• 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
haymarket said:
Michigan Legislature - House Bill 5403 (2012)

Lets try this. It works for me - but again - my State computer may be set to get it... cross your fingers.
Click to expand...

. A registration shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The individual's name, social security number, date of birth, and address or expected address. An individual who is in a witness protection and relocation program is only required to use the name and identifying information reflecting his or her new identity in a registration under this act. The registration and compilation databases shall not contain any information identifying the individual's prior identity or locale. The department shall request each individual to provide his or her date of birth if it is not included in the registration, and that individual shall comply with the request within 10 days.

(b) A brief summary of the individual's convictions for animal abuse offenses regardless of when the conviction occurred, including where the offense occurred and the original charge if the conviction was for a lesser offense.

(c) A complete physical description of the individual.

(d) The photograph required under section 9.

(e) The individual's fingerprints if not already on file with the department. The department shall forward a copy of the individual's fingerprints to the federal bureau of investigation if not already on file with that bureau.

(2) A registration may contain the individual's blood type and whether a DNA identification profile of the individual is
available.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with any of this. Animal abuse is horrific. Some public shame should be attached to it. This accomplishes that quite well.
 
I am very passionate about the issue of animal abuse. I've thought about this for the last couple of days since this thread began.

While I would like to see animal abusers punished - severely - I think I am not in favor of adding this registry. We are drowning in laws and I just can't support more of them.

Animal abuse is one of those categories where arrests and conviction don't cover even a fraction of the crimes. Kind of like drug laws. This registry won't stop anyone from getting an animal from Craig's List. It's just more bureaucracy of the "feel good" type. As another poster pointed out, you'll end up with the Cat Ladies populating the list because they broke a zoning law. I'm a "Cat Lady" and I have never done anything but help, restore, nourish and relocate cats.

Just like gun laws, how about punishing the criminals, and only the criminals.
 
specklebang said:
I am very passionate about the issue of animal abuse. I've thought about this for the last couple of days since this thread began.

While I would like to see animal abusers punished - severely - I think I am not in favor of adding this registry. We are drowning in laws and I just can't support more of them.

Animal abuse is one of those categories where arrests and conviction don't cover even a fraction of the crimes. Kind of like drug laws. This registry won't stop anyone from getting an animal from Craig's List. It's just more bureaucracy of the "feel good" type. As another poster pointed out, you'll end up with the Cat Ladies populating the list because they broke a zoning law. I'm a "Cat Lady" and I have never done anything but help, restore, nourish and relocate cats.

Just like gun laws, how about punishing the criminals, and only the criminals.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that input. Is there any suggestions you can make that would speak to some of your concerns and imporve this bill? I will gladly pass them on to the bills sponsors.
 
I'll give this some thought and respond after careful consideration. Thank you for caring.

haymarket said:
Thank you for that input. Is there any suggestions you can make that would speak to some of your concerns and imporve this bill? I will gladly pass them on to the bills sponsors.
Click to expand...
 
. A registration shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The individual's name, social security number, date of birth, and address or expected address. An individual who is in a witness protection and relocation program is only required to use the name and identifying information reflecting his or her new identity in a registration under this act. The registration and compilation databases shall not contain any information identifying the individual's prior identity or locale. The department shall request each individual to provide his or her date of birth if it is not included in the registration, and that individual shall comply with the request within 10 days.

(b) A brief summary of the individual's convictions for animal abuse offenses regardless of when the conviction occurred, including where the offense occurred and the original charge if the conviction was for a lesser offense.

(c) A complete physical description of the individual.

(d) The photograph required under section 9.

(e) The individual's fingerprints if not already on file with the department. The department shall forward a copy of the individual's fingerprints to the federal bureau of investigation if not already on file with that bureau.

(2) A registration may contain the individual's blood type and whether a DNA identification profile of the individual is available.
Click to expand...
Some initial thoughts...

(a) SSN and DOB? No. Absolutely, no! One, each does nothing necessary to alert people. It's just superfluous information. Two, including each encourages ID theft by other people. It's one thing to want to thwart animal abusers. It's quite another encourage other ID thieves committing their crimes. All that does is increase and expand additional criminal activity. We shouldn't be encouraging more crime. This is a PERFECT example of the negative "unintended consequences" I have been railing against.

(b). Original charge? No. Yes, I know the justice system isn't perfect, and some would fall through the cracks, but we either believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or we are a bunch of hypocrites. Convictions only. Period.

(c) Fine.

(d) Fine.

(e) Seems redundant, but if it makes us feel better, whatever.

(f) Again, seems redundant and unnecessary. Especially if the state already has a law that says these things are collected from criminals or alleged criminals of any sort.

In this form, I could not support the bill.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I have no problems with any of this. Animal abuse is horrific. Some public shame should be attached to it. This accomplishes that quite well.
Click to expand...

What to you is animal abuse? What it is to someone that is in PETA? If I spanked my cat and rubbed his/her nose in their urine for pissing on the carpet in the living room would that be considered animal abuse? Spraying them with water via a water bottle? What?
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great question. What if we put something into the law which said that anyonewho believes they are wrongly on the animal abuse registry can apply to remove their name if tney can demonstrate sufficient cause or good reason - like if its a different John Jones in the same town.
 
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...

Okay - so what is to stop somebody on this list from buying more animals? That is what I do not get?
 
Pondering this and I'm against the whole idea. If this is a convicted animal abuser, the police know and there is no reason to make a public list unless you're hoping that some animal lover (like me) gets in a rage and decides to kill you. I doubt that you'd catch me either since you won't know who accessed the list and how the data was further disseminated.

It offers no protection to animals. Sure, the pound won't let you have one but they should have their own list anyway. Am I going to refuse to live in a neighborhood because there's an animal abuser nearby? Will breeders (may they be cursed) bother to check the list and refuse a sale? Ha. If one of my neighbors abused an animal, was caught and punished, how is this any of MY business?

The more I think about it, the more I am opposed. If you were caught, tried and convicted and you served your time, then only LE has any reason to know this. Indeed, I feel the same way about all other crimes including pedophile crimes. The only exception might be a registry where IF I were considering moving to a neighborhood AND I had children, I could inquire to be assured no child sex offenders lived nearby.

What will be next? Drug offenders registry? Burglar Registry? Littering Registry? Homicide Registry?

I'm usually not controversial and I realize that this will cause a bunch of people to push the DISLIKE button but I just think it's a really, really bad idea.
 
haymarket said:
Great question. What if we put something into the law which said that anyonewho believes they are wrongly on the animal abuse registry can apply to remove their name if tney can demonstrate sufficient cause or good reason - like if its a different John Jones in the same town.
Click to expand...
I know I can get very cynical, but the ability to be removed from a registry if one is unfairly included has to be real and honest. No empty verbiage saying it can be done, but then supplying no path, or worse, making the path so difficult that there might as well not be a path at all.


haymarket said:
Okay - so what is to stop somebody on this list from buying more animals? That is what I do not get?
Click to expand...
In that case I was being semi-facetious trying to make a point that the information is already out there in some form or another.
 
In the end a registry such as this does nothing but keep the punishment going for the entire life of a person. What is the use of even letting criminals out of jail/prison if they are just going to be punished for the rest of their lives?
 
haymarket said:
Okay - so what is to stop somebody on this list from buying more animals? That is what I do not get?
Click to expand...

Nothing.... And this list won't stop anyone from getting them either.

If a criminal wants a gun, he can get one. If a drug user wants drugs, he can get them. If a panty sniffer wants panties, he can get them....

This may alter their behavior a bit. Now they will use Craigslist and the classifieds instead of the pound or a breeder. In the end it will be a hassle and an adder expense to regular folks and to the pound. It will also unfairly make a reformed/rehabilitated person a target for over zealous PETA types.

If you don't think PETA will take that list and use it to hassle people, you are delusional.
 
radcen said:
Some initial thoughts...

(a) SSN and DOB? No. Absolutely, no! One, each does nothing necessary to alert people. It's just superfluous information. Two, including each encourages ID theft by other people. It's one thing to want to thwart animal abusers. It's quite another encourage other ID thieves committing their crimes. All that does is increase and expand additional criminal activity. We shouldn't be encouraging more crime. This is a PERFECT example of the negative "unintended consequences" I have been railing against.

(b). Original charge? No. Yes, I know the justice system isn't perfect, and some would fall through the cracks, but we either believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or we are a bunch of hypocrites. Convictions only. Period.

(c) Fine.

(d) Fine.

(e) Seems redundant, but if it makes us feel better, whatever.

(f) Again, seems redundant and unnecessary. Especially if the state already has a law that says these things are collected from criminals or alleged criminals of any sort.

In this form, I could not support the bill.
Click to expand...

there are two levels to the bill.

On the first, the public would be able to access it to get names and photo's of offenders. On the second, only specific people listed in the bill associated with law enforcement and animal protection would be able to access the fuller data base with things like date of birth and SS numbers.

The original charge would be be listed - only the charge they have been convicted of.
 
Chiefgator said:
Nothing.... And this list won't stop anyone from getting them either.

If a criminal wants a gun, he can get one. If a drug user wants drugs, he can get them. If a panty sniffer wants panties, he can get them....

This may alter their behavior a bit. Now they will use Craigslist and the classifieds instead of the pound or a breeder. In the end it will be a hassle and an adder expense to regular folks and to the pound. It will also unfairly make a reformed/rehabilitated person a target for over zealous PETA types.

If you don't think PETA will take that list and use it to hassle people, you are delusional.
Click to expand...

I brought up the Craigs list issue at the afternoon meeting where we rewrote sections of the bill. We are developing a strategy for that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
In the end a registry such as this does nothing but keep the punishment going for the entire life of a person. What is the use of even letting criminals out of jail/prison if they are just going to be punished for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...

Not true. They are on it for five years.
 
radcen said:
I know I can get very cynical, but the ability to be removed from a registry if one is unfairly included has to be real and honest. No empty verbiage saying it can be done, but then supplying no path, or worse, making the path so difficult that there might as well not be a path at all.



In that case I was being semi-facetious trying to make a point that the information is already out there in some form or another.
Click to expand...

There is a provision in the bill for that and we strengthened it this afternoon. We should have the new language by the end of the week or early next week. It provides a clear and fast way to get off the list if you do not belong on it and puts the onus on the State to prove at a hearing within thirty days from the complain that you do belong on it or they must take you off.

Thanks to everyone for helping to make this better.
 
haymarket said:
Not true. They are on it for five years.
Click to expand...

Maybe on that list. But as anyone should know...once something is put on the internet it is there permanently. People will copy what is on that list and reproduce it over and over and over. You cannot stop that, no matter how much you legislate.

And what about the PETA types? What are you going to do to stop them from harrassing those on that list? Ultimately there is no way. Westboro Baptist Church showed that.

How are you going to address the problem of people not getting jobs because of being on that list? Even if they were simply on there due to having too many animals on a property which can be considered abuse, no matter how well they were taking care of. Even if the job that they applied to has nothing to do with animals.

As for your "craigslist" strategy that can mean nothing but trouble for the common innocent person. Not to mention interfereing with private sales which even the Feds have yet been able to do constitutionally.
 
from Kal'Stang

Maybe on that list. But as anyone should know...once something is put on the internet it is there permanently. People will copy what is on that list and reproduce it over and over and over. You cannot stop that, no matter how much you legislate.
Click to expand...

That sort of speculation is unfounded. Does it happen now as people discover criminals? I think you are grasping at straws.

And what about the PETA types? What are you going to do to stop them from harrassing those on that list? Ultimately there is no way. Westboro Baptist Church showed that.
Click to expand...

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

How are you going to address the problem of people not getting jobs because of being on that list? Even if they were simply on there due to having too many animals on a property which can be considered abuse, no matter how well they were taking care of. Even if the job that they applied to has nothing to do with animals.
Click to expand...

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.
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.

As for your "craigslist" strategy that can mean nothing but trouble for the common innocent person. Not to mention interfereing with private sales which even the Feds have yet been able to do constitutionally.
Click to expand...

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?

I really get the impression that if I did find a way to neutralize ten of your major objections to this list, you would only dismiss it and come up with more.
 
All these sorts of lists need to go away. I can't believe there are people who would honestly endorse this type of Big Brother tactic against their own people. We do not need to database ourselves even further; the government has already assumed too much on this front. And you guys just keep shoveling more right to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And what about the PETA types? What are you going to do to stop them from harrassing those on that list? Ultimately there is no way. Westboro Baptist Church showed that.
Click to expand...

It's all a matter of public record. What is the problem with actually having it public enough to do people some good?

How are you going to address the problem of people not getting jobs because of being on that list? Even if they were simply on there due to having too many animals on a property which can be considered abuse, no matter how well they were taking care of. Even if the job that they applied to has nothing to do with animals.
Click to expand...

Having too many animals on a property is a zoning violation...not animal abuse. I hope the list has a brief description of what the person actually did, though. Using 1st-2nd-3rd degree animal abuse notations doesn't tell the whole story.

[
 
Ikari said:
All these sorts of lists need to go away. I can't believe there are people who would honestly endorse this type of Big Brother tactic against their own people. We do not need to database ourselves even further; the government has already assumed too much on this front. And you guys just keep shoveling more right to them.
Click to expand...

An animal abuser is not considered to be one of my "own people."


This measure is a positive step for an invisible yet important population which we as a society have domesticated and invited to be our companions and guides in some instances. Moreover, it serves as a index for those who wish to use it when viewing those who commit violence against my people and seeking the correction between violence against animals and the antisocial personality.
 
Connery said:
An animal abuser is not considered to be one of my "own people."


This measure is a positive step for an invisible yet important population which we as a society have domesticated and invited to be our companions and guides in some instances. Moreover, it serves as a index for those who wish to use it when viewing those who commit violence against my people and seeking the correction between violence against animals and the antisocial personality.
Click to expand...

Bull**** excuse for even more government intervention into our lives. It's an animal and we have laws to punish those who break them. This however does not mean we need to publicly humiliate people for animal abuse or give the government more control.
 
MaggieD said:
It's all a matter of public record. What is the problem with actually having it public enough to do people some good?
Click to expand...

What good can come of this? Our cats will be safe? I just don't see it.

MaggieD said:
Having too many animals on a property is a zoning violation...not animal abuse. I hope the list has a brief description of what the person actually did, though. Using 1st-2nd-3rd degree animal abuse notations doesn't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet money people would end up on this list for any infraction that involves an animal. Hell the list they have now includes people not even convicted of anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom