• 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
Chiefgator said:
Did you look up that number? Then that means the stats and data is already being tracked.
If the FBI wants to investigate potential mass murderers with this data, they just have to get a warrant to examine the information. With this database/registry, no warrant would be required.
Click to expand...

Actually it means there were over 5,000 cases reported in Wayne County. There are 83 counties in Michigan and many do not even keep statistics.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And how many of those reported cases was of an animal that wasn't actually being abused? Our court system sends innocent people to prison for murder, a much more serious offense. That is of course assuming that those 5,000 reported cases are actual court convictions and not just "reports" where someone is just accused of it.
Click to expand...

One big problem is that animal abuse cases are handled on a local level and there is no uniform consistency in gathering or in keeping statistics since many counties do not even bother.
 
Actually the number of arrests alone is staggering let alone the numbers for convictions.

This site has allot of information: Pet-Abuse.Com - Home

I think a registry is a waist of time and money, but the amount of arrests and convictions is not understated in any way.
 
Blackdog said:
Actually the number of arrests alone is staggering let alone the numbers for convictions.

This site has allot of information: Pet-Abuse.Com - Home

I think a registry is a waist of time and money, but the amount of arrests and convictions is not understated in any way.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info about convictions. it is appreciated.

Hopefully , a registry would help prevent an abuser from getting an animal in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for the info about convictions. it is appreciated.

Hopefully , a registry would help prevent an abuser from getting an animal in the first place.
Click to expand...

The number of "preventions" would be miniscule by your own admission that records are sparsely kept. Heavy duty felony abuse cases may be different, but convicted felons are tracked in other ways.
 
Chiefgator said:
The number of "preventions" would be miniscule by your own admission that records are sparsely kept. Heavy duty felony abuse cases may be different, but convicted felons are tracked in other ways.
Click to expand...

That is one thing that is being taken care of in the amending of the bill.
 
This registry would be a great idea. People don't like labels, especially on their own name. Anyone who abuses an animal is human trash in my opinion. I'm actually in favor for severe consequences for abusing animals, including long term prison sentences without the possibility of parole. If you cant feed/provide for an animal, don't buy one or raise one. If you beat an animal for no reason you obviously are a complete waste of human DNA. If you can no longer take care of your animal, take it to the animal shelter instead of leaving it to die. Failing to care for an animal that is completely relying on you for its survival speaks volumes about a persons character.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Actually the number of arrests alone is staggering let alone the numbers for convictions.

This site has allot of information: Pet-Abuse.Com - Home

I think a registry is a waist of time and money, but the amount of arrests and convictions is not understated in any way.
Click to expand...
Local Animal Cruelty Case Search | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database

There's your list. Why do we need another official government list, again?

Keep in mind a couple points, also...

1) The example given is Wayne County, which includes Detroit, whose numbers are most likely waaaaaay higher than any other county in the state.

2) Many of the names on the list I cite above include investigations that are 'alleged' and 'open', which means the actual number of convictions is significantly lower. Granted, many of them, if not most, will eventually be convicted, but this is just example #12,409,844 that our society doesn't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" no matter how much we prattle on about it. We've seen this in other lists, we see it here, we have no reason to believe this list will be better, and while the challenge was laid down a few pages ago for supporters to suggests safeguards, not one supporter has attempted to do so.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but serial killers usually start off practicing on animals, so at the very least the FBI should keep tabs on the extreme cases where animals were tortured etc. That sicko is just getting warmed up.


Of course, if you can throw a football and run a fast 40, then our society seems to be more forgiving with regard to animal torture.
 
radcen said:
Would it be possible to get a copy of the text of the proposed bill?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. When I get back in the office tomorrow I will put up a link. Just keep in mind that the bill is undergoing lots of changes from its original introduction. But I will say more about that tomorrow.

The office I work for signed on as a co-sponsor. I was asked to "break it" which means find out what people object to about it. I figured this was as good of place as any to get opinion.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Absolutely. When I get back in the office tomorrow I will put up a link. Just keep in mind that the bill is undergoing lots of changes from its original introduction. But I will say more about that tomorrow.

The office I work for signed on as a co-sponsor. I was asked to "break it" which means find out what people object to about it. I figured this was as good of place as any to get opinion.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Keep in mind that I am not opposed to the idea, just that I have serious concerns about the practical application. Knowing what we know regarding other similar things, I don't feel that more of the same "unintended consequences" are acceptable.
 
radcen said:
Local Animal Cruelty Case Search | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database

There's your list. Why do we need another official government list, again?

Keep in mind a couple points, also...

1) The example given is Wayne County, which includes Detroit, whose numbers are most likely waaaaaay higher than any other county in the state.

2) Many of the names on the list I cite above include investigations that are 'alleged' and 'open', which means the actual number of convictions is significantly lower. Granted, many of them, if not most, will eventually be convicted, but this is just example #12,409,844 that our society doesn't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" no matter how much we prattle on about it. We've seen this in other lists, we see it here, we have no reason to believe this list will be better, and while the challenge was laid down a few pages ago for supporters to suggests safeguards, not one supporter has attempted to do so.
Click to expand...

Your post has nothing to do with my response at all. I don't support this kind of list as it is a waist of time. This however does not diminish the amount of arrests and convictions for animal cruelty numbers.

Please read what I am saying before you knee jerk.

Somehow you missed this "I think a registry is a waist of time and money" - Blackdog
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Your post has nothing to do with my response at all. I don't support this kind of list as it is a waist of time. This however does not diminish the amount of arrests and convictions for animal cruelty numbers.

Please read what I am saying before you knee jerk.

Somehow you missed this "I think a registry is a waist of time and money" - Blackdog
Click to expand...
My post dealt with the link in your post and how it related to what others have been saying. Yes, I suppose I should have narrowed it down. Forgive me my sins, oh great one... and take a Valium. :roll:
 
radcen said:
Thanks. Keep in mind that I am not opposed to the idea, just that I have serious concerns about the practical application. Knowing what we know regarding other similar things, I don't feel that more of the same "unintended consequences" are acceptable.
Click to expand...


No problem. Your ideas are helpful.
 
radcen said:
Took several posts to get around to it, but it appears you do approve of collateral damage. The end justifies the means, innocence is irrelevant, and as long as branding 2 people as criminals... "keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal"... so be it.
Click to expand...

Instead of an out-of-context cheap shot of putting words in my mouth, how about posting the entire thing. Then look at what I actually wrote, and respond to that.

DiAnna said:
There are literally hundreds of individual animal control-type agencies in a single state. Each has a database. It would require those databases to be consolidated into a single site to be useful.

There are certainly ways one could limit access to breeders, animal rescue organizations, those who buy/sell livestock. The public doesn't have access to no-fly lists, after all, and as for sex-offender lists, that's a whole 'nother topic. A good idea, peppered by idiocy run amuck by including someone caught urinating in public with pedophiles and rapists. The mind boggles.

Anyway, this sounds inexpensive and useful, and if it keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal, I'd like to see it tried.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Instead of an out-of-context cheap shot of putting words in my mouth, how about posting the entire thing. Then look at what I actually wrote, and respond to that.
Click to expand...
You said the "right" things, but your last sentence negated all of it.
 
radcen said:
If that's what you gleaned from my comment(s), then your reading comprehension is a HUGE FAIL.
Click to expand...

And if you think anyone is ok with or advocating for innocent people to be on any registry, then you should re-evaluate your own reading comprehension skills.
 
Hatuey said:
Absolutely not. People shouldn't have mistakes dogging them for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

Well, that stuff is a matter of public record. Why not make it actually worth something to others to have the information readily accessible?
 
MaggieD said:
Well, that stuff is a matter of public record. Why not make it actually worth something to others to have the information readily accessible?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Hatuey meant that or if he just wanted to use the word "dogging" in a thread about animals. :D
 
Blackdog said:
Actually the number of arrests alone is staggering let alone the numbers for convictions.

This site has allot of information: Pet-Abuse.Com - Home

I think a registry is a waist of time and money, but the amount of arrests and convictions is not understated in any way.
Click to expand...

Took a look there and if that is any indication of what an animal abuse registry would hold I would definitely have to say NO!

I clicked on the "searchable database of animal cruelty cases" link and then hit the "browse all cases" link after that. While looking through them I didn't once see one single "convicted" charge until page 9. The rest were generally either "open" or "alleged".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Took a look there and if that is any indication of what an animal abuse registry would hold I would definitely have to say NO!

I clicked on the "searchable database of animal cruelty cases" link and then hit the "browse all cases" link after that. While looking through them I didn't once see one single "convicted" charge until page 9. The rest were generally either "open" or "alleged".
Click to expand...

Agreed. With this, you would get your name permanently tarnished just because you were "hoarding"? Come on, let the cat ladies enjoy themselves.
 
MaggieD said:
Dead link.
Click to expand...

Really!?!?!? When I click on it I get the Michigan House screen and in blue is the bill. Maybe my comptuter gets it an no other. I will try a different way.

btw - bi partisan support today from the Republican chair ofthe Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jones On Board With Animal Registry

Rep. Harvey SANTANA (D-Detroit) has picked up some key support for his proposed animal abuser registry patterned after the state's sex offender registry.

Count the Senate Judiciary Chair Rick JONES (R-Grand Ledge) as a yes vote.

"The sick, perverted people that torture dogs and cats should be on a list," the former Eaton County Sheriff told MIRS.

Both he and Santana point to the list of mass murderers who began their criminal ways by mutilating animals and moving on to humans.

Jones recalls the local case of Donald MILLER, who not only killed his fiancé in a famous case in Lansing during the late 1970s but also went on to murder three more victims and was caught trying to kill a fifth victim when he was arrested by authorities.

"I worked on that case, and reportedly he abused animals" before he became a mass killer," Jones said.

Santana uses the Jeffrey DAHMER case as his example of how animal abuse can be a launching pad for murderers. Dahmer killed, and in some cases consumed, the human remains of 17 men and boys he lured to his home. It was shown that prior to that crime spree he dismembered small animals in the woods behind his house as a young man.

Santana, appearing on Off the Record, draws a line from animal abuse to spousal abuse as well.

"There's a study out there that says a woman is subject to sexual abuse if she marries a man who was guilty of animal abuse," Santana said.

Santana said he's been told by the chair of the House Judiciary Committee that the proposal has merit, but Rep. John WALSH (R-Livonia) said he has other issues at the head of the line before he can tackle this.
Click to expand...

from MIERS News Service
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom