Slashdot Mirror
California To Create Public Animal Abuser Registry
An anonymous reader writes "California legislators are moving forward with plans to create a public, online, animal abuser registry identical in function to the public sex offender registry. Is this the slippery slope to further government mandated lists and registries?"
There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them. Long after they serve their far too short sentences they will still get to live with what they've done ... and we'll get to share the knowledge of their past with them.
It won't be long before we have public registries of parents whose kids misbehave in school, registries of people who buy pr0n, and registries of people who do anything else the masses of paranoid freak helicopter soccer moms don't like...
Is this an end-run around the "served your time" part? I thought our theory of law was that once you served your punishment you were a Citizen again (yeah like convicts can't have guns...). So, is this indefinite punishment? And this is coming from someone who thinks animal abusers have serious psychological problems: the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
Shh.
For reference, see Les Miserables.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Apparently they estimate that it will take several hundred thousand dollars to run the registry annually and claim that the number of federal convictions for animal abuse in California is not large enough to levy enough fees on the convicted to fund the registry. In short, they want to levy a tax on pet food to pay for the registry.
In a state that is bankrupt no less...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Yes, but have you seen the paranoia over these "sex" offender registries? People are afraid to move into houses because there might be a "sex offender" living on the next block. Never mind that these people don't seem to look at the real picture and look at the trial and see that his only crime was peeing in public and he is now 73 years old and wheelchair bound. The point is, taxpayer funds are being used for this completely stupid project that adds nothing (who the hell cares if someone kicked a dog? I sure as hell don't), adds more debt to an already bankrupt state (next thing you know my federal taxes are going to be "bailing out" financially challenged California) and takes away rights (once you have served time, you should be treated as a full citizen, taking away voting rights for felons is honestly tyranny because they have suffered more harm by the state than anyone else, and even taking away second amendment rights I believe is questionable).
In short, this is a terrible idea because taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for yet another useless project from a bankrupt state.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to harm people, especially given a one in a million encounter.
Same thing could be said for any number of behaviours. Let me reword your post.
But when it comes to porn watching, I loose some of that rationality. porn watchers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to have sex with someone, especially given a one in a million encounter.
And hopefully you will see how stupid it sounds.
Sure, let animal abusers serve their time. Even give'em a job. Good luck feeling inner piece when your daughter says she is going camping with him, when his little discresion in life was nailing a cat to a plank of wood while performing some autopsy while it was still alive. Over the course of an hour.
Who cares? Guess what? Everyone has done strange things in their life. Does that mean we get to label those who got caught and classify them as "dangerous"? No, of course not. The entire point of justice is you serve time and you are free and don't have to keep serving it forever. The other way is tyranny.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You are trying to establish a reverse causality link. It doesn't work like that. How many people that commit an act of "animal abuse" grow up to be serial killers? There is no data on that, but I would imagine it to be pretty small. Obviously, I can't substantiate my claim, but neither can you. So in the end, you are giving no better argument than the "for the children" one that you claim to hate.
This is from a state that requires warning labels to be put on anything more than pure water (and even then they are probably attempting to pass a bill with a warning sticker "This product contains Water a chemical known to the state of California to cause drowning and water poisoning"), who basically is bankrupt, who thinks they need to tax everything for the little they do to help the people and now have this. The people running California, I'd have to say, are basically brain-dead idiots.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They may be 'just animals' to most people, but that's like saying it's 'just cruelty.' There is something inherently wrong with enjoying inflicting pain on a helpless victim. In that sense, it is not different than abusing or molesting a human child. The principles are the same. Blah blah blah about putting animals and humans on the same level. That's just a runaround argument people who don't understand the full scope of the problem use.
People who abuse animals include those who fight dogs- who also run other illegal activities and make money this way, instead of getting an honest job, and getting to inflict their dissatisfaction with the world on an animal that they bred and raised only to kill for sport. Maybe having a public registry won't matter- look at Michael Vick, he's doing as well as he ever has, despite having been responsible for the unnecessarily cruel and violent death of dogs that didn't want to fight. And then people continue to condemn pitbulls as killers, when it's humans that kill them.
The issue is not, at its root, how animals are being treated. The issue is what kind of behaviors we will condone in society. Killing for a purpose- like farming, is utilitarian, necessary for people who eat meat. Vegetarians kill vegetables. Something has to die for something else to live. But killing for pleasure, killing to see the pain and suffering of a victim, is inhumane, it's sick and people who do it should be publicly flogged, not quietly chided. And yes, some workers in meat production plants should also be thrown in jail. Torture isn't necessary in the death of a food animal, and some of those workers do horrific things in addition to a necessary death. People who do these kinds of things aren't functioning members of society and if they lived on my block, I would want to know about it. People treat each other like shit, and that will never change until we start respecting smaller forms of life.
I'm sick of people who wave away responsible citizenship as overkill. Especially in a city where dogs are stolen from backyards to be bait for some worthless piece of crap's blood sport.
I live in California, and I can assure you that California Democrats never saw a spending program they didn't love or a tax they didn't vote for. The result, of course, is that businesses are leaving here as fast as they can, taking their jobs with them.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If they are dangerous, why were they allowed out of prison in the first place?
Yeah, all the money ends up going to the flyover states, you know the same fuckers who claim they hate this sort of thing. Put your money where your mouth is then folks, lets see these states give back those ill gotten gains.
a state that every American, with any kind of attention span, knows is broke and needs to CUT spending is creating more financially wasteful bureaucracy. California you truly love to live up to your title as the land of fruits and nuts, don't you?
Practical enough, and the very public knowledge of criminal tendencies would leave criminals fewer places to hide.
And if it's one thing we want to make potentially dangerous ex-cons, it's desperate. No one ever does something insanely stupid when they're desperate.
As somebody who (a) values privacy and finds government's invasion of it abhorrent; but (b) has seen some of the results of chronic animal abuse, I feel a bit like the proverbial Christian Scientist with an appendicitis attack.
From the animal-rescue point of view, the world is full of crazy and vicious people who cruise around "adopting" animals for subsequent abuse. This includes dogfighters looking for bait, people who produce crush films, hoarders, puppy mill operators, crazed cat ladies, people who practice killing and torture rituals, and even idiots who just want a fresh puppy every year or so. Most animal adoptions take place on a sort of honor system, the potential for abuse is huge, the actual amount of abuse going on is both shocking and sickening, and there simply isn't any money for any investigation or follow-up.
From the invasion of privacy standpoint, it should be observed that there are also plenty of animal-loving lunatics abroad in the land. That would be the folks who think that animal abusers should be tortured, castrated, deprived of their children, burned out of their homes, or otherwise "suitably" punished for their misdeeds. People exist who believe that the death penalty as it's administered here is too mild for animal abusers. Such a list in their hands would be downright dangerous.
There must be a way that law enforcement could share information regarding convicted abusers with licensed shelters and rescue groups without making such information readily and publicly available in a one-stop database.
Sigh.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Another list seems relatively pointless.
Chelsea King's murderer was nicely listed. Now an innocent 17 year old girl is dead, having probably spent the last moments of her short life in terror and misery, because she was foolish enough to go for a run.
How, precisely, did the list help her?
Personally, I think the lvl 3 sex offender list should be retitled to the "no legal consequences for murdering the scumbags on this list" list, but that's just me.
-Styopa
I don't understand the outcry of privacy advocates here.
All matters of criminal law are matters of public record, as they should be.
Making this information easily searchable is just technology, folks.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
It's just a side effect of our state government being so flush with cash they don't even know how to spend it all! Huzzah!
I predict that it will not stop until we are ALL wearing *some* sort of scarlet letter. :(
BTW under other legislation being pushed by this same HSUS-backed crowd, owning more than N-many animals is "abuse" (how well they're cared for is absolutely irrelevant), and breeding pets AT ALL is also "abuse". Best-practices for some types of livestock have already been classed as "abuse". The fact is, such a registry will expand right along with these irrational laws, until everyone who owns a purebred dog is included, everyone who hunts is included, and everyone who farms is included.
And it's all about the money:
Recommended reading:
http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/comments/the_humanewatch_interview_frank_losey/
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The majority of animal abuse cases do not involve psychopathic individuals. Neglect, accidents, and one-time assaults are more common and not much worse than what happens to farm animals or the billions of poor castrated pets.
Yep, whole freakin state is financially jacked and our so-called lawmakers want to pass another ridiculous law? Unfortunately I'm a long time resident, albeit on my way out, mainly because of this type of stupidity from the politicians in Sacramento. How about improving infrastructure, jobs, etc to get this state productive again. BTW, I'm an animal lover and think anyone that harms an animal deserves to get slapped, but there are other more serious issues that need attention in California.
But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose (sic) some of that rationality.
Exactly. You admit yourself that you are not nearly as rational when it comes to acts of cruelty against animals.
Don't get me wrong - I love animals. Had a number of pets as a kid. But, lists like these ones are an extremely slippery slope and are really just politicians playing against people's fears and/or lack of rationality, or are a way to mask real problems. Lists create an environment for a person to be judged for the rest of their life (because, ya know, everybody ELSE is messed up, but I'm perfect and can judge them) for something that they may have already been punished for.
Additionally, you also say:
Sure, let animal abusers serve their time. Even give'em a job.
The problem is, there will be enough people who will not only not give them a job, but they will also go out of their way to abuse and harm these individuals for something that may have been a brief, stupid adolescent move when they were young. One punishment, and done.
Good luck feeling inner piece when your daughter says she is going camping with him, when his little discresion in life was nailing a cat to a plank of wood while performing some autopsy while it was still alive. Over the course of an hour.
Good grief. Now you're just fear-mongering as well as any politician. Heck, the fact that you can even come up with this might mean that you should be on that list...
And you have to be quite foolish to think that current registries solve more than they harm.
One registry that treats 16 year old's that pix each other the same as violent offenders? One label that shows no difference between the two?
Why not have a list of people who drink alcohol... where one drunken night gets you on the same list as the ass-clown who just got his 25th-DUI-while-suspended?
Why not have a list of people who are 'racists'... where one word said in anger that's *possibly* racial puts you on the same list with those who have killed for race?
Lists as they stand are a failure, a waste of money and serve no greater good.
I don't really see the comparison to the sex offender registry.
You can tell your children not to go near the bad mans house, but thats not going to work so well for your cat. (And dogs have to be kept on a leash in public)
A business that works with animals can already check a prospective employees criminal background.
Its not going to prevent people abusing stray or wild animals.
The simplest solution is to stop hunting the mountain lions in California, since they are the primary deer predator. They would have the deer populations in check in just a few years. But that would cut into the profits of the developers who keep destroying natural habitats and insist we kill all the dangerous wildlife (since if you buy your multi-million dollar home on the edge of the wilderness you don't actually want any dangerous wildlife to visit). And all the ranchers who aren't willing to take the time and effort to actually manage and protect their herds would object too.
It is a similar problem with people killing all the rattlesnakes and then complaining about ground squirrel overpopulation and the more significant threat of bubonic plague and hantavirus.
Some sicko tied up a cat's tail to his car and dragged it to death. I'm usually not a violent person but I still feel the urge to beat up that low-life badly, years after it happened.
I hope you do not own animals. They are not simply property.