• 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
What about the hassle of the honest citizen? The hassle to the seller? Price is not always a cash value. The opportunity cost of the time to enact and legislate and enforce it could be much better spent elsewhere.

I took it that this would be a rather quick procedure. You access the data base and plug in the name of the animal purchaser and within minutes you get an approval.
 
Great. Just what we need. Another emotionally-charged and overly broad "list" that will catch more people than actually deserve to be there, just so the narrow-minded-jump-to-conclusion-less-discerning people in our society can feel superior.
 
No its seems like a huge waste of money. I see no logical benifit to it vs cost vs man hours vs prevention of anything vs effectiveness

No need, its a waste
 
A state legislator in Michigan is proposing that the State enact an Animal Abuser registry modeled after other states Sex Offender Registry system.

Legislator from Detroit introduces bill to create an animal abuser registry | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

In Wayne County alone, the Humane Society investigated over 5,000 cases of animal abuse in 2011. No other state has this although similar legislation has been introduced in at least five states.

Is this an idea whose time has come?

MORE databasing? More information collection? More lists? For ****'s sake people, when is enough enough here? Do people even think about what they endorese?
 
Absolutely an idea whose time has come. Why not use the internet to mark animal abusers with a scarlet letter? I'm allll for it. Not only would it identify these horrible people, it would raise awareness for the rest of us to report it when we see it.

Oh god ****ing damned it we don't need this. We shouldn't have the vast majority of databasing and lists created by government that we do now. Now "animal abuse". When...when the **** will people learn to mind their own business? If someone has completed their punishment for a crime, than that's it. The end. Yet you people want to infinite punish and make all these things to keep tabs on people who have done "wrong". The level of monitoring y'all are calling for IS NOT REASONABLE. When...for the love of all that is holy....when will you folk realize this. More and more government is just not the solution. More intrusion is not the solution. More big brother behavior is not the solution. Come on people, let's pretend that we're humans for a little bit and capable of rational and logical thought. Just for a bit here.

Wow....just wow.
 
Is this an idea whose time has come?

Disagree. It should have come earlier, imo.

As long as the government uses such registries in a reasonable manner then there's no problem.
 
Could you please elaborate. I would like to take criticism back to the bill author.
As just one example, the 'sex offender' lists. It is pretty much universally agreed that there are people on sex offender lists that pose absolutely no threat to anybody anywhere. I.e.: the 18yr old boy with the 16 yr old girlfriend, the college student who went streaking while drunk when he was 19, (drunk) public urination, and so on. And while pretty much everybody agrees these people should not be lumped in with those who actually are legitimate threats, virtually every politician lacks the political backbone to correct these injustices.

Unless the bill's author is willing to stand up for what is right, and risk being labeled "soft on crime" for doing the right thing, and fix the lists that we already have, then I have no reason to expect that this list will become nothing but more of the same... an overly broad and unfair emotional response that panders to the close-minded and loud people clamoring for this stuff. I'd rather they have no list at all than one that goes too far.

Fix the stuff we know we're doing wrong first, then tackle new issues.
 
As just one example, the 'sex offender' lists. It is pretty much universally agreed that there are people on sex offender lists that pose absolutely no threat to anybody anywhere. I.e.: the 18yr old boy with the 16 yr old girlfriend, the college student who went streaking while drunk when he was 19, (drunk) public urination, and so on. And while pretty much everybody agrees these people should not be lumped in with those who actually are legitimate threats, virtually every politician lacks the political backbone to correct these injustices.

Unless the bill's author is willing to stand up for what is right, and risk being labeled "soft on crime" for doing the right thing, and fix the lists that we already have, then I have no reason to expect that this list will become nothing but more of the same... an overly broad and unfair emotional response that panders to the close-minded and loud people clamoring for this stuff. I'd rather they have no list at all than one that goes too far.

Fix the stuff we know we're doing wrong first, then tackle new issues.

I realize there are shortcomings to the sex offender list. While the inspiration comes from that list, please, this is a different thing. Animal abuse is a problem. As laid out here by others, there is a statistically significant connection between animal abuse and violence against people.
 
I realize there are shortcomings to the sex offender list. While the inspiration comes from that list, please, this is a different thing. Animal abuse is a problem. As laid out here by others, there is a statistically significant connection between animal abuse and violence against people.

Radcen does make an important point. There will undoubtedly be people whose lives/credibility are ruined if they're mistakenly charged with animal cruelty.

And then there's another question. We have lists of sex offenders for parents and such to know who exactly has the possibility of harming their children. These parents can check on a website and will collect the locations of all sex offenders within a determined range.

With animal abusers it's a bit different. I haven't heard of any stories of animal abusers coming after your pets, or anyone else's. Parents [I think] don't have to worry about their pets being abducted by animal abusers. It doesn't seem to have the level of importance as knowing who could snatch your kid. It's more like a list to just gawk at the evil animal abusers. Perhaps the money put towards said lists could be better spent on locating and dealing with animal abusers more efficiently and effectively?
 
these people are already on a database... assuming they have been convicted of a crime against animals.
why do we need another database to put them on?

what is going to qualify these people to be on the list?.. misdemeanors? felonies? rumors? merely an investigation?


how do you ever get off the list?.. or is this a perpetual scarlet letter punishment?

who can gain access to this database?... law enforcement or the general public?
 
I realize there are shortcomings to the sex offender list. While the inspiration comes from that list, please, this is a different thing. Animal abuse is a problem. As laid out here by others, there is a statistically significant connection between animal abuse and violence against people.
I am not questioning that there are animal abusers out there. I am questioning the wisdom of creating more problems... which I believe to be politically inevitable, given our history, I'm sorry... in the quest to solve problems. It sounds good. It feels good. Is it wise and well thought out? No, I don't think it is.

What is the bill's author doing to fix the sex offender's list?* That is more important, IMO, and would also alleviate much of my fears regarding any new lists they may want to create.

*- My guess is nothing.
 
I think it's an excellent idea, and here's why. Out where I live, there are all kinds of calls about animal abuse, usually from neighbors who see emaciated horses, goats and cattle in the field, starving dogs tied to a stake and the like. Once animal control steps in and takes charge of the animals, a report is issued. These reports should be collated so that breeders, animal shelters, livestock auctions can make a simple check of the registry to make certain they aren't selling or adopting out animals to people who have been ticketed for abuse.

For example, our local animal shelter tries to screen potential adoptive parents, but there's no way to know if that nice guy who took an entire litter of kittens really loves cats, or has a history of using kittens as bait to train fighting dogs. The cost would be minimal. A couple of people statewide to perform some routine data entry, or write software that makes entries automatically when such reports are generated.

I'm for it.
 
Any law that protects animals is fine with me, it's more than fine IT'S EXPECTED and I applaud it with all my heart!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
these people are already on a database... assuming they have been convicted of a crime against animals.
why do we need another database to put them on?

what is going to qualify these people to be on the list?.. misdemeanors? felonies? rumors? merely an investigation?


how do you ever get off the list?.. or is this a perpetual scarlet letter punishment?

who can gain access to this database?... law enforcement or the general public?

This continual employment of big brother tactics is rather dangerous as well. As pointed out, these lists aren't foolproof and there's no real regulation or oversight. If you get on one, even if by mistake, it can have devastating consequences. There is no continual need to database the whole of the American citizenry.
 
This continual employment of big brother tactics is rather dangerous as well. As pointed out, these lists aren't foolproof and there's no real regulation or oversight. If you get on one, even if by mistake, it can have devastating consequences. There is no continual need to database the whole of the American citizenry.
...and getting off one, even when proven innocent, is too often extremely difficult if not downright impossible.
 
I think it's an excellent idea, and here's why. Out where I live, there are all kinds of calls about animal abuse, usually from neighbors who see emaciated horses, goats and cattle in the field, starving dogs tied to a stake and the like. Once animal control steps in and takes charge of the animals, a report is issued. These reports should be collated so that breeders, animal shelters, livestock auctions can make a simple check of the registry to make certain they aren't selling or adopting out animals to people who have been ticketed for abuse.

For example, our local animal shelter tries to screen potential adoptive parents, but there's no way to know if that nice guy who took an entire litter of kittens really loves cats, or has a history of using kittens as bait to train fighting dogs. The cost would be minimal. A couple of people statewide to perform some routine data entry, or write software that makes entries automatically when such reports are generated.

I'm for it.

i'm not so sure the cost would be minimal....we've all been sold that story before.

and really, if a dude abuses animals in one state.. and tries to adopt in another.. then what?
the state scenario goes out the window and folks will try to make it federal... and the costs go up quite a bit with that scenario.
states have different laws concerning animal cruelty.. for instance, in some states it's illegal to kill and eat dogs or cats ( companion animals).. in others , it's not.

if it sticks to the state level.. well, i really don't care what people do in other states.... if they want to pay for such a program and they feel it serves a valid public interest.. good for them... enjoy your new database.

I like the sentiment of it all ( i'm very pro animal)... but the implementation and operation of it..well, i'm not excited over it. ... we already have too many databases, lists, and registries.
i'm surprised no one , as of yet, has floated the idea of simply making a database for each individual person and filling it with as much information about us as possible and then having it be publicly available.
but i'm sure i'll see that before I die.
 
Honest question for those who wholeheartedly support this idea:

How do you propose to safeguard that the list is legit, and that there are no unintended consequences that plague virtually all the other similar lists?

Unintended consequences including innocent people being caught up in it, and so on. Just one example.

I don't dispute the issue of animal abuse, but when the proposed law is being drafted is the best time to think things through thoroughly and put these safeguards in. Because, as we know, politicians don't have enough backbone to go back and fix them after the damage has been done.
 
I am not questioning that there are animal abusers out there. I am questioning the wisdom of creating more problems... which I believe to be politically inevitable, given our history, I'm sorry... in the quest to solve problems. It sounds good. It feels good. Is it wise and well thought out? No, I don't think it is.

What is the bill's author doing to fix the sex offender's list?* That is more important, IMO, and would also alleviate much of my fears regarding any new lists they may want to create.

*- My guess is nothing.

Perhaps the author of the bill should find a cure for cancer or achieve world peace as well?
 
Perhaps the author of the bill should find a cure for cancer or achieve world peace as well?
No, just what he CAN do... and he can affect the wrongs of imperfect laws within his own jurisdiction.

Are you advocating that collateral damage is acceptable? Seems like it.
 
i'm not so sure the cost would be minimal....we've all been sold that story before.

and really, if a dude abuses animals in one state.. and tries to adopt in another.. then what?
the state scenario goes out the window and folks will try to make it federal... and the costs go up quite a bit with that scenario.
states have different laws concerning animal cruelty.. for instance, in some states it's illegal to kill and eat dogs or cats ( companion animals).. in others , it's not.

if it sticks to the state level.. well, i really don't care what people do in other states.... if they want to pay for such a program and they feel it serves a valid public interest.. good for them... enjoy your new database.

I like the sentiment of it all ( i'm very pro animal)... but the implementation and operation of it..well, i'm not excited over it. ... we already have too many databases, lists, and registries.
i'm surprised no one , as of yet, has floated the idea of simply making a database for each individual person and filling it with as much information about us as possible and then having it be publicly available.
but i'm sure i'll see that before I die.

The database is already there. Everytime a citation for animal abuse is issued, it goes into a computer database. Just a question of combining those databases into a single website that can be accessed by the public.

I'm not much for looking at "slippery slope" arguments. If something sounds reasonable and helps to protect something I believe should be protected without unreasonable cost, I say do it. If folks want to cross state lines, they will... but the vast majority won't bother. The abuse I see of animals out here in "the country" is appalling. Every damned month some ass is going to trial for starving his animals, or beating them, or flinging a litter of kittens into a river, or taking a meat cleaver to a screaming baby possum... so yeah, if something as simple as a website data base keeps those same freaks from adopting or purchasing other animals, I'm all for it.
 
No, just what he CAN do... and he can affect the wrongs of imperfect laws within his own jurisdiction.

Are you advocating that collateral damage is acceptable? Seems like it.

What do you consider "collateral damage"? Refusing to allow someone who has previously been cited for animal abuse to adopt a rescue pet or purchase a new horse after the other one starved?

I mean, this isn't life altering. If someone's name ends up on there and he/she has never received such a citation, then there would be channels to go through to get the name removed, and the mistake remedied. You're acting like people will be ruined for life. Overreaction.
 
A state legislator in Michigan is proposing that the State enact an Animal Abuser registry modeled after other states Sex Offender Registry system.

Legislator from Detroit introduces bill to create an animal abuser registry | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

In Wayne County alone, the Humane Society investigated over 5,000 cases of animal abuse in 2011. No other state has this although similar legislation has been introduced in at least five states.

Is this an idea whose time has come?

Is it really that big of a problem in Michigan?
 
Back
Top Bottom