ALDF ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY

SYNOPSIS
Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign championed by the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) whose mission is to use the legal system to change the legal status of animals from property to personhood.

ALDF claims that convicted animal abusers pose a real, ongoing threat to your pets, your family, and your community. One selling point is that establishment of animal abuser registries would prevent access to those convicted of animal abuse from adopting or purchasing animals as it would either prohibit or alert pet stores and animal shelters from selling pets to anyone on the Animal Abuse registry.

ALDF asserts that registries will not only prevent criminal conduct, prevent recidivism, and save money, but will also raise public awareness about the connections between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. ALDF is a major promoter of the theory that animal abusers go on to victimize people. ALDF ignores opposing data and uses faulty logic to draw a straight line that will back up their claims. To further support this connection, ALDF cites 9 case studies spanning more than 30 years, including serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, as if these prove failure to feed a dog is a launching pad for murder.

The registry is modeled after and nearly identical to sex offender registries. The model legislation requires the county sheriff to maintain a registry, process registrations, forward registration information obtained from the animal abuser to various state agencies, and contact every residence, school, humane society, animal shelter and any other business within a 1/2 mile radius of the animal abuser's residence or location providing them with the animal abuser's information (excluding social security number). Generally the registry creates a new crime or penalty for failure to register.

ARE REGISTRIES EFFECTIVE
Some states have already come under criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses. The effectiveness of registries has also come under scrutiny. A federally funded study by the New Jersey Department of Corrections found that registries and notification did not reduce the number of new offenses or new victims. The study also noted that costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continue to grow over time.

The Crime Report carried an article, “Tracking Animal Abuse (and Abusers) on the Web” which reiterated the murky success of public registries. According to the article, two studies—one of a sample of Nebraska residents in 2008 and the other of Michigan residents in 2009—found that most of those surveyed had not looked at their state’s sex offender registry. In the Nebraska survey, of those who did use the registry, few took preventive measures.

Critics say that while the registries are attractive to politicians who want to appear tough on crime, they often do little more than spread fear and encourage vigilantism. The monitoring systems cost money at a time when recession-strapped states can ill afford the extra expense, the critics say, and their effectiveness is dubious: Sex offender registries, for example, have had little success in reducing repeat crimes, studies suggest. States Seeking New Registries for Criminals By Erica Goode, NY Times

Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?
J. J. Prescott - University of Michigan Law School; Jonah E. Rockoff - Columbia University - Columbia Business School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Abstract.We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among local victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers. We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism.

LEGAL AND MORAL ISSUES
Registries continue to be a major point of controversy. Maine's Supreme Court found portions of their Sex Offender Registry to be unconstitutional.

The registration laws are generally overbroad in scope and overlong in duration, requiring people to register who pose no safety risk. Under community notification laws, anyone anywhere can access online registries for purposes that may have nothing to do with public safety. Harassment of and violence against registrants have been the predictable result.

A report by Human Rights Watch found the evidence is overwhelming that these laws cause great harm to the people subject to them. On the other hand, proponents of these laws are not able to point to convincing evidence of public safety gains from them. Even assuming some public safety benefit, however, the laws can be reformed to reduce their adverse effects without compromising that benefit. Registration laws should be narrowed in scope and duration. Publicly accessible online registries should be eliminated, and community notification should be accomplished solely by law enforcement officials.

REGISTRY BILLS IN OTHER STATES AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Attempts to enact animal abuser registries have been unsuccessful to date in twenty-two (22) states. Establishing the registry is generally an unfunded mandate with no mechanism to reimburse state departments or local law enforcement for the burden of constructing a database, maintenance, and notification requirements. Creating a new crime for failure to register involves additional costs for court and possibly correctional facility beds. Prisoners serving sentences for animal abuse represent a minute portion of prison population. Sentences being carried out in local jails and suspended sentences would not appreciably alter these ratios. Taxpayers deserve purposeful and necessary laws with justifiable associated costs. Animal abuser registry legislation, driven by emotional arguments and faulty animal rights logic, would be an irresponsible expenditure of public funds if enacted into law.

A full list of introduced bills, conviction data, available fiscal information, and incarceration costs can be viewed in the Animal Cruelty Registry Bill Tracking spreadsheet.

Louisiana Fiscal Office concluded the registry would cost $46,000 to implement and $126,000 over five years for very few offenders. The Fiscal Office added that only 5 offenders were currently incarcerated at state facilities for crimes against animals included in the proposed legislation.

California. The registry bill required specified individuals convicted of felony animal abuse to register for 10 years after the date of conviction; failure to register is punishable as a misdemeanor. The Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal estimated a cost of $750,000 to $2,000,000.

Colorado. An abuser registry bill was introduced January 2012 but failed. The bill would have kept offenders in the database for five years. State expenditures were estimated at $201,975 in the first year and $45,894 for each subsequent year with a one-time cost of approximately $160,000 to connect it with existing computer systems. Revenues were estimated to be less than $5,000.

Virginia. An abuser registry bill was introduced but failed. The Department of State Police estimated that approximately $986,000 would be needed to design and develop a new registry and website and an additional $126,411 each year for support. The note also stated the cost to local law enforcement agencies was not known at this time. The Virginia bill created a new crime for failure to register. The fiscal note estimated approximately $50,000 would be required for additional correctional facility beds.

Washington. The fiscal note estimates a one-time cost of approximately $27,800 for modifications to the judicial court system. A cost of $823,032 to state agencies to provide legal services to review and defend legal issues, development of the tracking tool and to populate the registry and the main web site, and data entry and quality assurance for accuracy of the data. In addition the fiscal note estimates a cost of approximately $1,200 to local governments for court impacts, including judicial costs, clerk costs, and court fees. Washington State averages 76 convictions a year. The Washington legislation also creates a new gross misdemeanor charge for animal abusers failing to register with the Attorney General. The Local Government Fiscal Note program (LGFN) assumes that rates of those failing to register would be equivalent to the rate of those failing to register for the sex offender registry. Approximately three percent of sex offenders are arrested each year for failure to register, and 2.6 percent are prosecuted, creating additional investigative and court costs at the local level.

Nevada. An abuser registry bill was recently introduced but also failed. A fiscal note was prepared and submitted by Records & Technology, Department of Public Safety. The fiscal note stated, "This bill draft mirrors language contained in the statute establishing the Nevada Sex Offender Registry. Therefore, this fiscal note reflects the Records and Technology Division's best estimate of costs for a statewide animal abuser registry based on the costs for the existing Sex Offender Registry. That being said, there is no way to estimate how many persons convicted of crimes against animals would be included in the registry. Without that number, the Division is unable to establish the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions required to handle the caseload. However, best practices would suggest that at least 2 full time equivalent positions (FTE) would be necessary for this registry." Cost for FY 2011-2112 was estimated at $234,387 and over $300,000 going forward in 2013.

Additionally, several counties submitted fiscal notes addressing the potential impact. Churchill County NV submitted a fiscal note stating, "While animal abuse in any form is intolerable and should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, requiring the registration, tracking, notifications and reporting of any such person fitting the criteria set forth in this BDR by a local sheriff imposes a potentially burdensome and costly requirement on that office. This bill creates a significant man-hour and data management requirements and pulls valuable and already strained resources from public/human safety duties to what should be animal control/humane society related issues. Potential for complaints and animal related case time is immense at a time when Nevada counties and cities are laying off public safety personnel and mental health facilities, juvenile and adult detention facilities, and prisons have closed or are closing/releasing their inmates for local public safety agencies to manage" Cost estimated: FY 2011-12 $10,000; FY 2012-13 $15,000. Nye County noted that costs could run $50,000; other counties noted that additional staff would be required with no funding mechanism in place to cover these mandated costs.

Megan’s Law. Proposed animal abuser registries are modeled after “Megan’s Law.” In New Jersey, start up costs for Megan’s Law totaled $555,565, and by 2007 costs totaled approximately $3.9 million dollars for the responding counties. Source: Office of Policy and Planning, NJ Dept of Corrections: Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy December, 2008.

JUST THE FACTS
Data can often be manipulated or ignored to come to a specific conclusion that fits a personal agenda. ALDF carefully selects portions of psychological theory to support and promote their legislation. Careful framing of an issue takes an extremely complex problem and explains it in simpler terms chosen to emphasize certain aspects and downplay others. Framing the topic provides people a quick and easy way to process information, and rarely will the targeted audience take time to research validity of the presented material. In the case of the animal abuser registries, ALDF promises legislators a simple solution to a multifaceted problem.

ALDF sells their registry with the promise of protecting pets and people from the threat of animal abusers and purposely paints the picture of abusers as emerging serial killer types. This is yet another misinformation campaign to sell the animal rights agenda. Anyone – from the criminal attempting to injure the police dog tracking him to an overwhelmed rescuer to an animal hoarder – can be charged and convicted of animal cruelty.

Animal cruelty statutes cover a broad spectrum of situations from extreme cruelty to neglect. Animal cruelty charges can include such varied acts as failure to provide shelter; abandonment; debarking/cropping/docking; harm or injury to a law enforcement dog; animal fighting; tethering.

The only purpose for establishing this database, other than serving as a money-maker for ALDF, is to advance the animal rights agenda. The primary goal of the animal rights movement is to diminish human exceptionalism and place humans on an equal level with animals. The animal abuser registry accomplishes this by creating equal registries, promising equal protection within a small segment of the law, and thereby elevating the importance of animals.

WHERE ARE THE ANIMAL ABUSERS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
ALDF actively advocates that there is a link between those who harm animals and those who harm people. Student ALDF chapter members are encouraged to promote the link. ALDF campaigned for abuser registries at the 2010 National Summit of State Legislators.

Animal cruelty has gained recognition as a social issue that may be reflective of more extensive psychopathology. However, much more research on the subject is needed. It is important to remember animal cruelty cases are greatly varied. The majority of animal cruelty involves neglect by the animal’s owner and many cases often involve hoarders. Treatment of individuals by mental health services seems a more prudent course of action in these situations than years of public exposure and humiliation on website lists.

Animal rightists are fond of citing that the FBI notes cruelty to animals as one of the traits appearing in the profile of serial murderers in their childhood. While animal cruelty in childhood may signal antisocial personality disorder later in life it is far from being the most prevalent behavioral trait exhibited by serial killers. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents Robert Ressler, Ann Burgess, and John Douglas examined the childhood traits of 36 serial killers for commonalities collectively expressed by the group. Out of 24 identified behaviors daydreaming ranked 1st, isolation 3rd, chronic lying 4th, bedwetting 5th, destruction of property 8th, fire setting 9th, cruelty to children 11th, and animal cruelty 18th.

Do Children Who Harm Animals Later Harm People?
Posted on October 17, 2002 by Brian Carnell. It has become almost a mantra within both animal rights circles and the larger mainstream media that children who harm animals are on the path to harming human beings. But is this claim true?

Manchester Metropolitan University researchers Heather Piper and Steve Myers looked at such claims and found a surprising lack of any actual valid evidence for it. They write,

A few years ago, the notion that abused children were likely to become abusers was common. This is no longer accepted as true. In this case the dominant view is that harming animals is directly linked to, or can be treated as part of a cycle leading to, violence towards people. It is suggested that the relationship is clear cut, consistent and predictable. This argument suggests that harming animals can be a predictive variable in indicating future harm to people. There are serious flaws in this argument. Although there may be some disturbed individuals who are cruel towards both animals and people, extreme cases do not provide the basis for generalized conclusions.

Piper and Myers identify two major problems with the alleged link between harming animals and harming people. First, the studies that claim to find such a link rarely define animal abuse in a methodologically sound way,

Few studies define what is animal abuse or violence or harm. Does cruelty include pulling the legs off spiders, or only those of vertebrates? Does it matter that one society eats dogs and another keeps them as pets? Richer children may legally kill animals through fox hunting, whereas poorer ones are prosecuted for similar behavior towards a cat or a dog.

Second, such studies have a deeper methodological flaw in who they choose to study,

Research supporting the supposed links is based mainly on extreme and non-representative samples. Accounts suggesting links between those who have harmed animals and later violence toward humans often rely on the same small sample of extreme criminals in the US. Researching a limited population to produce a broadly applicable generalization is problematic. Any number of life experiences could also be shown to correlate with the behavior.

A further problem is that much of the research tends to suffer from fallacies of logic. Just because some serial killers have harmed animals, this does not mean that all or even the majority of those who harm animals will become serial killers. Yet this stance is taken in much of the literature.

Piper and Myers conclude that “Social workers should not uncritically accept the arguments that have been put forward about linking animal and human violence.” Source: Missing Link. Heather Piper and Steve Myers, Community Care, October 3, 2002, p.38.

Help financially support SAOVA's successful pro-active advocacy! See Support SAOVA for options