SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Eleven U.S. states have pending animal abuse registry legislation:
Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and the Columbine High School shooters are among the infamous criminals who had a history of hurting animals before they went on to target humans, a tendency that's part of what's behind a movement to create public online registries of known animal abusers.
New York is among 11 states with animal abuse registry bills pending in their legislatures, following Tennessee, which started its in 2016 along with a growing number of municipalities in recent years, including New York City, and the counties that include Chicago and Tampa, Florida.
"Animal abuse is a bridge crime," said the sponsor of New York's bill, Republican state Sen. Jim Tedisco, who noted that Nikolas Cruz, accused of killing 17 people in the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting on Feb. 14, reportedly also had a history of shooting small animals.
While the main goal of collecting names of convicted animal abusers is to prevent them from being able to adopt or purchase other animals, registry backers say such lists could also be a way to raise red flags about people who may commit other violent crimes ranging from domestic violence to mass shootings. But some animal welfare advocates, mostly notably the ASPCA, question how effective they can really be.
[Ed's Comment - Original link unreliable, so I have added additional links]
Additional Sources:
- http://www.vmdtoday.com/news/animal-abuser-registry-legislation-sought-stalled
- https://www.navs.org/state-animal-abuser-registries-proposed-2018/
- http://www.ladbible.com/news/animals-news-us-states-and-counties-are-registering-animal-abuse-like-sex-offences-20180218
- https://nhes.org/animal-abuser-registries/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Monday March 05 2018, @04:01PM (7 children)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:37PM (6 children)
I'm opposed to these lists, since they often are used to implement retroactive punishments without due process, in utter defiance of the Constitution. For example, adding additional restrictions on the lives of people on the sex offender list even after they've been released from prison. How could it possibly be constitutional to retroactively tack on extra punishments? This is in addition to other unconstitutional punishments, such as forbidding Internet use.
Furthermore, either these people are dangerous or they are not. If they are dangerous, keep them in prison; otherwise, let them out. There is no room for such lists.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:26PM (4 children)
If they are dangerous, keep them in prison; otherwise, let them out.
You could use that logic for any crime, yet we have bail, parole, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:44PM
Justification due to the status quo is absurd.
A neighborhood thug broke my neighbor's window and was sent to jail. My neighbor was victimized TWICE, once for the window and once more for paying for the thug's room and board.
The overwhelming vast majority of the US criminal justice is useless at best and most likely actively harmful. Proper solutions would involve an armed, trained populace and imposed restitution for the thugs which survive their crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:57PM
That's exactly what bail and parole are for. Bail is set by the judge and can be revoked or set to whatever amount he feels is necessary. Parole is granted only after being assessed and determined to be able to function and serve the remainder of the sentence in the free world. People who are really dangerous are routinely denied both.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:42PM
I don't think you're really thinking this issue through and are comparing apples to oranges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:42PM
why are all your thoughts stupid and sycophantic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:19PM
There's hope. At least in my state (Colorado) the most problematic cases were removed. Two that come to mind are public urination, which won't get you on the list, and indecent exposure, which now requires "sexual intent". So flashing people on the street corner can put you on the list, but streaking at a college football game or participating in a nude protest won't. And people who were on the list for such things can petition to be taken off.
I actually spent quite a bit of time looking through the registry recently (last Halloween, when the media always makes a big deal about it) and was a little surprised. First, by just how many people are on it. It seems like almost every block has a sex offender. Second by the fact that just about everyone on the registry seems to belong there. It's mostly stuff like sexual assault and a surprising amount of incest, with plenty of statutory rape and child pornography in for good measure. Legal incest isn't the same as biological incest and there might be a portion of those people who don't really belong there, but aside from that, it seemed like it was appropriate.