"Almost everyone in Western societies agrees that it is morally wrong for people to settle arguments or impose their will on each other with blows. When a big kid hits a little kid on the playground, we call him a bully; five years later he punches a woman for her wallet and is called a mugger; later still, when he slugs a fellow worker who insults him, he is called a troublemaker, but when he becomes a father and hits his tiresome, disobedient or disrespectful child, we call him a disciplinarian.
Why is this rung on a ladder of interpersonal violence regarded so differently from the rest?" - Penelope Leach1 As a psychologist who specialized in working with emotionally disturbed children, and as a person who has a special fondness for children, it is extremely troublesome to me that punishment, both physical and otherwise, is an intrinsic part of child rearing in the United States. None of my three children, now adults, were ever punished.
Just as people who state, "I was spanked and punished and I turned out OK," my children are able to say, "I was never spanked or punished and I turned out OK." And based on the kind of people they are as adults, I would agree that, not only did they turn out OK, but they are much more caring of others, including their children, than most of their contemporaries. They do not, of course, punish their children.
However, I do not wish to prove through my children or my grandchildren that punishment is totally unnecessary in order to grow up to be a socially appropriate and caring person. We already know this from studies of cultures where children are never punished. I hope to show, instead, that punishing children is a malevolent act that is harmful to children and, ultimately, to the community and society in which it takes place.
The punishment of one human being by another is behavior in which the punisher has, or believes he has, the right to hurt and violate a person he perceives as his social inferior. Punishing another individual of one's species is a human cultural invention. It is not found in all cultures nor in the animal world. Its utilization as a child-rearing method seems to go hand in hand with the development of civilization.
A person hurting another as a result of a temporary loss of emotional control is not punishment. Such behavior is a different form of violence. Punishment is a deliberate, controlled act with a conscious purpose. It is, of course, a terrible, troublesome, and dangerous fact that, in our society, parental loss of control, accompanied by physical and verbal abuse of children, is tolerated. However, such behavior is not the subject of this paper.
Our society, although it may not do much to prevent it, does not openly condone child abuse. But it does openly condone and sanction punishing children, physically and otherwise. What bothers me so much about punishing children is that it is a conscious effort to hurt them physically and/or emotionally. I find it hard to understand, even when it is explained as a way of teaching them proper behavior, why someone would intentionally choose to hurt the life they contributed to creating (or chose to care for through adoption.
) I also find it incredible that parents, and many authorities in the areas of mental and physical health, child development, and human morality, cannot see that by hurting children, we are teaching them that it is moral and right to hurt other human beings. The Origins Of Punishment It is likely that punishment initially developed in our species as a method to control and direct the behavior of animals by hurting them.
It later was applied by humans to other humans to control individual behavior and thinking. The fact that punishment can modify behavior is well-founded. Research studies on rats, as well as other animals, have clearly indicated that by inflicting pain on them, we can control to a great extent what they do or don't do (Bermant), a fact known by farmers and animal trainers for thousands of years. Human thinking can also be altered by punishment and has been utilized throughout civilization by monarchs, dictators, slave owners, authoritarian states, and religious institutions to control deviant and non-conforming individuals.
We do not know when punishment first became a method used to direct children's development. I have never read about a hunter-gatherer society that punishes their children as part of child care. In ancient civilizations, and throughout the history of civilization, punishing children was a common practice (deMause), and the practice continues today in much of the civilized world. Punishment is and has been a commonly accepted part of American child-rearing (deMause, Beekman).
It is perceived as a legitimate and appropriate form of discipline. Its legitimacy in human relationships has few parallels in American life, especially since the abolition of slavery. Other than children, only convicted criminals are legally allowed to be punished. But children do not even have the rights of criminals, as they are allowed to be punished without a trial. The closest parallel to punishing children would be the punitive ways in which we domesticate and train young animals so that they will serve, submit to, and entertain us.
When we punish our children, we serve to perpetuate the Western civilization belief that children are, like animals, inferior beings who need to be tamed, trained, and controlled. Punishment and Distrust Obviously, the decision, felt necessity, or compulsion to punish another person reflects a lack of trust in that person, whether it be in the relationship of governments to citizens, tyrants to subjects, slave owners to slaves, wardens to prisoners, teachers to students, or parents to children.
The advocates of punishing children (which include some past and present "experts" on child development) have a condescending and ugly view of children which is embedded in an even uglier view of the human species. Humans are not, in their eyes, a naturally caring and social species, but a species in which the individual is born anti-social and governed solely by self concern and self-interest. They further believe that children resist socialization, so it must be imposed on them by adults.
There is no recognition, in this perception of the human individual as selfish, alienated, and basically separate from all others, to the fact that sociability, socialization, and the ability to trust develop naturally through appropriate nurturing in childhood. The quality of basic trust, as originally formulated by the psychologist Eric Erikson, is the foundation for a healthy personality (Evans).
Its meaning to Erikson and his followers was that during the first year of life, a baby learns that those who care for him can be trusted to satisfy his basic needs. From this secure base the infant learns to trust himself and the world. I prefer to describe basic trust as the experience of a baby or young child that there is a person there for him, who affirms his life and well-being by providing the nurturing relationship that he genetically and biologically evolved to have after birth.
Without such an experience during the first stage of life, an infant does not develop the full trust in others that is essential for healthy human emotional and social development. The need for an infant to develop basic trust in those who care for him has become widely accepted by virtually all health-care specialists. It is not always expressed in such terms, nor is it always achieved, but we all seem to know that babies and children need "love".
Much less emphasis has been given to the need for parents to develop basic trust in their children. They may love them, but do they trust them? In fact, many American authorities on infant and child care have sent the message that children, including infants, cannot be trusted; Babies and young children are frequently portrayed as being manipulative and wanting to make their parents' life miserable, as if their need and desire to be with their parents, and to be nurtured by them, is not genuine (Spock, Turtle).
I do not believe that genuine trust can develop in a relationship unless both parties have trust in each other. In the parent-child relationship, the child learns to trust his parents when his need for nurturing is regularly met. But this development of trust can only occur if the parent's response to the child is based on the belief that the child's expression of his need for nurturing is genuine, that the child is not just trying to "get his own way"; and is not out to make the parent's life difficult.
Misery, unhappiness, and a struggle for power often do become a part of the parent-child interaction, especially in a society such as our own which does not trust and does not validate the nurturing requirements of children. If the relationship of parent and child does become a continual struggle, it is not because the child's motivation is to punish the parent, but because his need for nurturing is not being met.
It is also true that a child, as he matures, may begin to behave in ways to punish his parents, but this can only occur if his parents have regularly punished him. The use of punishment by parents is a clear indication that there has been an insufficient development of trust between parent and child in the early formative years of the child's development. Most American parents punish their children.
Most also begin punishing them, and using the threat of punishment, at a very early age (usually in infancy). Children grow up believing that the punishment they received was deserved, and that they were harmful, bad, and not trustworthy. Many, as adults, who lack a foundation of parental trust, do not trust, or even like, themselves. They perceive their needs, especially their need for nurturing, caring, kindness, love, and intimacy, as "bad", selfish, indulgent, harmful, and a burden put on others.
Some spend their entire lifetime feeling guilty towards their parents. Often, they begin in adolescence to self-destruct, punishing themselves for burdening their parents, for having been born, for being alive. The Most Common Methods Of Punishing Children Corporal punishment in the form of spanking (even in infancy) is the most common way children are punished in America. Slapping, hitting and beating with the hand or straps and other instruments closely follow.
NBC News has reported that about 90 percent of U.S. parents spank their children. In addition, a 1992 survey reported that 59 percent of pediatricians support the practice ("When Spankings Are Abuse"). It is important to recognize that in our society most parents and many of our infant and child care authorities, do not classify spanking as hitting or physical punishment. By a magnificent denial of reality, it is often described as a "love tap" or "pat' or "harmless swat" or "loving reminder".
Since spanking has traditionally been administered in the United States to almost all children for generations, it is considered a natural part of growing up, the same as feeding. Other more bizarre methods of corporal punishment, such as burning children with fire and other forms of heat, having them kneel on hard objects, or forcing them to stand for many hours, are less common than they once were, but they are still practiced today.
We do not know the current extent of their use, nor do we know the current extent of other kinds of physical torture. Throughout civilization, until fairly recently, there have been various kinds of commercial items produced to punish children; including whips, the notorious cat of nine tails, cages, and various shackling devices (Beekman). Since these products are no longer openly advertised and sold, one would expect, or at least hope, that they are not used any more to punish children.
While many countries now outlaw the physical punishment of children, only Austria and the Scandinavian countries completely ban hitting them. However, in the United States, corporal punishment of children by parents is legal and widely practiced. It is also legal in the educational system, despite the fact that it is prohibited in the schools of almost all other industrialized nations. The US, Canada and one state in Australia still continue the practice.
Thirty-one of the states in the U.S. have banned corporal punishment in their schools. The twenty three others continue to allow teachers to hit and paddle their students when they deem it necessary (Corporal Punishment Fact Sheet). As a nation, we have been slow to understand the harmful effects that hitting has on our children, and we continue to defend our right to continue to hit them. We do not seem to be concerned that spanking and physically punishing our children creates a new generation who will in turn, continue to physically hurt their children.
Based on our belief in the value of corporal punishment we are, in fact, likely to encourage our children to use it on our grandchildren. It is frightening that many parents, educators, and others who are involved in child care today act out on children the cruel physical imposition that was inflicted on them by their parents and other care-givers while they were growing up. But even more frightening to me than the passage of physical cruelty to children through generations, is the passage of the belief that punishing children is a necessary part of raising them.
Even parents and child-care experts who do not believe in corporal punishment advocate other kinds of punishment such as "time-out" and "logical consequences". (Salk, "When Spankings Are Abuse"). Although many of these methods, which are designed to get children to behave, are viewed as appropriate ways to discipline children, they are, in reality, punishments, the purpose of which is to get children to obey their parents' rules and regulations by imposing on them parental power and authority.
The following are some of the ways, other than physical punishment, that are frequently used by parents to punish their children. These were not originally or specifically created as tools to help parents to get their children to behave properly. In general, these methods have been borrowed from the traditional methods used to punish adults who had committed crimes or violated laws, rules, customs, or conventional ways of behaving.
Isolation and Confinement Isolation and confinement usually go together. A child is sent to his room, or made to stand or sit in a corner and usually not permitted to be with, or relate to others. The currently popular "time-out" is, of course, confinement, and also isolation, if the child must be alone during the "time-out" period. Less openly discussed forms of this type of punishment are the practices of tying up or chaining children, locking them in rooms, closets, cars, sheds or other areas of confinement.
In general, isolation and confinement are for a brief time. However, it is not uncommon for the time period to extend into hours, and although much less common, can extend sometimes to days, weeks, and even months. Basically, isolation and confinement give children the message that they are inferior and unfit to be with other humans. Many children, if they are frequently punished in this manner will come to believe that they are different, "crazy" and unfit when compared to other children who do not seem to require or receive this type of banishment from society.
Often, as they mature, these children act in accordance with what they have been made to believe about themselves. Deprivation Another method by which we attempt to teach children to behave is to deprive them of things. Most children are no longer sent to bed without supper. They are, however, denied privileges. Frequent items that are denied include dessert, sweets, toys, allowance or spending money, TV, music, movies, the car, the telephone, friends, or whatever the child likes and is important to him.
The length of time of the specific deprivation varies greatly, depending upon, among other things, the particular family, the nature of the misbehavior, and the age of the child. But all forms of deprivation - regardless of their length - teach children that their parents have the power to make their lives miserable by taking away what has meaning to them. Who would trust, or even like, someone with such power? Grounding Grounding is similar to and overlaps the punishments of deprivation and confinement, but it is much worse.
Here the focus is more on prohibiting activity away from the home, rather than on denying that which is external and material. It is being confined to the house rather than confined to a room in the house. The child is not allowed to go and to do. He is "grounded", like a plane or "docked," like a ship, made to be immobile, temporarily "out of commission". He has lost, for a time, his freedom to move about, his freedom to be fully alive and to grow.
The punishment of grounding is, ironically, a major way to teach children to be defiant and disobedient towards their parents, because it usually attacks life and growth in relation to one's peers. One can tolerate, for a time, starvation and imprisonment. It is more difficult to lose one's freedom to act and to be, especially for children. Withdrawal of Affection Highly recommended, as a means to control children's behavior, even by supposed liberal and progressive child care experts (Spock, Salk), is the punishment known as withdrawal of affection.
Why it is necessary for a parent to consciously do this, is puzzling to me because withdrawal of affection seems to occur automatically (at least temporarily), to most people when someone (including one's child) does something we strongly dislike or which hurts us. Momentary loss of affectionate or tender feelings toward another is a natural part of human relationships and serves to communicate to a significant other what we, as an individual, personally like or dislike.
Humans are able to enhance this automatic non-verbal communication with language. However, even without language, the message gets across. Babies communicate their likes and dislikes quite effectively, without a fully-developed language, all the time - that is, if they have someone who is attentively listening and watching. The communication of both positive and negative feelings is an important way that our species learns to live with, accommodate to, and collaborate with one another.
It is an essential part of the human nurturing process. Mother and child are continually accommodating to each other: finding mutually comfortable nursing and carrying positions, dealing with biting of the breast as the child grows teeth, accommodation to the child's increasing development and changing capabilities, the birth of a sibling, and, from the moment of birth, the parents' cultural values and priorities.
Affectionate feelings, and the absence of such feelings, are spontaneous reactions in human relationships. When affection is consciously withdrawn as a means to control another, we are dealing with a different kind of human interaction than the integrative one described in the previous paragraph. Exploiting another person's emotional vulnerability is not an integrative act but rather an act which ultimately alienates the other person.
It is a dishonest use of love. It is fake love. The conscious withdrawal of affection by a parent in order to get the child to behave in the manner the parent desires is simply a way of exploiting the child's need for affection from the parent. It is treating caring and love as commodities which can be given or taken away whenever the parent wishes. Affection becomes a power tool, a bribe, rather than an emotion.
When withdrawal of affection and love is consciously and regularly used as a way to punish children, their human capacity to love, cherish, and trust another person, becomes tarnished. The child's critical need for parental love, security, and protection has been abused. Some Other Ways Frequently Used To Punish Children There are, of course, other ways that children have been, and continue to be, punished than the ones I have already detailed.
We no longer punish adults by public whipping or by exposing them to public scorn by placing them in a pillory or stock or ducking stool. But children are still punished, if not by such extreme measures, then by intentionally embarrassing and humiliating them. It is considered proper in rearing children to make them feel ashamed about their behavior, and to humiliate and disgrace them in front of others.
Dunce caps, as well as wearing and carrying signs about one's bad behavior, are still used by parents, teachers and school officials, although not as much as they were in the early part of this century. Ridicule and verbal abuse, both in the home and in public, are common methods used by parents and other authoritarians to make children feel badly about themselves and their behavior. Another common way of punishing children is to frighten them.
They are told about, and threatened with, images of bogeymen, monsters, God, the devil, animals, hell, or whatever humans can invent, to terrorize children in order to get them to behave. This form of mental torture is preferred by many parents because it allows the parent to let someone else do the "dirty work". It is not the parent who will harm the child but somebody, or something, else. This form of punishment makes children a little "crazy", and when used extensively, very "crazy".
One other commonly used punishment, which on the surface appears to be benign, is the assignment of chores or additional chores as punishment for "bad" behavior. Of course, this kind of punishment is not so benign if the chores are extremely strenuous or so prolonged that they can be physically harmful to the child. In addition, if the chores hinder the child greatly from other more desirable activities, the child is then receiving "double" punishment, which is not only unfair, but doubly painful.
The assignment of chores as punishment can lead children to resent and hate the chores that need to be accepted as a natural part of learning, working, and caring for oneself and others. Chore-punishment may not hurt a child as much as other punishments, but, as do all punishments, it teaches children that it is all right to impose your will on another if you believe your cause is just. Punishment And Parent-Child Alienation It is strange to me that parents who punish their child do not seem to recognize that, not only are they harming the child, but they are also harming their relationship with the child.
But perhaps they do recognize this fact, and that is why the statement by parents, "This hurts me more than it does you," has long been a part of the child punishment ritual. Intentionally hurting another person leads the injured person to be afraid of, and distrustful of, the person who has hurt them, especially if the hurting person indicates that they have the right to hurt the victim, and that they will continue to hurt the victim, whenever they deem it necessary.
Punishment of children alienates them from their parents and increases children's distrust of those who, biologically, are supposed to provide them with the security of feeling and knowing that they are not separate in the world. Children, because they are dependent on their parents for so many essential things, usually have little choice but to accept the reality that punishment and hurt are part of their relationship with their parents.
However, as they get older, children of punitive parents are more likely, as compared with children who are not punished, to lie to, to not confide in, and to conceal their behaviors from their parents. This is not part of the normal growth pattern of becoming a person who is less dependent on their parents, but rather a reflection of the fact that these children do not trust their parents to be understanding, empathic, or to treat them kindly.
The punishment these children received when they were younger has taught them that when they are involved in problematic behavior, their personal integrity and rights as a person will be ignored, violated and not respected by their parents. They have received the true message of punishment, which is to banish behavior which appears to be negative, rather than to try to understand it. Does Punishing Children Work? Does punishing children work? It definitely helps parents to believe that they are in control of their child.
They are able to relax for a while until the next misdeed. Does punishment change children's behavior? Yes, but only for a brief time. Usually children will continue to do the same things they were punished for, if they think they can get away with it. One of the troubles with punishment as a way to teach children proper social behavior, aside from the infliction of pain, is that it makes children feel weak, impotent and incapable.
Punishment teaches children to look to external authority to decide for them how they should behave, rather than looking to themselves. They do not learn how, in collaboration with others, to make choices; they do not learn how to decide what is good for them and for those who are important to them. What they learn instead is to submit to authority and power, to obey. By being punished and treated as inferior beings, they become inferior beings - they do not develop the power of the human individual to love and trust.
Children who are regularly punished learn to fear their parents. They learn the behaviors that their parents like and don't like and also, how to hide these behaviors from their parents. They develop "proper" behavior out of fear, not choice. Some children openly defy their punitive parents. These children usually end up getting into worse trouble with their parents, and with other authorities as they mature.
Most children, however, go underground. In order to protect themselves from parental power they develop a "good", submissive-to-authority, social pose to hide their secret misbehaviors and improper thoughts and feelings. Their social behavior is not genuine because it has little to do with who they really are. Once out of the realm of authoritarian control, they adopt new ways and new codes consistent with the values and priorities of their peers.
They go in any direction the wind blows to avoid disapproval and to gain approval. The lack of respect their parents had for them has prevented them from developing respect for themselves. Why We Hurt Our Children The question that must be asked is why we are, and have been, so willing to hurt our children in order to get them to behave – to treat them as criminals, slaves and animals. Of course, we are, in part, following the traditional ways of treating children for centuries of civilization.
But there is more to it than just tradition. We have in the past century learned a great deal more than we knew before about children's emotional and social development and their mental health. This information is not kept secret from the public. Most of us even seem to recognize and accept that what happens to children in their early years has a great deal to do with the kind of persons they become.
Yet, we continue to punish them. Do we not see the harm we do? Why do we not stop consciously hurting our children? For some parents, whose own punishment as children was accompanied by rage, hatred, and sadism, punishing their own children is an opportunity for them to legally inflict pain on another human being – a chance to get back at someone for the pain that they suffered. But for most parents, it is a matter of controlling behavior which they were made to control in their own childhood.
It is a matter of ignorance, of passing on malevolent and inappropriate behavior toward children which they learned to accept as appropriate in their own childhoods. They are acting from an attitude that says it is just and right to hurt children in order to achieve certain ends. They will defend their belief that their own parents were right to punish them, that they are right to punish their children, and that their children will be right to punish their children.
"After all," so many parents say, "how else can you get them to behave?" And many, even when they are told "how", still punish their children. On a deeper psychological and social level, parental punishers of their children do so because their children make them anxious by confronting them with behaviors and feelings which the parents themselves have learned to hide, suppress, repress, and disown.
They must condition their children as they were conditioned. Children threaten our identity, security, and reality. We harm them in order to stop our perceived threat that their behavior will harm us. It is a myth that we punish children for their own good. We punish children so that we will be secure. Our children have the power to elicit our tender and loving feelings. They also have the power to frighten, anger, and embarrass us.
From being punished, children learn to distrust and fear their parents. Other than that, children and parents learn nothing. By condoning punishment as a disciplinary tool, we perpetuate the acceptability of the use of force and power to control others. At the same time we perpetuate our ignorance and our fear. We use punishment in order to stop behavior rather than having the courage to confront and understand it.
By openly dealing with the underlying causes of the child's behavior, both parent and child have the opportunity to get a better and more realistic view of the child's actions, and any potential danger to the child and/or to the parent. We evolved to protect children from harm, not to harm them. The belief in our society that punishing children will make them into social beings reveals our alienation from the socialization process that is normal and natural to our species.
We become genuine social beings from developing in relation to tender, nurturing, and non-harmful others. Alienated from our own need for tenderness, and hardened since birth by life in a non-nurturing society, we teach our children that punishing them is proper parenting that will help them to grow right and to be good. We do not seem to understand that punishment does not make children social, it merely teaches them to fit into a society which separates us from each other – a society which is not based on the human capacity for tenderness or on concern for another, but on the absence of these.
Punishing our children sabotages the nurturing and protective feelings that we evolved to have towards them. It destroys the unity of parent and child. It teaches us to violate the rights of others. As a socially condoned practice in child rearing, it damages and insults the human species.See Also: Jefferson County Wv Animal Shelter
The zoo is going to be a great alternative area in order for you to get animals photographs without getting a trip to safari in summer. You'll be able to acquire their pics during the safe and sound bench that is out there close to the cages. To help make you accomplishment in using the images of animals that you would like, it is possible to abide by the next guidelines.
From a jungle of rain-washed pines and junipers spearing the recent blueness of the Florida sky, ran a small, tawny-haired boy. His bare feet, extending from his overalled legs, crackled towards the fallen palmettos. He leaped into your air, flinging his arms towards a flock of white doves circling earlier mentioned him.
" Louis " who was consistently chained up was beaten, sprayed with lighter fluid and set alight by Juan Daniels. This was his mother's dog. Daniels did this because he was not allowed to borrow the family's car. Louis attended his abusers sentencing and he has now been adopted out to a loving home. PASSIVE AND ACTIVE CRUELTY There are two kinds of animal cruelty inherent across the spectrum of animal abuse.
ACTIVE CRUELTY, which is cruelty inflicted (with deliberate intent to harm an animal creating immediate pain and suffering), and PASSIVE CRUELTY (harm inflicted via willful neglect creating prolonged suffering). One or both types are inherent cruelty to companion animals, animals used for research, industrial factory farmed animal cruelty, animals used for sport and ritual, hoarding, animals killed for their fur, skins and body parts and mass market puppy mill production.
Regardless of the arguments that it may be the "custom" to ritually slaughter an animal for its fur or skin, or eat the animals we call our companions, cruelty is cruelty and cannot be disguised. All animals killed in these practices are "SENTIENT." They feel excruciating pain, fear and terror. This fact cannot be disregarded. While no regard is paid to this fact in many other countries, as a European and North American society we have a choice and must choose not to support and to condemn this absence of regard.
Animal cruelty is no longer a simple issue and categorically cannot be ignored. Animal cruelty issues long considered a peripheral concern are no longer on the outskirts of our society. Clinicians, veterinarians and scientists are starting to see a shift in that mentality now. Animal cruelty is now recognized as signature pathology.The precious animals we see in the media so badly abused are the publicized victim of a phenomenon that a growing number of professionals including police officers, prosecutors, psychologists, social workers, animal-control officers, veterinarians and dogcatchers are now addressing with a newfound vigor: wanton cruelty toward animals.
PERPETRATORS OF ANIMAL ABUSE ACTIVE CRUELTY (Acts of Commission) The Link Between Animal Cruelty (Domestic and Other Forms of Violence) This little cat who was named DUTCH was found hanging upside down, nailed by one back leg to a utility post. He had also been beaten on the head and suffered blunt force trauma. Despite an out pouring of outrage and love for him and expert medical attention at the local veterinary clinic, he died two days after he was found.
Animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people. Deviant behaviors such as animal abuse generally originate from a traumatic childhood. The American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty as one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder. The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines conduct disorder as "a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age appropriate societal norms or rules are violated.
" Conduct disorder is found in those who abuse animals and abuse people.Clinical evidence indicates that animal cruelty is one of the symptoms usually seen at the earliest stages of conduct disorder, often by the age of eight. This information has only recently been included in the DSM so some psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers are just now becoming aware of it.Many psychological, sociological and criminology studies in recent decades have clearly shown that violent offenders have adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty.
The F.B.I. has analyzed the lives of serial killers and their findings suggest that most serial killers have killed or tortured animals as children. Further research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of abuse such as: child abuse, spouse abuse and elder abuse.FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley was quoted as saying, "Animal cruelty is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; This is a warning sign.
" There are deep psychological issues that lead to violent crimes against people This puppy had his ears cut off as prank! He has recovered and is now adopted into a loving home. Photo Courtesy of Queen Waldorf Fights Back. Jason Baker, Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Asia said, "We believe that cruelty to animals is not inherent, but learned. That being said, teaching kindness and respect for animals - in our schools and homes - will foster empathy, the ability to understand what someone else feels.
" He added, "Incorporating the simple concepts of kindness and respect into our daily lives and teaching our children to respect and protect even the smallest and most despised among us will help kids value one another."The link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence is becoming so well established that many U.S. communities now cross-train social-service and animal-control agencies in how to recognize signs of animal abuse as possible indicators of other abusive behaviors MOTIVATIONS In 1985, researchers Stephen Kellert and Alan Felthous extensively studied the animal abuse phenomenon.
They discovered several motivations that helped to characterize animal cruelty in adults, many of which are applicable to youth who abuse animals. Some motivations are: To enhance one's own aggressiveness. To shock people for amusement. Controlling an animal through inflicting pain as a result of the sense of loss of full control in one's own life. (Physically abused by parents.) Retaliation against a person by hurting their pet.
To experience sadism (the suffering experienced by the animal). Case reports and a youth interview study conducted by researchers Frank Ascione, T. Thompson and T. Black suggest a number of developmentally related motivations such as: Peer pressure Mood enhancement (e.g. animal abuse is used to relieve boredom). Sexual gratification (bestiality). Forced abuse (child is forced into animal abuse by a more powerful individual).
Animal phobias. Post-traumatic play (reenacting violent episodes with an animal victim.) Imitation (copying a parent's or other adult's abusive "discipline" of animals). Rescued puppy mill dog Classic. Yorkshire Terrier used over and over again for breeding, starving barely able to walk and suffering from near blindness from untreated eye infections. Kellert and Felthous found that family violence, particularly alcoholism and paternal abuse, were significantly more common among aggressive criminals with a history of childhood cruelty toward animals.
This connects with statistical information from animal control agencies in the United States. They say that in 80% of homes in which animal control agencies found abused pets, there had been investigations by child welfare agencies due to reports of physical abuse and neglect.Dr. Randall Lockwood, who earned a doctorate in psychology and is senior vice president for anti-cruelty and training for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, says that children and adolescents who are abusive to animals are often acting out violence experienced or witnessed in their home.
Aggressive individuals usually become that way because of a real or perceived injustice.Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berowitz, Ted Bundy, all sadistically tortured animals in their childhood. Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killed two students and injured nine other children. When she was young, she had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.The American Humane Association has compiled research showing the link between violent acts toward animals and violence toward people.
Here's a sampling of the results that involve children:Children exposed to domestic violence were three times more likely to be cruel to animals than children from nonviolent households.In a Wisconsin study, 75 percent of battered women reported that pets had been abused in front of children. One of the puppies from the Gull Lake Manitoba Canada Hoarding Chernekie hoarding case that could not be saved, as he was in such severe distress.
A New Jersey study found, in pet-owning families being investigated for child abuse, that one-third of the children had abused animals, using them as scapegoats for their anger.Sexually abused children were five times more likely to abuse animals, and 20 percent of children who sexually abused other children had histories of sexually abusing animals.The FBI identifies animal cruelty as one of the juvenile behaviors associated with increasingly violent behavior.
Fifty percent of school shooters have histories of animal cruelty.An abundance of research shows the close link between violent behavior toward animals and violent behavior toward people. They reveal the insidious and calculated motives for harming or killing another person's beloved pet, and the heartrending repercussions for the abused partners, their pets and their children. Up to 75 percent of domestic violence victims report that their partners threatened or killed family pets.
Women seeking safety at domestic violence shelters are nearly 11 times more likely to report that their partner has hurt or killed pets than women who have not experienced domestic violence. 48 percent of respondents reported that animal abuse had occurred "often" during the past 12 months. 30 percent reported the abuse occurred "almost always." 51 percent reported that animal abuse incidents coincided with violent outbursts against human family members.
85 percent of the 50 largest shelters for battered women in the United States said clients discussed incidence of pet abuse in the family. Overall, 71 percent of women and 63 percent of children entering the shelters reported that animals had been the target of violence. Very sick Cocker spaniel rescue form filthy puppy mill. She did recover. Pet abuse is listed as a form of intimidation in the "power and control wheel," a landmark chart developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the first multi-disciplinary program designed to address the issue of domestic violence.
Threats of harm to family pets may be used to coerce women who are battered into committing illegal acts at the behest of the batterer. A survey of 1,283 female pet owners found that domestic batterers who abuse pets use more forms of violence and demonstrate greater use of controlling behaviors over human victims than batterers who do not abuse their pets.Thirty-two percent of battered women report their children had hurt or killed animals.
Children exposed to domestic violence are three times more likely to be cruel to animals than children living in nonviolent households.Approximately 60% of college students who witnessed or perpetrated animal cruelty as children also reported experiences with child maltreatment or domestic violence. OUR SOCIETY As a society we need to be deeply concerned about this issue. A 2009 US study of 14,000 college students found that today's young people are 40 percent less empathetic than college kids from 30 years ago.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of Association for Psychological Science. According to one of the lead researchers, Ed O'Brien, [AUDIO QUOTE] "It's harder for today's college student to empathize with others because so much of their social lives is done through a computer and not through real life interaction." With the rapid growth of social media, young adults are saturated with a social life rooted in technology! Feeling compassion and expressing empathy are just not a part of their daily interactions.
This is a real threat to the well being of our young peopleRecently a teacher reported students who had tortured some baby raccoons. She was rermanded for reporting an issue that was not really "school related." This was a serious mistake on behalf of the school board. Dubbed the Kitten Killer of Hang Zhou China this woman was filmed playing with this kitten then crushing it to death with her shoes.
She has been identified but under China laws, she has done noting illegal ! Facebook animal lovers identified her and her location from background scenery etc and have ensured her name was made very public. She has since resigned from her job and now lives in hiding. This CRUSH video was previously for sale on the web, but is no longer. New Legislation very recently passed in the United States has now banned the sale of CRUSH videos.
Animal cruelty is becoming more and more publicized in the media and the abuse more heinous. For example, dousing a dog in gasoline and setting it alight, nailing a cat to telegraph pole, microwaving a pet hamster, and the evolution of CRUSH videos. CRUSH videos are the filming of small animals like kittens, mice, hamsters and rabbits being systematically tortured by nail guns, sliced with knives, burned and finally stamped on by a woman in high heels or bare feet.
The market for this sick and vile product is prodominantly in the United States.The cost to our society from animal cruelty is incalculable and our Canadian criminal code totally inadequate to deal with it. Enforcement and social services agencies have to deal with the abused human victims. Safe houses and counseling have to be made available. Families are torn apart and children traumatized. In almost 70% of the domestic violence incidents the family pets were killed or tortured in front of a family member prior to that family member being abused.
Almost exlusively, no one paid any attention to the animal abuse!It can now be said that when an animal is abused humans are at risk. The media, our government justice sytem, enforcement and social sevice agencies, schools and the public must now pay strict and prompt attention. PREVENTION If you see an act of violence against any animal, report it to both the local S.P.C.A. and to the police. If you know of or suspect there is violence in a neighbor's home or a child is being abused, the perpetrator could be a future violent criminal.
It's a moral and civic duty to report these situations to local child welfare agencies.Please click on the link to see the reality and nature of animal cruelty cases across Canada and the US: Queen Waldorf Fights Back! ANIMAL HOARDING CLASSIC PASSIVE CRUELTY (Acts of Omission) Regardless of the henious act of animal cruelty, the nature of the act falls into one or other of two distinct categories, active by commission (willful intent, deliberate malice towards animals); or by an act of omission, the willful neglect to care for an animal.
Animal hoarders are guilty of passive cruelty and come with their own profile and pathology, The typical animal hoarder is female, 60 plus and will typically "hoard" dogs or cats. Cats are more commonly hoarded than dogs.What is an Animal Hoarder? Puppy mill kennel after dogs have all been rescued, note the filth and debris! According to a Tufts University ground-breaking study, Animal Hoarding "involves a compulsive need to obtain and control animals, coupled with a failure to recognize their suffering.
.. (Rescue-Hoarders) obtain animals through actively seeking unwanted pets... from animal shelters or via the Internet... misrepresenting (themselves) as a legitimate rescue, shelter, or pet hospice."Why Do People Hoard Animals?It is not clearly understood why people become animal hoarders. Early research pointed toward a variant of obsessive-compulsive disorders, but new studies and theories are leading toward attachment disorders in conjunction with personality disorders, paranoia, delusional thinking, depression and other mental illnesses.
Some animal hoarders began collecting after a traumatic event or loss, while others see themselves as "rescuers" who save animals from a life on the street.One of the most perplexing facets of animal hoarding is that in the face of professed love and desire to care for animals, there can be tremendous animal neglect and suffering.... (Hoarders will) deny adverse events as obvious as starvation, severe illness and death.
.. a desire to continue accumulation despite deteriorating conditions, is almost universal..." They have a "...resistance to adopt out animals they have "saved"... (and) the true reality of the animals' situation... boredom, fear, starvation, illness, and death... (is) met with denial or defensiveness."Hoarder's dogs generally live a life of misery, often confined in stacked cages, enclosures, or runs, 24/7, no exercise, human affection, and often living in filthy conditions.
Rescue-Hoarders may claim that their dogs have problems that prevent them from being adopted out, and solicit donations for the lifetime care of these "un-adoptable" dogs in their "sanctuary." The hoarders wrongfully believe they are helping the animals by keeping them indoors. In their mind, the cats and dogs are much better off with them than if they were unclaimed outdoors. Puppy rescued from Puppy mill covered in his own feces and urine , being bathed and on his way to a new forever home.
The problem is that the animals, because of their sheer number, lack proper socialization skills. In short, they're feral. Between the lack of sociability and the fact that these animals are not house-broken (defecating and urinating on the floors and furniture), the possibility of any of these animals being a candidate for adoption after rescue is nil. "It is likely that up to a quarter million animals - 250,000 a year - are victims.
What explains behavior like this? Is there cruel intent behind it or is it simply a case of well-meaning people who took on too much responsibility? Are there psychological issues at play? Animal hoarding is a complex and intricate issue with far-reaching effects that encompass mental health, animal welfare and public safety concerns. Those "collected" range in species from cats and dogs to reptiles, rodents, birds, exotics and even farm animals.
The following criteria are used to define animal hoarding: More than the typical number of companion animals. Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness and death. Individual insists all animals are happy and healthy - even when there are clear signs of distress and illness. They have numerous animals and may not know the total number of animals in their care.
Their home is deteriorated (i.e., dirty windows, broken furniture, holes in wall and floor, extreme clutter). There is a strong smell of ammonia, and floors may be covered with dried feces, urine, vomit, etc. Animals are emaciated, lethargic and not well socialized. Fleas and vermin are present. Individual is isolated from community and appears to be in neglect himself. Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household and human occupants of the dwelling.
A person has more than a typical (often illegal) number of animals. The animals are kept indoors or inside cages in the back yard. Homes where animal hoarders live give off a very offensive odor. It's important to note that not everyone who has multiple animals is an animal hoarder. A person may have a dozen animals, and all are spayed and neutered and provided with regular veterinary care and a sanitary environment.
This person would not be an animal hoarder. Even rescuers who occasionally become overwhelmed are not considered hoarders if they are actively trying to modify the situation.According to the ASPCA, there is a dire need for coordinating efforts between animal control, mental health and social workers, and public health organizations to help combat the problem of animal hoarding. This problem also requires the assistance of family members and neighbors to step up and.
report suspicions of animal hoarding.Should Hoarders Be Prosecuted? Dog with an embedded collar to the point it is that it is having difficulty breathing. In most cases, criminal prosecution of animal hoarding can be a difficult process and may not be the most effective route. Such cases are difficult to successfully prosecute and, once released, the hoarder is likely to resume collecting an excessive number of animals unless closely monitored.
Some say prosecution isn't the answer because hoarders are often emotionally troubled rather than criminally inclined. "Like many psychological conditions, the causes of animal hoarding are probably multiple and, therefore, assessment of emotions, behavior and thoughts must be multifaceted to point the way toward successful treatment," says the ASPCA's Dr. LaFarge. In some cases judges can impose conditions that actually help the hoarder.
They can require counseling, for instance, or ban the person from having animals.What is clear is that prosecution alone rarely alters the behavior. "It is essential that key community agencies work together to prevent animal hoarders from harming the large number of animals they gain control over," says LaFarge. "Social service agencies must collaborate with animal shelters and law enforcement to intervene to save the animals and then follow up with years of monitoring to prevent a recurrence.
The general public needs to be educated to realize that the hoarder is not just a nice little old lady who 'loves too much!"The most recent hoarding in case in Canada was reported by the Winnipeg Humane Society, in which 61 dogs taken from the Judy and Peter Chernecki Gull Lake property, 90 kilometers north of Winnipeg Manitoba. Over half of the dogs seized from the filthy Gull Lake-area house that was the site of one the worst animal hoarding cases in the provinces recent memory, had to be put down.
If you are a veterinarian, a social worker, animal care rescue shelter worker or a neighbor and you suspect someone is "hoarding" please report your suspicions. Take photographs if you are able to safely do so, talk to your local animal shelter, humane society, MP, MLA, the local town council, local police, your local pound or animal control officer. You could be saving the lives of both the hoarders and the animals they have.
WILLFUL NEGLECT Lucien left tied up to starve to death! He was near death when found but has recovered and is adopted into a d forever loving home. Passive Cruelty (Acts of Omission)The dictionary definition of the term willful is "an act that is undertaken that is of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled."Unless someone has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's or is suffering from a mental disorder, it is not possible that an individual cannot "literally" have any knowledge or recollection of the act of bringing an animal into their care and custody and consequently just "forgetting "about them.
At some point or another the recollection that there is an animal outside in the yard, tied up in pen, restrained in any manner, or kept in a room in their house, will surface.Any individual of sound reason knows full well that a sentient being (animal) requires care. Whether that care is minimal, the awareness that the animal requires food water and shelter is intermittently present. The act of choosing to ignore that awareness is an act of willfulness and therefore willful neglect.
The most common situations of willful neglect are found in the thousands of animals who are bought or adopted out to individuals who take them home and then categorically ignore them and their needs. This act of passive cruelty is nowhere more evident that the thousands of dogs who are just tied up and left outside. Frequently they are left with no food or water and relatively little, if any shelter.
Common signs of passive cruelty are listed below: Embedded collars Long overgrown claws or nails Chronic dental and eye infections Untreated broken bones (in any animal) Chronic tick, flea and parasite infestations (in any animal) Severe mange (in any animal) Untreated and open wounds on the body (in any animal) Patches of missing hair (in any animal) Extremely thin, starving animal (in any animal) Limping (in any animal) Dogs who are repeatedly left alone without food and water, and often chained in a yard Dogs, cats or other animals who have been hit by cars or injured in any way and have not been taken to a veterinarian Dogs or other animals (horses rabbits, etc.
) who are kept outside without shelter in extreme weather conditions Animals who cower in fear or act aggressively when approached by their owners These are dogs on crown land in Churchill Manitoba belonging to Churchill resident Brian Ladoon. The dogs are chained out on lines with NO shelter NO water and fed every 2-3 days The are subject to -50 below temperatures on occasion ,polar bear and wolf attacks and eat snow for hydration.
There are reportedly 200 dogs and they are there month in month out, year round ! The dogs have NO exercise and rarely any human contact. Dead dogs have been photographed on this property. This is one of the worst cases of CLASSIC passive cruelty currently existing in Canada. Other - just as common - acts of passive cruelty are committed by those individuals who have an animal and leave their place of residence, leaving the animal behind locked in a room.
The long drawn out and painful suffering of any animal from willful neglect (passive cruelty) by omission is just as heinous a crime as a direct action taken to intentionally harm an animal (active cruelty) by commission.The Canadian Criminal Code that addresses animal cruelty, while pitifully out dated and inadequate, states under the section: WILLFUL ACTS AGAIN CERTAIN AND FORBIDDEN PROPERTY Cruelty to AnimalsCausing unnecessary suffering446.
(1) Everyone commits an offence who:(a) willfully causes or, being the owner, willfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a birdOne of the key reasons that Canada only has only a 1% animal cruelty case conviction rate, is that along with the totally inadequate legislation, lawyers do not have the required skills to determine and present active and/or passive animal cruelty case motions to the court.
Judges have no idea as to how to determine a legal definition of the term willful."To inflict cruelties on defenseless creatures, or condone such acts, is to abuse one of the cardinal tenets of a civilized society - reverence for life." - Dr. Jon EvansResearch, photos and some text courtesy of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, TUFTS, Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium, Humane Society of United States and the RSPCA