Animal Abuse As a Sentinel for Human Violence: a Critique ∗ Emily G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2009, pp. 589--614 Animal Abuse as a Sentinel for Human Violence: A Critique ∗ Emily G. Patterson-Kane American Veterinary Medical Association Heather Piper Manchester Metropolitan University It has been suggested that acts of violence against human and nonhuman an- imals share commonalities, and that animal abuse is a sentinel for current or future violence toward people. The popular and professional acceptance of strong connections between types of violence is beginning to be used to justify social work interventions and to influence legal decision making, and so requires greater scrutiny. Examination of the limited pool of empirical data suggests that animal abuse is relatively common among men, with violent offenders having an increased probability of reporting prior animal abuse—with the majority of violent offend- ers not reporting any animal abuse. Causal explanations for “the link,” such as empathy impairment or conduct disorder, suffer from a lack of validating research and, based on research into interhuman violence, the assumption that violence has a predominant, single underlying cause must be questioned. An (over)emphasis on the danger that animal abusers pose to humans serves to assist in achieving a consensus that animal abuse is a serious issue, but potentially at the cost of failing to focus on the most common types of abuse, and the most effective strategies for reducing its occurrence. Nothing in this review and discussion should be taken as minimizing the importance of animals as frequent victims of violence, or the co-occurrence of abuse types in “at-risk” households. However, given the weak- ness of the underlying data, emphasizing the indiscriminate dangerousness of all animal abusers may have unforeseen and unwanted consequences. Historically it has been suggested that acts of violence against human and nonhuman animals share commonalities, and that animal abuse by children is a ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily G. Patterson-Kane, Amer- ican Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N. Meacham Rd., Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173 [e-mail: EKane@avma.org]. 589 C 2009 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues 590 Patterson-Kane and Piper warning sign that should be taken seriously: “A failure of punishment here...[a child harming an animal]...can be as fatal or possibly even more fatal, than too vi- olent punishment” (Mead, 1963, p. 12). Since the 1990s, a range of academics and professionals have promoted an idea that has come to be termed the “link/s,”1 via campaigns, conferences, pressure groups, websites, and academic or professional papers. The term derives from the premise that most violence is linked, and what is particular to these claimed links is that they encompass acts of violence toward human and nonhuman animals (hereafter, “animals”). The phenomenon of these links is being determinedly promulgated globally (Ascione, 2004; Lockwood & Ascione, 1998), particularly the idea that animal abuse is a sentinel for current or future violence toward people (e.g., concurrent domestic violence or future homicidal behavior). The language used to discuss emotive issues such as violence is laden with historical, moral, cultural, and social values even when deployed under the auspices of science. “Right” and “wrong” in these areas varies between classes, cultures, and sometimes sexes. It has been argued that family violence has always been historically and politically constructed, with the outcome that political attitudes have affected research findings. Some academic research (in harmony with many relevant organizations and charities) has treated the phenomenon of violence and the goal of its reduction as relatively straightforward in terms of causes and consequences (e.g., American Humane Association: “The basic concept of The Link is nothing new...Nor is the concept difficult to prove,” 2006, p. 13). However, harming animals is a morally complex and a culturally ambiguous act. What counts as unacceptable treatment of particular animals, and of animals in general, varies between and within societies, resulting in tensions and contradictions. Harming or killing some types of animal is accepted in almost all societies, but rarely unanimously, and many current uses/abuses are in a state of flux when it comes to prevailing public opinion. There is a long history of redefining what constitutes animal abuse, when identifying it as a “symptom” of what might be considered moral failings in a group of people. For example, antimonarchy arguments for several centuries have focused on fox and pheasant hunting as indicative of the monarch’s depravity (Taylor, 2004). Link claims essentially universalize this argument and state that any person (or group/subculture of people) who harms or kills animals, in ways that are not condoned by their wider society, are a danger to other people. Link arguments generalize from one act to suggest that other acts by the same person have become more likely, or even almost inevitable. These generalizations include those who are cruel to animals are likely to do so habitually (Campbell, 2002), 1In this paper, we do not subsequently include parenthesis around the word “link” and “links” even though in many usages, we consider it warrants it. It becomes somewhat clumsy to do so, and we note some organizations now claim “the link/s” as a registered trademark (e.g., The American Humane Society: Understanding The Link R Between Animal Abuse and Family Violence). Animal Abuse as a Sentinel 591 are more likely to be aggressive toward their partners and children (Arkow, 1995; Ascione, 1996; Hutton, 1983), and children who have themselves been the victims of some form of violence are likely to harm animals and are more likely to be aggressive toward humans later in life (Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988). On the basis of such generalizations, any type of perpetrator and his or her victims are rendered appropriate a priori targets for diagnosis, profiling, and intervention. The links phenomenon is global: in England and Wales the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), via the “Links” group, promote a message which offers “a unique opportunity for professionals concerned with protecting children and animals to become aware of the ‘links’ between child and animal cruelty.” Information sheets facilitate the exchange of ideas such as “Un- derstanding the Links,” which, as the eponymous title suggests, promotes a belief in these links: “There is increasing research and clinical evidence which suggests that there are sometimes inter-relationships, commonly referred to as ‘links’, be- tween the abuse of children, vulnerable adults and animals. Better understanding of these links can help to protect victims, both human and animal, and promote their welfare.” This leaflet advises professionals to raise awareness of the “possi- ble” links with local networks and refers them to conferences and seminars where they can explore the “possible” links (NSPCC, n.d.). It then draws attention to the Links Group and its aim to raise awareness of the links (note the shift in language as “possible” drops off the register), and act as a network for the exchange of ideas. This effort is matched in the United States by the Linkage Project whose website states more firmly: “When there is animal cruelty in a home, chances are that someone else—possibly a child, a partner or an elderly family member—is being hurt, too...The Linkage Project is working to increase community awareness of the strong link between animal cruelty and human violence” (Anonymous, 2008a). In addition, individual organizations in the United States, such as the American Humane Association, have long been promoting the message that “Men who abuse animals often abuse their families” (American Humane Association, 2002). Both initiatives are supported by a range of groups, including chief police officers, probation officers, academics, veterinarians, social workers, other animal welfare workers, and so on. This popular and professional acceptance of alleged strong connections between types of violence is beginning to be used to justify social work interventions and to influence legal decision making (see Campbell, 2002) and, in the absence of sustained and authoritative counter analysis, this is a trend that appears likely to grow. The policy and practice of cross-reporting be- tween agencies are particularly significant. Cross-reporting of observed abuse (e.g., animal abuse observed and reported by a child welfare agent) is rela- tively unproblematic. However, suspicion of abuse (e.g., probable child abuse inferred directly from observed animal abuse) is based on an understanding of 592 Patterson-Kane and Piper statistical probability that may be deeply flawed. Suspicion of animal abuse is beginning to constitute grounds for the removal of children, and/or for placing suspects on various child protection registers. Expert evidence about violence connections is beginning to influence legislation and professional protocols, and is also routinely raised in court rooms. Such evidence appears to be influencing the severity of penalties and sentencing in individual cases (e.g., Anonymous, 2008b). If there is a secure basis for the links argument, and thus for the operational practices which it is used to justify, it lies in a corpus of psychological