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?"

Comments

Sounds Good To Me

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[jedidiah]

Do we get to add the person that raised and killed your dinner on that list?

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[terraformer]

This is where those people want to take this. How much animal abuse is by teenagers with a thing for cats and how many of these convictions are for farmers. How many are serious convictions and how many are you forgot some technicality when constructing the horse shelter? As it stands today, in MA, professional licenses are pulled when you are a felon, on a sex registry (you don't have to be a felon...), under a RO, owe child support, etc. By doing this it allows them to exert control over people who have served their time. These registries are bad news.

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[zach_the_lizard]

If their punishment is too short, then extend the sentences. If the jails are too crowded, stop sending non-violent people there for the "crime" of ingesting non-state approved substances. Otherwise, stop condemning people to a lifetime of harassment by vigilantes. This goes for sex offenders and for this new animal abuse registry. If none of this persuades you, then perhaps you should consider: a)there are those who are convicted that are innocent (and are exonerated later) b)what makes it onto the registry is determined by politicians and judges, who will add things such as drunk men urinating in public to the sex offender list. Who is to say the same cannot happen for animal abuse?

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[ScrewMaster]

Do you know what it takes to get on the list? Do you understand that some drunk guy can get on because he got drunk, went into an alley and pissed against the wall? Yeah, you merciless son of a bitch -- they nail him for indecent exposure. Right, now he can't get (or loses) any job involving contact with kids or anywhere in a lot of professions.

The only way to control a nation of free men is to turn them into criminals. And that's exactly what is happening. It's not just punishment-lust (although that is most certainly a factor) it's the desire for power. Our Founders tried to codify limits to that power in the highest law of our land. Unfortunately, zealots and sociopaths (and the two are not mutually-exclusive) are doing an end-run around those limits.

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[Darkness404]

Mod parent up.

Exactly. What we really need to do is stop using jails as "time out" and start only keeping violent people there. If the crime was non-violent and they don't pose a threat to society, put them on probation and make them pay restitution. If there was no one harmed to pay restitution to, how was it a crime in the first place? On the same vain, we need to elect our executive branch by allowing for the direct election, supervision and removal of police officers and make every move they make public record so we can end police brutality and abuse.

What is next? A list of people who bought cigarettes, drinks and porn?

Re:Sounds Good To Me

[ChromeAeonium]

Apparently you have not paid any attention on how actual farming is implemented recently.

It's not quite the land of sunshine that is painted on the tele.

No, I'm afraid farming today is fairly beyond the concept of humane.

That's what pisses me off about groups like PETA: sometimes, they're right. There is abuse in farms. A lot. I'm not saying every farm does it, but it happens. When PETA goes out talking about farm cruelty, they might turn some heads, but then they follow that up by stripping naked and saying that eating meat makes you worse than Hitler (but naturally, stuff like this is fine and dandy). And that's where they lose people. People dismiss all their claims.

At the end of the day, their stupid antics only hurt the animals. Do they talk about sustainable fishing? No, they talk about 'sea-kittens.' Do they talk about humane animal testing? No, they want to end all testing (except for PETA VP Mary Beth Sweetland's insulin) in favor of non-existent models and cripple medical science. Do they advocate decent living conditions for farm animals? No, say farm animals completely equivalent to Jews during the Holocaust.

They're not about what's best for the animals, they're on a feel good quest for attention. Well, screw them.

End run?

[headkase]

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?

Re:End run?

[ScrewMaster]

the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?

. I think they already exist, it's just that most of us aren't aware of them, or at least don't have access to their contents (the TSA's "no-fly" list being a prime example.)

History repeats itself

[Opportunist]

For reference, see Les Miserables.

Re:there's a new tax too

[terraformer]

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...

On the fence on this one, and my stomach hurts

[beadfulthings]

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.

Re:Just another scarlet letter to maintain

[Reziac]

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/