Bill in TN for online data base for animal abusers

[prplchknz]

It would be like the sex offender registry, thoughts? for or against?

http://www.wsmv.com/story/24821346/bill-would-introduce-database-of-tn-animal-abusers

 

[HongDou]

I'm definitely for it. Hopefully it would help those not fit to own an animal shy away from getting a pet. And it might keep those who do own pets from doing anything rash in the heat of the moment. In general I think people who abuse animals need to face more consequences.

Plus, I'd like to see that girl who threw puppies into a river a while ago actually get some punishment. Even if it was in Bosnia. Hopefully the idea spreads.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm definitely for it. Hopefully it would help those not fit to own an animal shy away from getting a pet. And it might keep those who do own pets from doing anything rash in the heat of the moment. In general I think people who abuse animals need to face more consequences.

Plus, I'd like to see that girl who threw puppies into a river a while ago actually get some punishment. Even if it was in Bosnia. Hopefully the idea spreads.

yeah I mean TN, is really trying to turn things around. They just made community college free to everyone and now this. It's largely a red state save for a few places. But there is memphis which is pretty liberal so is nashville apparently.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm definitely for it. Hopefully it would help those not fit to own an animal shy away from getting a pet. And it might keep those who do own pets from doing anything rash in the heat of the moment. In general I think people who abuse animals need to face more consequences.

Plus, I'd like to see that girl who threw puppies into a river a while ago actually get some punishment. Even if it was in Bosnia. Hopefully the idea spreads.

yeah I mean TN, is really trying to turn things around. They just made community college free to everyone and now this. It's largely a red state save for a few places. But there is memphis which is pretty liberal so is nashville apparently.

 

[á´…eparted]

"People that abuse animals, it's a gateway crime to eventually abusing humans. So we're trying to catch this on the front end," said state Rep. Darren Jernigan, D-Old Hickory.

That's a huge load of BS in my opinion. It's essentially the same argument as "gateway drugs" which is a load of BS for most people as well.

I'm really hesitant of this law. I think it might cause more harm than good. The sex offender list is not perfect, and a great deal of folks on it have committed very minor acts, or the act really isn't a sex offence if you look at what occurred. There is a HUGE social stigma and nearly everyone assumes the individual committed the more severe acts that could end up on the list. Similar could happen with this.

If they are going to do this, they need to do it right.

But. I am also bias. I feel little empathy towards some animals, so I don't care all that much. I really don't like dogs (sue me), so I don't give a shit about them. Cats though, yep I have lots of empathy with them.

At the end of the day, this really isn't a priority issue.

 

[Jaq]

I'm not for or against it, but it seems like a bad idea.

 

[Amargith]

It is about time they did this.

Always said that animal abusers should have it stamped or tatooed on their forehead that they are unfit to have animals.

Right now, it is too easy to get away with, not have to care and just get new victims as the animals literally have no voice to speak up with and they are considered property - objects to be used and discarded.

 

[Ginkgo]

That's a huge load of BS in my opinion. It's essentially the same argument as "gateway drugs" which is a load of BS for most people as well.

I'm really hesitant of this law. I think it might cause more harm than good. The sex offender list is not perfect, and a great deal of folks on it have committed very minor acts, or the act really isn't a sex offence if you look at what occurred. There is a HUGE social stigma and nearly everyone assumes the individual committed the more severe acts that could end up on the list. Similar could happen with this.

If they are going to do this, they need to do it right.

But. I am also bias. I feel little empathy towards some animals, so I don't care all that much. I really don't like dogs (sue me), so I don't give a shit about them. Cats though, yep I have lots of empathy with them.

At the end of the day, this really isn't a priority issue.

I don't think that animal abuse is a gateway to human abuse, but those with abusive tendencies would be inclined to mistreat both animals and people. Cataloging those who have a history of exploiting or neglecting animals would likely highlight numerous individuals who wouldn't think twice about harming you or I. It's a matter of temperament. Furthermore, I really would appreciate a means to figuring out if, for instance, my next door neighbor has a poor history with animals before I ask them to take care of my pet for the weekend.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm not for or against it, but it seems like a bad idea.

why is it a bad idea?

 

[Jaq]

why is it a bad idea?

It's a data base of "Criminals", plenty of people will end up on it under absurd reasons. Like for example the four year old boy who ended up as a sex offender. I actually remember a thread about it here on this forum too.

 

[prplchknz]

It's a data base of "Criminals", plenty of people will end up on it under absurd reasons. Like for example the four year old boy who ended up as a sex offender. I actually remember a thread about it here on this forum too.

give examples,

and yes I agree 4 year olds should not ever be on a sex offender list

but there's also the argument of there's going to be a lot of legit people plus first offense is 3 years so if you did something stupid you learn from it and you're off the list in 3 years and I've lived without a pet longer than 3 years. I miss having a pet, but i survived. and the more times you get on the list the longer you stay.also if someone really wants a pet they'll find a way, it will just be harder for them to do so

 

[á´…eparted]

I don't think that animal abuse is a gateway to human abuse, but those with abusive tendencies would be inclined to mistreat both animals and people. Cataloging those who have a history of exploiting or neglecting animals would likely highlight numerous individuals who wouldn't think twice about harming you or I. It's a matter of temperament. Furthermore, I really would appreciate a means to figuring out if, for instance, my next door neighbor has a poor history with animals before I ask them to take care of my pet for the weekend.

This is speculation, and not consistent enough to use.

 

[Ginkgo]

This is speculation, and not consistent enough to use.

Maybe for someone who doesn't give a shit about animals.

 

[á´…eparted]

Maybe for someone who doesn't give a shit about animals.

But it is though. Laws should not be created on a unsupported "pattern". If there is actual evidence that supports showing that those who abuse animals may go on to abuse people, then maybe it could be considered. Even then though I'd hesitate to use that as a reason behind it unless there was a very strong link.

 

[Ginkgo]

But it is though. Laws should not be created on a unsupported "pattern". If there is actual evidence that supports showing that those who abuse animals may go on to abuse people, then maybe it could be considered. Even then though I'd hesitate to use that as a reason behind it unless there was a very strong link.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...201302/do-mass-killers-start-out-harming-pets
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/qa/cruelty_violence_connection_faq.html

While I agree that correlation does not equal causation, and that this law shouldn't be implemented just for the purposes of sniffing out those who would engage in general domestic violence, I do believe that human beings and animals should be given many of the same rights. Animal rights are the crux of the issue here. If we take into account those who have a history of abuse, then breeders, livestock owners, and portions of the meat industry will be given reason not only to protect their investments, but to ensure the quality of their products. Everyone benefits.

 

[Amargith]

While it would be a bonus feature that humans benefit from this law too, it isn't always about us.

Animals have a pulse, feel pain, get forced against their will, exploited and suffer everyday because we can't be bothered to see that, or take their wishes and wellbeing into account. They aren't objects for us to take our frustrations out on, to be kicked when we cannot be mature enough to deal with life, or tossed away and left to starve because we cannot be responsible enough to care for them, despite having paid for them and literally owning them - after making them entirely dependable on us.

It's the modern form of accepted slavery with all its entitled power-hungry, sadistic, impulse-buying perks that goes unchecked. And it is funny how nobody bats an eye at this, while we gasp in horror at people trafficking humans and forcing them to bend to their 'owners' will.

I honestly could care less about what it does to the humans reputation if he feels the need to abuse an animal. To me, this reasoning is akin to one used so the rich kid with the important daddy can get away with rape because the police commissioner decided she asked for it and he does not need this kind of bullshit on his record as it might jeopardise his bright future. Besides, the article clearly states that there will be a record of what the offence entailed, giving you an idea of how severe the crime was.

You do the crime, you do the time. It is as simple as that.

This registry is a start at least - animal rights and especially their execution wrt removing the power and privileges people hold at their expense atm still has a long way to go.

 

[Jaq]

give examples,

and yes I agree 4 year olds should not ever be on a sex offender list

but there's also the argument of there's going to be a lot of legit people plus first offense is 3 years so if you did something stupid you learn from it and you're off the list in 3 years and I've lived without a pet longer than 3 years. I miss having a pet, but i survived. and the more times you get on the list the longer you stay.also if someone really wants a pet they'll find a way, it will just be harder for them to do so

I wish I bookmarked articles I saw to provide examples, but I do not.

Though why not start with something like an expanded database of child abusers then for one?

This seems more like politicians trying to make themselves look better to me. As people haven't gotten their own acts together, so why try to go around protecting everything else strongly so soon?

As while in theory this has it's merits, but in practice I fear it'd be much more different. As while the country is more akin to innocent until proven guilty, the people aren't. So I wouldn't support or be specifically against something like this. Since one innocent person's life shouldn't be ruined, even for the sake of hindering nine guilty ones.

 

[011235813]

If this gets people to think twice about abusing an animal, I am all for it.

Does the database apply only to household pets or also to victims of barbaric factory farming practices though?

 

[prplchknz]

If this gets people to think twice about abusing an animal, I am all for it.

Does the database apply only to household pets or also to victims of barbaric factory farming practices though?

I imagine just for household pets

 

[prplchknz]

I wish I bookmarked articles I saw to provide examples, but I do not.

Though why not start with something like an expanded database of child abusers then for one?

This seems more like politicians trying to make themselves look better to me. As people haven't gotten their own acts together, so why try to go around protecting everything else strongly so soon?

As while in theory this has it's merits, but in practice I fear it'd be much more different. As while the country is more akin to innocent until proven guilty, the people aren't. So I wouldn't support or be specifically against something like this. Since one innocent person's life shouldn't be ruined, even for the sake of hindering nine guilty ones.

so you're saying that it's bad because people might be innocent and get on it? so should prison be illegal, because people sometimes get convicted when they're innocent?

this seems a lot less harmful than going to prison, it's just you can't own a pet for 2 years. that's really not that bad

you have admitted that their would probably be more guilty people on it.

Also they're not going to die, it's 2 years on the list, trust me we live on average 90 years that's a miniscule part of life.

if they were going to have the same crimes done to them that they're being accused of I'd be on your side. As it stands now, honestly I just don't think saying we shouldn't have this list because someone might get on the list who's innocent isn't a very good argument to me. considering the conciquences


I agreed our legal system is fucked up: an innocent person who has no money is more likely to go to prison than a guilty person who is rich. It's because we're taught from early on that people with money are more important than people without. So the way to change that is, to teach the children that money is important to an extent but it shouldn't define who you are. and rip down the delusions in society that makes everyone thinks that money defines that.