Ressler and Schachtman 1993, Arluke et al. 1999, Ascione and Arkow 1999, Arluke 2006). An FBI study into the childhoods of serial killers identified a history of juvenile animal abuse in most cases suggesting that serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer started by killing animals and then graduated to people (Lockwood 1997). As a result, a history of cruelty to animals is a trait looked for by the FBI and law enforcement professionals when investigating serial killers and has become a diagnostic trait used in the treatment of psychiatric and emotional conduct disorders (Goleman 1991). As a matter of policy, there is an argument for the precise nature of an offender’s animal harm to be considered not only as a factor in determining the required law enforcement response but also in considering what an offender’s animal harm indicates about their potential for other offending or antisocial behaviour and their level of risk to society.
Dealing with Animal Offenders
While the evidence is that animal harm is caused by a range of factors and involves offenders with different motivations (see Chapter 3 and subsequent) the public policy approach to animal harm is primarily based around deterrence through detection and punishment. One of the main problems with deterrence theory is that it assumes that offenders are rational and responsible individuals who calculate the risks associated with crime before deciding whether to commit an offence. This is a questionable conclusion to come to in animal harm as many offences will not achieve sufficient widespread publicity to achieve a deterrent effect and it is unlikely that offenders conduct a full assessment of their offending behaviour before the commission of an offence. Although it should be noted that exemplary cases of animal abuse (i.e. those demonstrating excessive or unusual cruelty) or significant seizures in wildlife crime routinely appear in the press. Such stories are considered newsworthy as they allow for graphic depictions of crime and discussion of the aberrant nature of offending behaviour and are suitable for media commentary which demands a firm deterrent and retributive response (Chibnall 1977). However, Martin Wasik explains that ‘a burglar sufficiently well-informed to have read the sentencing reports will also have read the criminological literature which tells him that the police detection and clear-up rate for burglary is less than 15 per cent’ (Wasik 1992: 123). The deterrent effect is therefore limited if a rational offender concludes that his chances of being caught and receiving the punishment are minimal. This is especially so in animal abuse (and particularly in wildlife crime) where prosecution rates generally remain low due to the lack of sufficient enforcement resources (Nurse 2003) and where a well-informed offender would certainly know that a significant proportion of the law enforcement activity in is carried out by NGOs with limited resources, police officers sometimes acting in a part-time capacity or statutory agencies who lack the resources (and sometimes powers) of their mainstream criminal justice colleagues.
White (2008) identifies three main perspectives as the desired approach to environmental crime:
2. the regulatory approach;
3. the social action approach.
While reliance on a socio-legal (law enforcement) approach as the main public policy response to animal harm is a potentially flawed perspective one clear advantage of this approach is its emphasis on use of the criminal law as it is presently constituted (White 2008: 182). Thus the law enforcement approach is consistent with the definition of animal harm as offences under current law and provides for an approach that improves the quality of investigation and law enforcement with a goal of greater prosecution and conviction of offenders. Thus the socio-legal approach provides for incarceration of offenders at the end of the criminal justice process and despite the problems of re-offending and the limited effectiveness of prison regimes in addressing this, this at least prevents offenders from committing offences for a set period of time (i.e. whilst in prison). This does not, however, address the problems of what should be done with offenders whilst in prison and Sutherland’s theory (1973) provides a compelling explanation for how prisons may simply become universities of crime where individuals learn new and more sophisticated techniques for committing crime. In addition, given the evidence that some forms of animal harm are a precursor to more serious forms of crime or are associated with other forms of antisocial behaviour, a public policy approach solely based on punishment and incarceration fails to consider the wider social implications of animal harm or the emergence of new offenders, some of whom are victims as well as offenders (see Chapter 4).
The regulatory approach relies on social regulating incorporating a range of different means to address environmental harm. In practice this approach is employed in animal harm as an adjunct to the public policy law enforcement approach because of the active involvement of NGOs as part of the regulatory process. The regulatory approach is arguably successful in utilizing the vigilance of bodies like the ASPCA and RSPCA as active investigators, although arguably their role has developed, and in some cases increased, as a result of failures in public enforcement (discussed later in this chapter). However the regulatory approach recognizes that a constellation of measures may be required to address animal harm (White 2008: 182) and that a pure law enforcement approach is only a partial solution. It thus provides for intervention from, for example, animal welfare professionals in companion and domestic animal abuse (see Chapter 4) and the use of NGOs as specialist advisors.
The social action approach emphasizes the need for social change and attempts to address environmental harm through social transformation driven by ‘deliberative democracy and citizen participation’ (White 2008: 182). In effect the animal rights and species justice movements pursue this agenda, although as Donaldson and Kymlicka observe (2011), they have met with limited success in their goal of achieving legal rights for animals. However, where social action has been successful is in developing the integration of NGO perspectives into law enforcement, albeit in a limited way. One aspect of social action is to challenge the traditional domination of nation states in setting the environmental agenda. Increasingly it is NGOs through campaigning that influence public policy while their practical law enforcement activities also highlight inadequacies in public enforcement. (This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.)
The law enforcement perspective can, however, have an effect in disrupting crime even if only temporarily. James Wilson’s work is influential in arguing that action should be taken to increase the costs of offending so that the benefits of leading a law-abiding lifestyle are more obvious to the potential offender. White (2008) identifies the role of the police as integral to environmental law enforcement while Wilson argues that the role of the police is not just detection and prevention of crime but is also one of order maintenance. Young, writing and describing Wilson’s position in the Oxford Handbook of Criminology (1994), explains that the police role is:
to jump-start the informal control system back into action in those areas where it has broken down and which are, of course, ipso facto, high crime areas. Effective police work per se, in the traditional mode of detection, should be directed to the high-risk repeat offenders. Similarly, the courts and prisons should give high sentences to this small group of offenders in order to incapacitate them. (Young 1994: 101)
However White identifies that while environmental crime is gaining public and political attention as a category of crime it is still something of an unknown for many police both individually and collectively (White 2008: 196–7). Thus policing perspectives and knowledge are factors in determining how individual crimes are dealt with and where animal harm is concerned the effectiveness of police action and willingness of police to engage with such offences varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Police officers are generally accepted as having a specific view of the social world and their role in it and to have a specific cultural ethos – cop culture – that informs the way in which they behave. Reiner explains that:
there are differences of outlook within police forces, according to such individual variables as personality, generation or career trajectory, and structured variations according to rank, assignment and specialisation. (Reiner 1992: 109)
Thus the conceptualization of environmental crimes (Carrabine et al. 2004, Beirne and South 2007) and animal harm in particular by criminal justice policy, operational policing practices and individual officers may influence the importance attached to animal harm and whether it is seen as a policing priority or a matter for the police at all. It is also true that the organizational styles and cultures of police forces vary between different places and periods, much of which is dictated by individual police managers and which reflects their attitudes towards particular crimes. Informal rules, embedded in specific practices and nuances might dictate, for example, that in some inner-city police areas most animal harm (except possibly wildlife crime and the trade in endangered species) is seen as being a low priority for police investigation whereas in rural areas (such as Scotland where rarer birds such as the golden eagle and the osprey are seen as being part of Scotland’s heritage or those parts of the United States where California condors or bald eagles hold special cultural significance) considerable police and criminal justice resources may be directed at those offenders who seek to exploit wildlife resources. Reiner further explains that ‘cop culture has developed as a patterned set of understandings which help to cope with and adjust to the pressures and tensions which confront the police’ (1992: 109). Each new generation of police officers is socialized into ‘cop culture’ but not in any structured way so that the interactional processes of each encounter reinforce what is expected of officers. As a result, ‘cop culture’ survives because it is a suitable fit with the psychological physical and social demands of rank and file policing.
One central factor of cop culture is the manner in which police officers classify the types of work that they do. Skolnick’s (1966) account of the policeman’s working personality is a primary work in discussing police culture. Successive writers (Holdaway 1977, Shearing 1981, Graef 1989, Reiner 1992) have commented on the machismo inherent in policing and the problems caused by it. A body of literature also exists on the manner in which the police assess the legitimacy of some aspects of crime and police work while dismissing other aspects. For example, murder and other forms of serious violent crime are seen as being worthwhile, challenging and rewarding involving ‘good-class villains’ (Reiner 1992: 118) and crimes that are considered to be solely the responsibility of the police. Domestic violence, however, is often seen as not being something that the police should be involved in as it is a private matter and in some areas officers may feel the same towards animal harm, considering that it is not a priority for them, particularly where the nature of animal harm might be seen to be a property matter which should be dealt with by private law.
Morley and Mullender’s research into domestic violence (1994) highlighted what Reiner (1992) called the ‘rubbish’ phenomenon, essentially people who make calls on the police who are seen as being unworthy of attention, or victims of crimes which are the complainant’s own fault. Studies undertaken during the 1970s and 1980s showed that in domestic violence cases during this period rarely did the police arrest the assailant, even where the victim requested it and the violence was severe. In a small number of cases the police failed even to arrive at the scene (Morley and Mullender 1994: 13). But the classification of ‘rubbish’ and ‘worthwhile’ crime does not necessarily mean that only the more traditional ‘serious’ crimes are enforced by the police. As indicated earlier, those who exploit certain aspects of wildlife seen as being integral to national identity and representing important aspects of national heritage find themselves the subject of disproportionately high police (or other statutory agency) attention.
Animal Abuse and Violence towards Humans
There are a number of studies (mainly US) linking animal welfare offences (particularly cruelty) to further offending.2 Animal abuse and interpersonal violence towards humans have a number of common characteristics, both types of victim are living creatures, can experience pain and distress, can display physical signs of their pain and distress (with which humans can empathize) and may die as a result of the injuries inflicted in cruelty such as torture. For law enforcement professionals, therefore, the tendency of some individuals to inflict pain and suffering on animals is an important factor in predicting future violent offending. Increasingly law enforcement professionals and psychologists are researching how the tendency towards violence against non-human animals may be used as ‘practice’ for offenders who then escalate towards interpersonal violence towards humans. The public benefit of such research is obvious, if it is possible to identify violent offenders early in their ‘careers’, the escalation might be prevented and the fear and harm caused to society by serious violent offenders might be prevented. Brief details of some key studies are discussed below.
In a 1985 study, Kellert and Felthous found that violent, incarcerated men reported higher rates of ‘substantial cruelty to animals’ in childhood (25 percent) than the comparison group of non-incarcerated men (0 percent). The findings indicating that cruelty towards animals in childhood may be a factor in the development of violent offenders. A similar difference had emerged in an earlier study of violent women offenders (Felthous and Yudowitz 1977) where 36 percent of the incarcerated group reported cruelty to animals compared with 0 percent of the non-incarcerated group. In a study of 28 convicted male sexual homicide offenders Ressler et al. (1988) examined self-reports of cruelty to animals among dangerous sex offenders. Childhood animal abuse was reported by 36 percent of the offenders, 46 percent admitted to abusing animals as adolescents and 36 percent of the men admitted they had also abused animals in adulthood. Tingle et al. (1986) also surveyed 64 convicted male sex offenders and discovered that animal abuse in childhood or adolescence was reported by 48 percent of the rapists and 30 percent of the child molesters.
Miller and Knutson’s 1997 study of self-reports of animal abuse by 299 American inmates incarcerated for various felony offences compared their offending with 308 introductory psychology class undergraduates. The results showed higher levels of animal abuse among the inmates than undergraduates reporting the following types of animal abuse:
• ‘hurt an animal?’ – 16.4 percent inmates, 9.7 percent undergraduates;
• ‘killed a stray animal?’ – 32.8 percent inmates, 14.3 percent undergraduates; and
• ‘killed a pet?’ – 12 percent inmates and 3.2 percent undergraduates.