The palgrave international handbook of a 100
Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (38.29 KB, 1 trang )
90
A. Nurse
existing non-human animal harm is legal, criminologists, animal activists and
policy-makers face challenges in precisely defining animal abuse and cruelty
(Agnew 1998; Nurse 2013) and distinguishing between the lawful and
unlawful. Consequently, defining neglect is problematic given that neglect
encompasses a range of acts or omissions that adversely impact on nonhuman animals (with associated harms). As a result, there is no universally
accepted offence of animal neglect. However, legal systems often define
neglect within animal abuse discourse via the term unnecessary suffering,
consistent with Ascione’s definition of animal abuse and cruelty which
contextualises animal abuse as being ‘socially unacceptable behaviour that
intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of
an animal’ (1993, p. 228). Thus, academic and policy discussions of animal
abuse tend to concentrate either on active mistreatment or deliberate neglect
where intent to cause animal harm is a significant factor and an indicator of
either anti-social personality disorder, mental illness or of other forms of
abuse, particularly within domestic contexts (Nurse 2013, p. 94). Animal
abuse discourse predominantly considers direct harm caused to animals via
deliberate action (even a deliberate omission such as intended failure to
provide adequate care). In this respect, Agnew (1998) identifies that animal
abuse is most likely when individuals: (1) are unaware of the impact or
consequences of their behaviour on non-human animals; (2) do not consider
their behaviour to be wrong; and (3) benefit from their abusive behaviour
(Agnew 1998, p. 182).
Ascione’s definition importantly incorporates the concept of ‘distress’
which, broadly construed, includes non-physical harm, while Agnew’s conception focuses on anthropocentric notions of human calculation and acceptance of the impact of their actions on non-human animals. However, the
focus of each is still on intentional animal abuse, which this chapter contends is
only one part of animal abuse and harm, albeit an important part. This
chapter distinguishes between deliberate (intentional) neglect where harm to
an animal is intended and arguably foreseeable, and neglect which is caused by
omissions or failure to act. Accidental neglect, although receiving less attention
in criminological study, is also a potent indicator of problems within a
domestic setting (Linzey 2009) and of wider harm to animals. First, of
considerable importance is the reality that accidental neglect frequently carries
significant consequences for non-human companions. Accidental neglect can
be serious where, for example, failure to take action or provide care is a
byproduct of misunderstanding the appropriate care needs of a non-human
companion. It can also include the process of non-human companion animals
being bought for children who are unable to care for them adequately.
