California proposes registry for animal abusers (like the one for sex offenders)

[alp227]

Lawmakers Consider an Animal Abuse Registry
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: February 21, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.

The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.

Mr. Florez, a Democrat who is chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee, said the law would provide information for those who “have animals and want to take care of them,” a broad contingent in California, with its large farming interests and millions of pet owners. Animal protection is also, he said, a rare bipartisan issue in the state, which has suffered bitter partisan finger-pointing in the wake of protracted budget woes.

“We have done well with these laws,” he said.

Last fall, California became the first state to outlaw so-called tail-docking of dairy cows, where the tail is partly amputated to ease milking. In 2008, voters in the state passed Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. That law has upset many in the California egg industry and prompted some agriculturally-minded residents to even talk about seceding from the state.

Under Mr. Florez’s bill, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.

The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.

“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/us/22abuse.html

[Greenpeach]

1. Yes!

Thank you Dean Florez.

[emilyg]

2. Good.

[havocmom]

3. A registry for people who insist on denying full civil rights to others...

that would get my support too.

[HillbillyBob]

4. As HillWilliam has said to me years ago

"If someone will abuse an animal, sooner or later they will abuse people"
Domestic animals are under our care and should be treated with love.

[MadHound]

5. No, nononononono.

As much as I loathe animal abusers I don't think that we should be creating a registry of them. It's just one more step down that slippery slope. Sex offender registry, animal abuser registry, drug registry, etc. etc.

Sorry, I can't go there.

[LeftyMom]

9. There are a lot of informal lists of convicted abusers, bad rescues, etc.

The problem is that they're well, informal. So a lot of people who do small time rescue either don't know they're out there, a lot of abusers wind up on list X but not lists Y and Z, etc.

A formal list would help get animals into safe homes. That's a good thing.

[Better Today]

16. Formal, but not public, then.

[Tumbulu]

6. Yes, this is excellent

especially if egg producers who do not follow the new law get listed. I am happy to read this and hope sincerely that it passes.

[xchrom]

7. Strongly recommend

[EFerrari]

8. Good. Just do it.

[951-Riverside]

10. I prefer a registry for convicted rapists and special plates for repeat drunk drivers n/t.

[Lyric]

11. I oppose all registries as a matter of course.

I hope all "registries" are dismantled, because they are incredibly unfair and seem to be based more on outrage and subjective morality than on any logical plan to reduce crime and/or protect society from serious threats. As it is now, if a guy pees in public and gets caught, he gets "registered." If a guy murders ten children but doesn't do anything sexual to them before killing them, then he's NOT registered.

The "recidivist" argument fails utterly with me, because the violent crime with the HIGHEST rate of recidivism is domestic abuse; people convicted of that are more likely to re-offend than ANY other violent crime, period. So where's the wife-beater registry? Where's the child-abuser registry? We register relatively-harmless idiots who flash their dicks at old ladies, but we don't care about people with long, sordid histories of domestic and child abuse? Tell me, fellow parents--if you have a dick-flasher as your left-side neighbor and a convicted child murderer as your right-side neighbor, which one do you feel is of the greatest threat to your kids?

And then, of course, there's the fact that registries punish people for crimes in vague ways that reach far beyond their actual sentences, and the Constitution doesn't really jive well with punishing someone twice for the same exact crime.

Here's a grand idea: get rid of the damned registries, and make the original sentences harsher. If we all feel that sex offenders are SOOOOOO terrible that they need to be monitored for the rest of their lives, then stop letting them out of prison! Instead of forcing people to live under bridges, keep them in fucking jail where they belong. Make the sentence for child molestation a lifetime sentence, no parole. Same with rape, sexual assault, and other violent sex crimes. The rest of the "lesser" sex offenders who aren't considered serious threats to society? People like the idiotic dick-flashers, the peeing-in-public types, the guy who got arrested for being naked in his own living room? People who don't cause any actual harm except to our senses of propriety and prudery? Try them, sentence them, and then let them go when their sentences and probation periods are done. I'm sick to death of "registries."

[Kali]

12. ...

:thumbsup:

[Brickbat]

21. Thanks for a voice of sanity.

Well said.

[jgraz]

13. This will be incredibly helpful to those of us in the animal rescue biz

Having a registry will make it easier to avoid adopting to serial abusers.

[Better Today]

14. I can see having a private listing for enforcement officials as you

comment, animal abusers sometimes lead into other crimes.

But the purpose of a public listing for sex offenders has the purpose of keeping the public aware of a potential hazard to their children. Animal abusers don't generally kidnap, or steal, other individuals animals to abuse. So even if one lived down the street, I wouldn't be in anyway worried about my animals. There's no legitimate public safety issue for a public list.

[Lance_Boyle]

27. 'Animal abusers don't generally kidnap, or steal, other individuals animals to abuse.'

Theft of pets as "bait" for dogfighting operations is far more common than you might think.

The premise of your post is pretty much just incorrect.

[Kablooie]

15. Does that mean they can't live within 100 yards of an animal?

[zonkers]

17. California may be fucked up in many but nowhere exists a greater concentration of forward thinkers.

[Wizard777]

18. We need a registry of people who want to make registries.

We need to know who all these Big Brothers are and where they live.

[pecwae]

19. Good, get it passed asap.

[CBGLuthier]

20. how many teachers will they fire to pay for it?

[warrior1]

22. I was just going to say

Great, now my department will get more money. But who will get cut. Probably what will happen, it'll pass with no funding to implement.

[galileoreloaded]

23. With the money we spend on pets in the US, we could provide health care to everyone.

Same goes for video games. Billions and billions on fucking Grand Theft Auto and Fluffy.

Our priorities are fucked.

[Coventina]

24. So if we all stop having pets and playing video games we can

afford to pay for our own health care?

[LeftyMom]

25. Animals are part of "everybody."

[galileoreloaded]

26. Well, I don't eat "everbody" but I do eat animals, so we shall respectfull disagree. n/t

[LeftyMom]

31. You're an animal.

Any worldview that doesn't reflect the fact that humans are animals, and thus there's no gaping moral divide, is a century and a half out of date.

[galileoreloaded]

32. Of COURSE I am an animal. That is my point. But I am also a predator. n/t

[Retrograde]

28. and this will be funded how? (n/t)

[Iggo]

29. Yep. Let's make even more shit a life sentence.

[flvegan]

30. I'd happily pay a small tax on pet food in my state for this.

Help me out big time with my rescue, as it would everyone in the shelter/rescue community. It would also provide a wealth of opportunities to help others be as much of a pain in the ass as I am locally to convicted animal abusers.

[niyad]

33. yes

[niyad]

34. yes-- I offer one name as proof of the need for this--george w bush