• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Animal Abuse Registry

Is a State Animal Abuse Registry a good idea?


  • Total voters
    53
My cats do exhibit human qualities. Now, I've invested thousands of hours learning their language and teaching them mine. I would say that they are about 2 years to 3 year old (in human equivalency - see, you win) and they are as important to me as any child would be.

This is good. I feel the same way about my parrot.

So, yes, I believe that animals, particularly the domestics (pets) have the same rights to protection as small children. Small children can't vote, drink or go outside unsupervised, but they do have the right to be fed, comforted, receive medical care as if they were human. If there is an active God (separate topic ;-), they are his creations also and have as much "soul" as we do.

Don''t you think that's a little hypocritical? Domestic food and farm animals because they are not fuzzy and cute get no consideration?

Well we were given dominion over the animals. This stewardship does not mean to abuse. I don't however believe they have souls. (Discussion for another time.)

That does not mean that I approve of this REGISTRY process. I do not approve.
:kitty::2dance::

100% agree.
 
Last edited:
My interpretation as it apply's to YOUR example and evidence is dead on.

Try again you have ignored all other authority I have provided and once again are attempting to contour what you pick into a viable and cohesiveness position.

This is a great idea not only how it would track those that have a track record of such activity and prevent ownership for such people, but it would effect how animal abuse is perceived. For example in treating those with antisocial behavior or a history of domestic violence. This would be a good tool for those who treat the abusers and help toward a better understanding of the psychology and /or behavioral pattern of the abusers. Not to mention keep these abusive pricks away from animals.

The Connection between Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty

Facts About Animal Abuse & Domestic Violence
 
Try again you have ignored all other authority I have provided and once again are attempting to contour what you pick into a viable and cohesiveness position.

I am going by your own examples. I am applying them again to Your examples. But as I can see from your responses to Ikari it is a waist of time as you ignore your own examples and play dumb.
 
It has been enacted in Rockland County and Suffolk County, NY. And it is relatively new there also. Michigan would be the first state with a state wide registry. The PETA thing seems to be your version of the boogey man.

So... There was enough data before when you used it to refute the PETA question, but now it is "relatively new ".
And because you no longer have a leg to stand on, you resort to redirection. I can assure you I do not feel that PETA is the bogeyman. There are very few things in this world that I fear, however, an uncontrolled government is definitely one of them.
 
Don''t you think that's a little hypocritical? Domestic food and farm animals because they are not fuzzy and cute get no consideration?

Yes, it is hypocritical. Our relationship with some animals is a purely commercial one, mostly chickens, cows, sheep and pigs. In many cases they are subjected to unnecessary abuse. That is why I try to buy Kosher meat (the animal can not suffer pain or the meat is not Kosher) and I prefer to buy free range products. It is sad that we kill them but it is fundamental. Our arrangement with household animals is different. We have a form of contract with them. They provide companionship and security and we provide room, board and protection. Strengthening and enforcing Animal Cruelty laws is very important. Creating registries is not a valid protection and is an infringement on human rights without a matching benefit.
 
Yes, it is hypocritical. Our relationship with some animals is a purely commercial one, mostly chickens, cows, sheep and pigs. In many cases they are subjected to unnecessary abuse. That is why I try to buy Kosher meat (the animal can not suffer pain or the meat is not Kosher) and I prefer to buy free range products. It is sad that we kill them but it is fundamental. Our arrangement with household animals is different. We have a form of contract with them. They provide companionship and security and we provide room, board and protection. Strengthening and enforcing Animal Cruelty laws is very important. Creating registries is not a valid protection and is an infringement on human rights without a matching benefit.

We have no contract of any kind with animals. They cannot sign or agree to a contract. Again you are trying to imbue animals with human intelligence and understanding, it just does not fit.

In the end we do need good animal protection laws, but we need to be careful. Sending someone to prison for failing to take proper care of a cat is very unreasonable. However Something like dog fighting is a felony I believe, that is reasonable because it includes more than just the abuse of dogs. The punishment must fit the crime.

Again we agree on the registry being a waist.
 
My cats do exhibit human qualities. Now, I've invested thousands of hours learning their language and teaching them mine. I would say that they are about 2 years to 3 year old (in human equivalency - see, you win) and they are as important to me as any child would be.

So, yes, I believe that animals, particularly the domestics (pets) have the same rights to protection as small children. Small children can't vote, drink or go outside unsupervised, but they do have the right to be fed, comforted, receive medical care as if they were human. If there is an active God (separate topic ;-), they are his creations also and have as much "soul" as we do.

That does not mean that I approve of this REGISTRY process. I do not approve.
:kitty::2dance::

Same rights? No, children are not quite considered property and cats certainly are.
 
That sort of speculation is unfounded. Does it happen now as people discover criminals? I think you are grasping at straws.

Wow...are you really trying to say that things are not copied and put in other websites? Seriously? How many websites have been linked to and at least partially copied here on this forum alone?

Two counties in New York state have a registry and nothing like this has happened there.

First, link them please. Second, they are more than likely not widely known. Third, how do you know nothing like that has happened? Do you live in NY? Do you follow those people around?

First, animal hoarders and the stereotypical cat ladies are excluded because that is considered more of a mental disorder and will not be included on the Abuse registry.

Tell it to this woman...Second Animal Case Kept Woman in Jail Overnight

Lane spent two nights in jail; the first for owning more than two dogs and the second for neutering someone else's dog in 2002.

This woman "broke the law" and would no doubt be put on that list.

Second, as to jobs, I know of no such examples in the two counties where we have this. Again, this seeems more straw grasping to deflect.

You have people literally living in a closet while their pet dog/cat has the rest of a whole house to themselves and you really think that people won't refuse to hire someone because they are on this list?

All I stated was that were developing a strategy to meet with the objections of people here who mentioned it. How could you object to a strategy and say it means trouble when I have not said what that strategy is?

Because any strategy that involved applying that law to craigslist or any site like craigslist would indeed involve interfereing with private sales. Something which leads to a very nasty slippery slope.
 
I'm also one of those people who doesn't care much about the government "spying on me." I have nothing to hide.

It is exactly this attitude that has led to there being so many damn laws on the books today that it is gaurunteed that every single American has broken at least one law.
 
"Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and
intentionally kills an animal
, is guilty of a crime."

Bold: So I would be on that list. All because I shot 4 kittens between the eyes with a .22 all because we could not find them homes and could not afford to keep them. And don't even tell me that I wouldn't be because I didn't do it "maliciously". Those 5 words would be used seperate from "maliciously". The sex offender registery has shown that in that a teenager could be put on it for simply having a picture on their cell phone of their girlfriend/boyfriend naked.
 
I think that many things are considered contract. We drive around in 4000 pound cars by contract to stay on our side of the line. Did we sign a contract? No. But there is an implication of contract in many things.

We do have a contract (IMHO) with our animals that is similar to that we have with very young children. The term "property" is just semantics. We have obligations to both, and the obligations are remarkably similar. To fail in those obligations is a crime.

You'll never be arrested for refusing your child an ice cream or your cat a salmon treat. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Too bad everybody doesn't honor it.
 
Your opinion is no more or less valuable than mine.

There was a time when blacks were viewed just as you presently view cats. Property. If you owned one, you could pretty much do as you pleased with them. All they wanted to do was work, eat, sleep and defecate. That was terribly wrong and so (IMHO) is your attitude toward domestic animals. It's convenient to presume that someone that is different is less than "human".

This is the stupidest arguement for this list that I have seen yet.
 
Try again you have ignored all other authority I have provided and once again are attempting to contour what you pick into a viable and cohesiveness position.

Your "authority" just basically states that a child that abuses an animal is "more likely" to be abusive as adults. It does not say that they WILL be.

You position also fails because not everyone that is charged and convicted of animal abuse are violent. There are those that truely do love the animals that they had. Even to the point of considering them their children. Yet they were convicted of animal abuse for the simple fact that the animals that they had were not fed properly or kept clean. Normally for reasons of poverty. Not for reasons of physcial violent abuse.
 
I think that many things are considered contract. We drive around in 4000 pound cars by contract to stay on our side of the line. Did we sign a contract? No. But there is an implication of contract in many things.

We do have a contract (IMHO) with our animals that is similar to that we have with very young children. The term "property" is just semantics. We have obligations to both, and the obligations are remarkably similar. To fail in those obligations is a crime.

You'll never be arrested for refusing your child an ice cream or your cat a salmon treat. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Too bad everybody doesn't honor it.

Actually in order to drive on public roads we did sign a contract. That signing happened when you signed your drivers license. By getting that license and signing it you agreed to follow the rules of the road contractually.
 
If you can please read my entire posting, you will see that I am against the Dreadful Listing, not for it. I'm incapable of being stupid.

This is the stupidest arguement for this list that I have seen yet.
 
Using your own argument, you signed a contract when you adopted the animal.

Actually in order to drive on public roads we did sign a contract. That signing happened when you signed your drivers license. By getting that license and signing it you agreed to follow the rules of the road contractually.
 
If you can please read my entire posting, you will see that I am against the Dreadful Listing, not for it.

You may say that you are against it but your arguements are showing otherwise. Sorry but thats the way I see it.

I'm incapable of being stupid.

First, I didn't say that YOU were being stupid. I said that your arguement was. Second...NO ONE is "incapable" of being stupid.
 
Using your own argument, you signed a contract when you adopted the animal.

I've never gone to a pet adoption agency. I've never signed anything to own an animal. All the animals that I have ever owned were either given to me as a gift, followed me or someone in my family home. I did buy one at a pet store once. But even then I didn't have to sign anything as I used cash.

Sorry, no contract signing here.
 
Using your own argument, you signed a contract when you adopted the animal.

That is not a contract with any animal, it is a contract with a human organization. People are also given pets and buy them at pet stores with no contract at all.
 
And don't even tell me that I wouldn't be because I didn't do it "maliciously". Those 5 words would be used seperate from "maliciously".

You cannot parse out these words. All the elements are necessary for a crime pursuant to statute, "maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime."
 
Kal stang

the slippery slope ...... right ...... sure ..... whatever ......

as to cat lady hoarders - I could not give a rats behind about your story. I am halping to write this law and I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are handling such things as a disorder and NOT a criminal violation. Of course, I said that many pages ago.
 
Kal stang

the slippery slope ...... right ...... sure ..... whatever ......

as to cat lady hoarders - I could not give a rats behind about your story. I am halping to write this law and I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are handling such things as a disorder and NOT a criminal violation. Of course, I said that many pages ago.

Must be nice to be able to arbitrarily make up these terms to fit your cause. I hope this bill fails, all these lists have to go. I don't know many rational people who actually endorse such practices.
 
You cannot parse out these words. All the elements are necessary for a crime pursuant to statute, "maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime."

Again I will refer you to the sex offender registry in which people are being put on it that shouldn't be. You can say that "you cannot parse out these words" but a lawyers job is to parse words.
 
Kal stang

the slippery slope ...... right ...... sure ..... whatever ......

as to cat lady hoarders - I could not give a rats behind about your story. I am halping to write this law and I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are handling such things as a disorder and NOT a criminal violation. Of course, I said that many pages ago.

As someone who is helping to write the law then you should be able to allay our concerns. You have yet to do so.

What good is this law going to actually do? Is it actually going to stop a person from getting and abusing an animal? Because so far the answer to these is none and no. Which means this "law" is nothing more than further punishment to people that have already been convicted and served their time and a hazard to those people and to innocent people.

As someone who has been convicted of a crime and knows what it is like even 19 years afterwards with a clean record since I can tell you that I am still being punished by society...and my name isn't even on a list that someone can casually look up on the net.
 
Back
Top Bottom