The palgrave international handbook of a 63
Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (26.28 KB, 1 trang )
Physical Cruelty of Companion Animals
51
These results suggest that both the kind of animals chosen and the kind
of abuse inflicted matters. The targeting of companion animals indicates a
desire to insult what people consider socially good and valuable. The
selection of pets also demeans the very idea of close connections with
people. Moreover, harming unknown animals may provide a sense of
superiority over the vulnerable. The hands-on approach involved in torture
differs notably from the forms of cruelty often found in the population atlarge. The torture of pets may allow killers to ‘rehearse’ a particular kind of
subsequent human violence.
By finding that forms of cruelty rare among the general population more often
constitute a red flag than does the ‘everyday’ cruelty commonly reported, this
research shows how to reduce the false positive problem of labeling individuals
who have only limited experience with animal abuse and might thus respond to
education rather than punishment. Researchers have questioned the consequences of ‘the attribution of transgressive acts to long-term personal traits’
(Patterson-Kane and Piper 2009, p. 605). Although all acts of cruelty to companion animals merit some type of response, cases in which perpetrators harm
unfamiliar pets, particularly in a hands-on manner, may deserve special attention.
Identifying the kind of abuse that may predict dangerousness can spare individuals from stigmatising consequences and provide the conceptual clarity needed
to develop responses tailored to individual offenders.
Conclusion
Recent sociological research refines the understanding of cruelty to companion animals in two important ways. First, it shows that cruelty is not
necessarily a gateway to subsequent acts of violence. Many cases of cruelty
to pets are terminal, not linked to later violent or antisocial behaviour.
Because cruelty to animals, broadly defined, is pervasive, it does not necessarily predict subsequent acts of violence. Depending on the definition, virtually everyone who has swatted an insect has harmed animals, and most did
not ‘graduate’ to other violence. Second, and related to this, the research
indicates that cruelty does not necessarily signal psychopathology or moral
degeneracy in the perpetrators. Not all acts of cruelty have the same significance to those who engage in them. The cultural ambivalence inherent in
our treatment of animals means that even killing some species, such as
rodents or snakes, may be considered acceptable. Indeed, this ambivalence
no doubt also extends to the abuse of some ‘higher’ animals or pets that, for
some people in certain circumstances, is viewed as normal.
