Identifying Animal Offenders

Chapter 3
Identifying Animal Offenders

This chapter analyses the criminological behaviour involved in animal harm, looking at the distinction between the behaviours of animal abusers and wildlife crime offenders. It also considers the techniques of neutralization employed by animal offenders to justify or deny culpability for their actions. There is considerable academic literature on animal abuse (e.g. Felthous and Kellert 1987, Conboy-Hill 2000, Henry 2004, Linzey 2009) and, in particular, on how animal abuse can be an indicator of future offending or antisocial behaviour personality disorders. However, green criminology has paid little attention to the cause of specific behaviours of animal abusers and wildlife offenders or the nature of offending behaviour across animal harm. Yet there is evidence that within specific aspects of animal harm such as animal abuse or wildlife crime, particular types of offenders exist, each driven by their own distinct motivations and carrying out specific offence types (Nurse 2011).1 While the focus of animal harm law enforcement has primarily been on the apprehension and punishment of offenders, with little attention being paid to preventative measures or the rehabilitation of offenders, a blanket approach to animal harm that views all offenders as motivated by profit (in the case of wildlife crime) or the desire to inflict cruelty (animal abuse) may be inherently flawed. There is thus a need to closely define animal harm criminality.

This chapter explicitly examines offender behaviour, its causes and the policy response applying criminological theory and explanations of crime to animal harm and the behaviour of animal abusers and wildlife offenders. In doing so it develops a new typology of animal offenders as traditional, economic, masculinities, hobby, and stress offenders. It discusses the causes of their crimes, the role of the community in both allowing animal harm abuse to continue and in determining the public policy response to animal harm offenders. In considering animal harm’s criminality, a distinction should be made between crimes involving and impacting on animals in the wild, and animal cruelty offences that mainly involve domesticated or farmed animals. Companion animal abuse, where animal ‘ownership’ is often a significant factor in a way that it is not with wildlife, is subject to different legislation (although which sometimes overlaps) and involves different types of offender to that of wild animal offending. As a result, this chapter recommends new approaches to animal harm offending which recognize differences in offender behaviour, motivations and responses to law enforcement and punishment. It sets out a framework for how animal offenders are considered by mainstream criminal justice, arguing that a policy approach which adopts a uniform approach to dealing with wildlife crime and offending is inherently flawed and ineffective, a theme further developed later in the book.

Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory (1957) is a useful model for identifying the justifications used by offenders that gives them the freedom to act (and a postact rationalization for doing so) while other theories explain why animal harm offenders are motivated to commit specific crimes. Animal offenders exist within communities, although there may not be a community about where the crimes take place or neighbours to exert essential controls on offending (especially in respect of wildlife offences which often take place in remote areas). Offenders may also live within a community or subculture of their own which accepts their offences, as many animal harm offences carry only fines or lower level prison terms which reinforce the notion of animal harm as ‘minor’ offences unworthy of official activity within mainstream criminal justice. In addition, Sutherland’s (1973) differential association theory helps to explain the situation that occurs when potential animal abusers and wildlife offenders learn their activities from others in their community or social group (Sutherland 1973). For example, mature egg collectors in the UK argue that there is no harm in continuing an activity that they commenced legitimately as schoolboys. Examination of case files and newspaper reports on egg collecting confirm that new collectors continue to be attracted to the ‘hobby’ and learn its ways through interaction with more established collectors. Similarly, junior gamekeepers on shooting estates and ranchers or farmers coming into the profession (often from within the family) learn techniques of poisoning and trapping from established staff as a means of ensuring healthy populations of game birds for shooting or protecting livestock from predators. Awareness of the illegal nature of their actions leads to the justifications outlined by Sykes and Matza (1957) but the association with other offenders, the economic (and employment related) pressures to commit offences and the personal consequences for them should they fail are strong motivations to commit offences (Merton 1968).

Elsewhere, communities encourage the main learning process for criminal behaviour within intimate groups and association with others. In fox-hunting, youngsters are encouraged to hunt by their parents or other adult hunt members and at the conclusion of a successful hunt may be ‘blooded’ (smeared with the blood of the fox) as a sign of acceptance into the fox-hunting fraternity. This, in part, ensures that the traditional sport of fox-hunting will continue as new enthusiasts are taught the ways of the sport from a relatively early age. Many rural communities have strong traditions of hunting or fieldsports (see Chapter 5) which persist despite legislative attempts to control such practices, and within indigenous communities traditional hunting and animal harvesting practices survive legislative efforts (John et al. 1985), although exemptions contained within legislation sometimes allow traditional subsistence hunting to continue (see Chapter 6 for a further discussion).

Some offences are also crimes of masculinities involving cruelty to, or power over, animals, in some cases linked to sporting or ‘hobby’ pursuits, perceptions by the offender of their actions being part of their culture where toughness, masculinity and smartness (Wilson 1985) combine with a love of excitement. In the case of badger-baiting, badger-digging, hare coursing, dog-fighting and cock-fighting, for example, gambling and association with other like-minded males are factors and provide a strong incentive for new members to join already established networks of offenders.

The following section explores the type of criminality inherent in animal harm in more detail before developing new models of animal offenders, taking into account the specific characteristics of both animal abusers and wildlife offenders.

Identifying the Animal Offender

Past academic debate on crime has generally accepted that crime and criminality are predominantly male concerns (e.g. Groombridge 1996). This perhaps reflects the role of gender and predominance of male offenders in serious and violent crime and concerns over youth crime; in particular both the propensity towards violence of young males and the extent to which young males might become victims of crime (Norland et al. 1981, Campbell 1993, Flood-Page and Mackie 1998, Harland et al. 2005).

Considerations of why men commit the majority of crime, and certainly more crime than women, have taken into account biological explanations of crime and whether there are physiological reasons for men committing crime (Lombroso and Ferrero 1895, Worrall 2001). They have also considered whether the socialization of young men and the extent to which routes to manhood leave young men confused or anxious about what it means to be a man and whether this influences young males’ criminality (Harland et al. 2005, Kimmell et al. 2005). Restrictive notions of masculinity dictate that many men are forced into roles as defenders and protectors of their communities (Harland et al. 2005) and are also encouraged to comply with the image of the ‘fearless male’ (Goodey 1997) and achieve the ideal of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1995, Harland et al. 2005). Men are encouraged to reject any behaviour construed as being feminine or un-masculine or which does not conform to traditional masculine stereotypes and engage in behaviour (such as the ‘policing’ of other men) which reinforces hegemonic masculinity (Beattie cited in Harland et al. 2005).

Wildlife offenders are predominantly male and occupy many of the predator control jobs in the game-rearing industry in the UK in which significant illegal killing of wildlife takes place. Men also dominate the farming, ranching and commercial fieldsports industries. Huntsman Julian Barnfield in his submission to the UK’s Burns Inquiry on Hunting with Dogs observed that his job came with a ‘tied’ rent-free house without which his family could not live in the countryside (Burns et al. 2000). Gamekeepers and huntsmen are thus placed firmly in the male provider role and lack of success in predator control, and by inference a failure to perform adequately in the job, potentially leads to loss of the family home and the resultant feelings of inadequacy and damage to male pride and self-esteem. While masculinities may not be the cause of all animal harm, it is certainly a factor to be taken into account in some wildlife crimes and some companion animal abuse. Green criminologists and sociologists in the United States have established a discourse concerning the links between animal abuse and violence towards humans which informs analysis of wildlife offending. Conboy-Hill (2000) defines animal abuse as ‘the deliberate or neglectful harm of animals and can include beating, starvation, slashing with knives, sodomy, setting on fire, decapitation, skinning alive amongst other actions’ (Conboy-Hill 2000: 1). There are some similarities between this definition and the scope of animal harm considered by this book and, in particular, the prohibited methods of killing animals contained in US state anti-cruelty statutes and the UK’s Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Ascione’s (1993) definition of animal abuse and cruelty as being ‘socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal’ (Ascione 1993: 228) incorporates the stabbing, burning and crushing offences contained within the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and the poisoning, trapping and shooting offences involving wild animals contained within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. While the objective of much US research is to identify the relationship between histories of animal abuse and later violent offending, its consideration of the behaviour of offenders, their motivations and how they see themselves (mostly from self-reports of animal cruelty offences) is of relevance to UK wildlife offending. The increasing evidence of US research is that childhood abuse of animals is linked to later interpersonal violence (Felthous and Kellert 1987, Ascione 1993) and while not all wildlife crime involves violence or violent abuse, where it does occur it indicates that offenders may develop a tendency towards violence that manifests itself first in animal abuse but which could escalate into adult human violence. While not all individuals will necessarily go on to harm animals or become involved in the more violent types of wildlife crime (hare coursing, poisoning, badger-baiting, etc.), Beetz (2009) suggests that abuse which affects empathy may be a primary factor in determining what type of offender an individual becomes. In particular, close relationships with animals are thought to enhance empathy while violent attitudes towards animals can indicate a lack of empathy (Beetz 2009, Brantley 2009).

The evidence of animal abuse as indicator of violent inclinations specifically applies to wildlife crime (Flynn 2009, Nurse 2009, 2011). In particular, offenders engaged in thrill-seeking or ‘sport’ activities that involve the exploitation of wild animals are frequently motivated by the power that they gain over animals and justify their activities by denial of pain. Fox-hunting, fishing, deer-hunting or harecoursing enthusiasts commonly argue that their quarry does not anticipate death and enjoys the chase (see, for example Burns et al. 2000, evidence submitted by the Morpeth and Curre Hunts). In addition, a belief in the widespread support for the activity, and a questioning of the legitimacy of those who wished to see it outlawed (Sykes and Matza 1957) persists among many of those who wish to continue to hunt with dogs. As just one example, the Ashford Hunt in its submission commented ‘to criminalise an activity – such as foxhunting – in response to a campaign which itself is largely criminal sets a precedent which threatens all law abiding citizens whether they love foxhunting or loathe it’ (Burns et al. 2000). The argument that the campaign against hunting was ‘largely criminal’ goes to the actions of Hunt Saboteurs and organizations like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), while at the same time ignoring the political legitimacy of organizations like LACS, Animal Aid and WWF. These and other NGOs (e.g. RSPB, RSPCA) are accepted within mainstream policy circles to such an extent that they are able to act as government and police advisors and their policy advice is actively sought. Yet by ignoring the actions of these socially acceptable NGOs and concentrating on those perceived as illegitimate or radical, the legitimacy of the campaign can be challenged (see Chapter 5 for a further discussion of resistance to NGO policy and legislative reform in animal harm).

As a causation of animal harm, the denial of injury is an important factor indicating not only that individuals do not see any harm in their activity but also confirming the view of animals as a commodity rather than as sentient beings suffering as a result of the individual’s actions. Wise (2000) argues that the concept of inequality between humans and non-humans is central not just to the legal status of animals but also to how humans treat animals. The perception that certain animals do not feel pain allows offenders to commit their offences without considering the impact of their actions or feeling any guilt over them. In mainstream criminology, there is evidence that burglars and other offenders, when confronted by their victims in restorative justice conferencing, often express surprise that their victims have strong feelings about the crime and the actions of the offender (Shapland et al. 2007, Sherman and Strang 2007). As such, they do not readily see themselves either as criminals or causing harm by their criminality. Where a victim is unable to articulate their distress such feelings may be further legitimized by an offender.

Attitudes towards regulation are also an important factor in identifying the nature of animal harm, especially in wildlife offending. Eliason’s (2003) assessment of poachers in Kentucky (which defined poaching as the illegal taking of wildlife resources and thus defined it as a wildlife crime rather than a game management offence) concluded that convicted poachers routinely employed neutralization techniques. These techniques included: denial of responsibility, claim of entitlement, denial of the necessity of the law, defence of necessity and recreation and excitement (Sykes and Matza 1957), both before and after engaging in illegal activity. Significant numbers of those interviewed by Eliason were aware that they were contravening regulations but considered that their breaches were minor or technical infringements that should not be subject to law enforcement attention. They often also denied the right of law enforcement officers to take action against them or contended that there were better uses of officers’ time, i.e. enforcement action directed towards ‘real’ criminals.

The involvement of environmental and animal welfare NGOs without which offenders might not be apprehended provides an additional motivation for some individuals to commit animal harm. Different offenders may use different neutralizations and may also be subject to different motivations. By considering the different motivations and behaviours of offenders it is possible to determine if there are distinct types of animal offender, as follows.

Developing Offender Models

a. Traditional Criminals – who derive direct (and sometimes personal financial) benefit from their crimes.

d. Hobby Criminals – who commit those high status,2 low level crimes for which there is no direct benefit or underlying criminal ‘need’ and for which the criminal justice reaction is disproportionate. These are distinguished from the previous category by the absence of harm/cruelty as a factor in the offences. The ‘hobby’ element is the primary motivator.

e. Stress Offenders – who commit offences involving animals as a direct consequence of their own victimization, often as a result of the exercise of force or masculine power upon them and their need to find a release for the stress this causes or as a result of being forced to commit animal harm by others. There is a direct link between these offences and the abuse of the offender whether physical or psychological.

Model A – The Traditional Criminal

Model A are traditional criminals whose crimes are committed to obtain direct personal financial benefit; the animal involved is simply a commodity through which this primary motivator may be achieved and might conceivably be substituted for any other type of activity such as car theft or burglary which provides similar benefit. Lea and Young argue that crime is antisocial not ‘because of lack of conventional values but precisely because of it’ given that the values of most ‘working-class criminals’ are conventional and involve individualism, competition and desire for material goods (Lea and Young 1993: 96).

Offenders that fit within Model A include: those who take wild bird chicks for breeding and subsequent sale as birds for falconry; those who deal in illegally killed wild birds or animals; and wildlife traffickers (rare or endangered species). This type of crime reflects the fact that some offenders’ motivation reflects the absence of more acceptable means of wealth acquisition. Its offenders are involved in illegal activities not as any indirect consequence of (otherwise law-abiding) employment but who engage in particular activities as a direct means of achieving personal gain. Model A thus represents a rational choice offender, most likely unaware of the full extent of the relevant animal legislation (except in some cases such as wildlife trafficking), but aware that their actions are unlawful in some way.

Although the link between wildlife crime and organized crime is one that is discussed in more detail below, with particular emphasis on criminal gangs, there is also evidence of criminal gangs diversifying into wildlife crime using the same routes employed for trading in heroin and cannabis (e.g. Scottish Institute for Policing Research 2007, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2008, Interpol 2010). A UK police representative interviewed for the author’s wildlife crime research confirmed that: