Many of us are familiar with the sex offenders registry. Basically, every person that is a known sex offender is recorded. Their names, along with home addresses and jobs, are listed in online registries. I'm sure you've all heard the stories where people put their address in and realize some of their neighbors are known sex offenders. Ahhhh!
In California, lawmakers are now trying to establish the same sort of system for known animal abusers. The proposal was made by State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, and is the latest law in California to guarantee new rights to animals. The effort is also one of the only bipartisan efforts in the CA state government.
Many of you may remember California's Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. CA has also passed laws outlawing cruelty towards dairy cows for more efficient milking.
Under the proposed law, 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.
Something interesting mentioned in the article was a quote from a representative of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
“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.”
I'm not sure this is a necessary for people to avoid when looking for a house, but I do think it's a new way to investigate possible employees. I find anyone willing to abuse a helpless animal absolutely disgusting and feel like they should pay an outrageous price. As an animal lover, I find it appropriate to list sex offenders and animal abusers in the same category. However, I can understand how some may think this is harsh.
The Times, They are A-Changin’
2 hours ago
5 comments:
I concur that animal abuse is unacceptable, but I'm confused on what is the purpose of having a public file of animal abusers. Is there a specific intention of this legislation?
If there was a public file of animal abusers, then pet stores and dog breeders could check to make sure the person they're selling a new pet to aren't abusive.
I fully support this idea; this support, I'm sure, has no correlation with the fact that I occasionally feed the squirrels in my yard.
Sam's got my back on all my posts! Yeah, basically it's just another screening process. It's also due to the fact that there is a high correlation between animal abusers and those who abuse people. I know if I was an employer, I wouldn't want to employee a known dog beater...
"I'm sure, has no correlation with the fact that I occasionally feed the squirrels in my yard."
You make me smile Sam Kennedy!
-Katie Jensen
This is kind of weird.I mean I am very against animal abusing but what difference does it make that there names are posted. I mean I can understand kind of but humans are so selfish of themselves that I dont think anyone will take the time to look up animal offenders. Its a good idea but I dont think that it will be to sucessful.
What could be done, Sabina, is another law could be enacted requiring pet stores and animal breeders to check the registry before they sell pets to anyone.
It would be sort of like buying a gun, and it probably wouldn't reduce their business very much, because most people seriously consider getting a pet before making the decision, so they'll almost certainly be willing to wait the extra few days.
Post a Comment