• 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
shelphs said:
The system also proclaims that religion and government are separate, but that is clearly a fallacy (look on money, political candidacy and law based on Christian values, i.e., the Bible - gay marriage). Also, once a convicted criminal in Kentucky or Virginia, voting rights are forever suspended. What you describe does not exist.
Click to expand...

Religion and government are seperate in the way that it is suppose to be. The seperation of church and state was so that the government could not make a law regarding religion. No where does it say that religion cannot be used for the basis of a law.

And if that is true about Virginia then that is exactly the type of problem that I am percieving.

shelphs said:
I don't agree with it, but the justice system is obviously not based on "once a person serves their time and paid their dues then they are suppose to be free" in the most free interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, anymore that is not the way the system is. But that is the way that it is suppose to be.

shelphs said:
Serial repeat offenders are a danger. Stereotypes that prohibit freedom should not be advanced, but stereotypes that predict repeat offense should be taken seriously. Rather than keeping such people locked up, societal measures, precautions are taken to allow for their freedom but also allow for the protection of those in the same community as those who serial offend others.
Click to expand...

If a person is a risk of repeating a crime then don't you think that they should not be released from prison? Someone that wants to do the crime again is not going to care about some stupid registry. And even if people look someone up in a registry that is not going to stop the repeat offender from doing the crime again it only takes about an hour an a half to drive 50 miles from their neighborhood to an area where no one knows him/her.

shelphs said:
[how do you mean "treat the problem"]
Click to expand...

Find a solution. Why do people that really do abuse animals abuse them? Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it upbringing? What? Find out the cause and address it. Continueal punishment is getting us no where fast.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No its not really a good law. It opens up things like vigilantism, prejudice, bigotry.

Our whole justice system is based on the idea that once a person serves their time and paid their dues then they are suppose to be free. How can they be free when they are not allowed the same rights as other people? The right to be safe and secure. The right to privacy. The right to not be harrassed.

I fully believe that instead of further punishing these people, be they truely pedophiles, animal abusers, theifs or whatever then you need to treat the actual problem. Not make life harder on them after they have paid their dues while totally ignoring the problem.
Click to expand...

You are confusing a historical model of prison time with a proper sentence for a crime. Today, we use a combination of possible jail or prison time, supervised parole, and registry for some offenses. That is considered a better alternative than simply locking a person up for what could be a long and expensive prison sentence. In our state, it can cost between $30 and $35 thousand dollars to house an inmate in prison. And we have over 40,000 inmates. Crimes against animals are given a lower priority than crimes against humans. Sentences for killing or torturing or maiming animals are significantly shorter than crimes against people. So we have to use a different approach with varied components to better serve the public and meet our obligation of fiscal responsibility.

So to get locked into this idea that "I did my time" because you served a short jail sentence, is antiquated and no longer relevant. The dues to be paid today are not those of days gone by - nor should they be. As society and the nation changes, so must the methodology we use to fight crime. Change and adaption are among the essence of responding to the world around us. We no longer use the dunking chair or the stocks of the 17th century.

I too favor treatment. And when we develop that treatment please let me know when that happens. And when we as a society are willing to fully fund that treatment let me know on that count also please.

Criminals convicted in a court of law give up certain rights. That is simply the way the system works.
 
Absolutely a good idea. Regarding violence why do we treat innocent animals any different than innocent children? They have no way to protect themselves from humans who want to hurt them and no way to get help, they rely on humans to help them when in need.

I have not read the whole thread, but I am surprised by the poll results. Is lighting a hamster on fire excusable? I usually do not agree wit these types of laws because it makes it more difficult for offenders to participate in society. The reality is that there are not many protections for animals and animal abuse is a precursor to abuse of humans, even to the level of murder.
 
taxigirl said:
Absolutely a good idea. Regarding violence why do we treat innocent animals any different than innocent children? They have no way to protect themselves from humans who want to hurt them and no way to get help, they rely on humans to help them when in need.

I have not read the whole thread, but I am surprised by the poll results. Is lighting a hamster on fire excusable? I usually do not agree wit these types of laws because it makes it more difficult for offenders to participate in society. The reality is that there are not many protections for animals and animal abuse is a precursor to abuse of humans, even to the level of murder.
Click to expand...

All of those points have been addressed. Here is the Readers Digest condensed version:
People had concerns about cat ladies and animal hoarders getting needlessly put on the list.
Haymarket answered those concerns and stated the bill does not include such persons, saying they were Mental Disorders and not under the law. The counter was that ALL Animal abuse was mental disorders and the law would cover that eventually.

People had concerned about the time on the list - that lifetime was too long.
Haymarket answered that pointing out the five year limit. The counter to that was that a 5 year data base does very little in the way of tracking potential murderers. Additionally, any list on the internet is there for perpituity, somewhere...

People were concerned about an average citizen being able to get your social security and other data.
Haymarket answered that pointing out they could not. No real counter to that.

People brought up the Craigs List/Private sales problem.
Haymarket stated we were working on that problem right now. The counter is that there is no way that it will ever be effective in this area because you cannot limit the private sales without seriously infringing on people's rights.

As to not being able to show the list will not be abused by PETA.......Haymarket also cannot disprove a claim that three inch monkeys made of blue flame play professional basketball underneath the surface of Uranus................. That one speaks for itself.

The current discussion has turned to 4th and 8th Amendment rights.

The Gorilla in the room however is it's effectiveness.
There are two counties that have enacted a similar list. No data has been shown that there has been a single time where this list was accessed and a person was turned away from buying an animal. So, if it has never shown any effectiveness, why go through the cost and trouble to pass the law, put the extra burden on people that just want a puppy, on shelters that want to rescue a puppy, and pay to employ people to track said list if it has never shown any results.

I will give Haymarket and the supporters of the bill this: The 2 counties have not reported any harrassment from PETA types after having found names that are on the list.
Click to expand...

KalStang , Haymarket et al: Did I miss anything?
 
Chiefgator

on the mental disorder issue: the proposed law treats animal hoarders - the cat ladies - as a mental disorder. It does not treat all animal abuse as such. I imagine someone could make a case that ALL human violent behavior - is a form of mental disorder regardless if directed towards animals or humans. And there may be some support for that. Our intention is to try to help animals from those who INTEND to do them harm - regardless of their internal mental motivations. Intent in the law is very important.

as to the five year time limit - I note that one of the NY counties has just changed theirs to ten years. Would you favor that extension?

your summary of the two NY counties is dishonest. Both were just enacted and it is far too early to judge the effectiveness of either at this point.

as to the "extra burden" this places on buyers and sellers - I simply do not think this is a big deal. With the proper technology and data base, it should take mere minutes . If you consider a few minutes out of your busy day a major inconvenience - that is your opinion. I consider it a very small price to pay in defense of animals who cannot protect themselves.

As to abuse by PETA - when it happens please let me know. Until then, its just wild speculation based on a motivation to cause the bill to fail.
 
Nvm. Wrong thread response. :peace
 
This is one example of how humans can treat animals. Someone left this dog on her own. Fortunately, there wee some wonderful people that rescued her. Whoever abandoned life precious life does not deserve to EVER have an animal again. Please take a couple minutes to watch.
Thanks

[video]http://www.godvine.com/Blind-Dog-Living-in-a-Trash-Pile-Gets-Rescued-1290.html[/video]
 
Last edited:
taxigirl said:
This is one example of how humans can treat animals. Someone left this dog on her own. Fortunately, there wee some wonderful people that rescued her. Whoever abandoned life precious life does not deserve to EVER have an animal again. Please take a couple minutes to watch.
Thanks

[video]http://www.godvine.com/Blind-Dog-Living-in-a-Trash-Pile-Gets-Rescued-1290.html[/video]
Click to expand...

This is the kind of feel good hyperbole that is just stupid.

#1 In the video it was obviously an industrial area. We don't know if the dog was abandoned, ran away, or a junk yard dog now do we?

It is good that Fiona was rescued and seems like a great dog. This however does not make anyone a criminal. We have an industrial park that has hundreds of cats in the area. I guess someone abandoned all the feral cats that have been there for as long as anyone can remember? We have packs of dogs as well.

So trying the appeal to emotion is bull****.
 
Blackdog said:
This is the kind of feel good hyperbole that is just stupid.

#1 In the video it was obviously an industrial area. We don't know if the dog was abandoned, ran away, or a junk yard dog now do we?

It is good that Fiona was rescued and seems like a great dog. This however does not make anyone a criminal. We have an industrial park that has hundreds of cats in the area. I guess someone abandoned all the feral cats that have been there for as long as anyone can remember? We have packs of dogs as well.

So trying the appeal to emotion is bull****.
Click to expand...
So emotion should never play a part in our decisions relating to anything? I thought it was a nice story

Don't emotions play a part in every decision we make? We are swayed one way or another based on preference. We got that preference from somewhere, sometimes it is strictly rational thought and sometimes it is not. When it comes to compassion I think emotion plays a large role.

Edit:
As for your assertion regarding where the dog came from, you are right I did make some assumptions. I also looked at how the dog reacted to human touch and attention. She let them shave and bathe her without a fuss, She seemed to adapt to being in a house quickly and was part of the family unit. I believe those things are evidence that she had lived in a house before.

In addition, how long could a completely blind dog survive out there with no help?
 
Last edited:
taxigirl said:
So emotion should never play a part in our decisions relating to anything? I thought it was a nice story
Click to expand...

It was an excellent story and it was emotional which is just fine. The fact is you made a false assumption which brought your explanation to a false conclusion that in no way supports what is being discussed.

In other words you made an appeal to emotion fallacy based on what you wanted to see rather than anything based on fact.

taxigirl said:
Don't emotions play a part in every decision we make? We are swayed one way or another based on preference. We got that preference from somewhere, sometimes it is strictly rational thought and sometimes it is not. When it comes to compassion I think emotion plays a large role.
Click to expand...

Emotion is a great and wonderful thing. It often leads to great evil as well as great good. In this case it is impossible to know. Most of the time logic and common sense are much more effective.

taxigirl said:
Edit:
As for your assertion regarding where the dog came from, you are right I did make some assumptions. I also looked at how the dog reacted to human touch and attention. She let them shave and bathe her without a fuss, She seemed to adapt to being in a house quickly and was part of the family unit. I believe those things are evidence that she had lived in a house before.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. It also peed on itself it was so scared. So this is not evidence of anything other than it was a friendly dog.

taxigirl said:
In addition, how long could a completely blind dog survive out there with no help?
Click to expand...

Do you know why it was blind? Do you know how long it was blind? It looked like it was not under nourished or beaten. Plenty of stray dogs live many years. They even learn to cross with traffic lights etc. Dogs are intelligent and can adapt just like cats, birds etc. This is why you have a flock of parakeets surviving Chicago winters etc. even though they come from South America.

So I would say your emotion brought you to a conclusion that was not backed up by any evidence. I am not saying you are wrong in your assumption, but it makes it no less hyperbole based on a fallacy appeal to emotion.
 
taxigirl said:
This is one example of how humans can treat animals. Someone left this dog on her own. Fortunately, there wee some wonderful people that rescued her. Whoever abandoned life precious life does not deserve to EVER have an animal again. Please take a couple minutes to watch.
Thanks

[video]http://www.godvine.com/Blind-Dog-Living-in-a-Trash-Pile-Gets-Rescued-1290.html[/video]
Click to expand...

So how is this registry suppose to stop someone from picking a dog like this up and abusing it at home?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So how is this registry suppose to stop someone from picking a dog like this up and abusing it at home?
Click to expand...

Well in all honesty as much as I agree, it is really not set up for something like that to begin with.
 
taxigirl said:
Absolutely a good idea. Regarding violence why do we treat innocent animals any different than innocent children?
Click to expand...

Because animals are ultimately a form of property while humans are not.
 
Blackdog said:
Well in all honesty as much as I agree, it is really not set up for something like that to begin with.
Click to expand...

And as I have said all along... If this registry does ANYTHING to an animal abuser, it changes his approach a bit. Nothing more. The net sum gain is a financial loss by the state and taxpayers and not a single criminal is stopped and not a single animal is saved.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So how is this registry suppose to stop someone from picking a dog like this up and abusing it at home?
Click to expand...

You want perfection? Some believe heaven offers it. While you remain in this world you will not find it so you should stop looking or demanding it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So this registry ultimately stops nothing.
Click to expand...

That is a hyperbolic absurd statement. It will stop a convicted animal abuser from purchasing or adopting an animal from a pet store, shelter, pound, breeder or other commercial venture. And that is where a significant percentage of animals are obtained. We have been told that it would well cover a majority of pet procurements. That is how the law is written and how the law will work.
 
Last edited:
Chiefgator said:
And as I have said all along... If this registry does ANYTHING to an animal abuser, it changes his approach a bit. Nothing more. The net sum gain is a financial loss by the state and taxpayers and not a single criminal is stopped and not a single animal is saved.
Click to expand...

Your ability to predict the future is amazing in the extreme.

But just so we know this ability is credible, could you provide the winning lottery numbers in next weeks Power Ball?
 
haymarket said:
You want perfection? Some believe heaven offers it. While you remain in this world you will not find it so you should stop looking or demanding it.
Click to expand...

We can get as near to perfection as is possible even if we can't actually achieve it.

haymarket said:
That is a hyperbolic absurd statement. It will stop a convicted animal abuser from purchasing or adopting an animal from a pet store, shelter, pound, breeder or other commercial venture. And that is where a significant percentage of animals are obtained. We have been told that it would well cover a majority of pet procurements. That is how the law is written and how the law will work.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic? That's rich considering you keep bringing up the whole "perfection" thing when I have not once demanded it.

First I would love to see statistics showing that people mainly obtain pets via those methods. The majority of pet procurements are actually done via private sales around where I live. In fact there is 1 animal store 35 miles from where I live and 3 animal shelters in the whole of 2 counties. Yet you go to the local newspaper and you will see at least half a dozen people offering up free animals and another half a dozen offering to sell you an animal.

BTW...got a revised bill for us yet? One that addresses our concerns?
 
haymarket said:
Your ability to predict the future is amazing in the extreme.

But just so we know this ability is credible, could you provide the winning lottery numbers in next weeks Power Ball?
Click to expand...

Don't need clairvoyance to know this. Simple knowledge of they way humans are will tell you it. Ask any criminal psychologist.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So this registry ultimately stops nothing.
Click to expand...

It is supposed to stop convicted animal abusers from legally purchasing animals with the specific purpose of abusing the animal. It is not meant to stop everyone every time. If this were the case all laws are a waist of time.
 
Blackdog said:
It is supposed to stop convicted animal abusers from legally purchasing animals with the specific purpose of abusing the animal. It is not meant to stop everyone every time. If this were the case all laws are a waist of time.
Click to expand...

I understand this. But the same can be done via a normal background check. Which also takes just a few minuets. As such a public registry is useless.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I understand this. But the same can be done via a normal background check. Which also takes just a few minuets. As such a public registry is useless.
Click to expand...

Agreed since it is a public record anyway. Like I said it is nothing but feel better revenge legislation and nothing more.
 
Ikari said:
Because animals are ultimately a form of property while humans are not.
Click to expand...

Yes, and women and children and slaves were once property as well. Like many companions, I consider my cats part of my family and I treat them with respect. I do not "own" them.

As for those of you who think my video was my to tear at emotions, I will state once again, I thought it was a nice story. I also think many assumptions have been made be everyone, including myself that the dog was abandoned, that it was feral etc... I went on the evidence presented in the video that the dog did not appear fearful once the humans were holding it. It seemed to adapt well to life in a house, if you have ever had a feral per you know the transition is very difficult -- that is what I based my assumptions on. I mostly posted it because a friend had passed it on to me as a animal story with a good outcome. I truly admire the people who rescue animals because they do work that no one should have to. I also admire them because I would not have the strength to do it. I would have been lying on the ground with the dog probably crying because of its condition.

Now that that is out of the way -- as for the registry, some of you have suggested background checks, that may suffice. I think there should be some sort of safeguard in place so abusive folks can't do this time and time again. In my city there several shelters and many stores, I know some adoptions occur through private means, but there are plenty of animals in shelters who need to be adopted into a loving environment.

Call me a sap if you want, I think that the animals humans have domesticated deserve better than being considered "property".
 
taxigirl said:
Yes, and women and children and slaves were once property as well. Like many companions, I consider my cats part of my family and I treat them with respect. I do not "own" them.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, if that is the case then if someone came to your house, called to your adult pets and your pets went to them it would be safe to assume that you would let that person take them home? After all the cats went willingly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom