Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

California To Create Public Animal Abuser Registry 404

Posted by timothy
from the good-fences-make-good-neighbors dept.
An anonymous reader writes "California legislators are moving forward with plans to create a public, online, animal abuser registry identical in function to the public sex offender registry. Is this the slippery slope to further government mandated lists and registries?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California To Create Public Animal Abuser Registry

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds Good To Me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:23PM (#31377614)
    There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them. Long after they serve their far too short sentences they will still get to live with what they've done ... and we'll get to share the knowledge of their past with them.
    • by jedidiah (1196) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:26PM (#31377634) Homepage

      Do we get to add the person that raised and killed your dinner on that list?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by wizardforce (1005805)

        Veal comes pretty close.

      • by terraformer (617565) <tpb@pervici.com> on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:40PM (#31377756) Journal

        This is where those people want to take this. How much animal abuse is by teenagers with a thing for cats and how many of these convictions are for farmers. How many are serious convictions and how many are you forgot some technicality when constructing the horse shelter? As it stands today, in MA, professional licenses are pulled when you are a felon, on a sex registry (you don't have to be a felon...), under a RO, owe child support, etc. By doing this it allows them to exert control over people who have served their time. These registries are bad news.

      • Re:Sounds Good To Me (Score:5, Informative)

        by FooAtWFU (699187) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:46PM (#31377784) Homepage
        Maybe, but if so we certainly could also consider adding some of those PETA loonies [petakillsanimals.com].
        • Re:Sounds Good To Me (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Dahamma (304068) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:40PM (#31378094)

          I can't stand PETA in general, but (hypocritical as they are) this is one of their few campaigns I *do* support. The fact is, most unwanted pets are not going to find homes, so it's better to take them in, make an effort to place them, and then humanely euthanize them (which no, is NOT animal abuse) than to abandon them at a trash dump, throw them off a pier, or beat them with a club.

      • by pclminion (145572)
        If the animals were abused, under the definition of "abuse" propounded by this law (I assume it specifically defines abuse), then why not? This is why I buy my meat from local farmers, and I'm completely aware of how it's raised and slaughtered. Meat's way more expensive this way, but I don't eat that much meat in the first place, and I figure if I can buy some humane treatment for the animals, why not.
      • It depends (Score:3, Informative)

        by weston (16146)

        on if they torture it to death to make it taste better [iliketoask.co.cc]. Or cut its throat and let it bleed to death [wikipedia.org]. Or maybe just forced to live in the livestock equivalent of cube farm 24/7 [themeatrix.com].

        (I'm making these remarks somewhat tongue-in-cheek... I'm not particularly zealous about animal rights. There's certain ones I like to eat, and I don't feel too horrible about animals food with humane handling while they're alive. But I do think that systemically perpetrated suffering while the animals are alive presents a moral probl

      • by dimeglio (456244) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:44PM (#31378112)

        Or how about the Ph.d candidate who needs to experiment new medicine on rabbits.

        California is California. I hope they can afford this new registry.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them.

      Screw 'stigma', that is outmoded moralist bullshit. The only really important thing to know is how much of a risk the person is to society - even after they've done their time or paid their fine.

      Christ, what's next? A "National Nose-Picker Registry"??

    • by zach_the_lizard (1317619) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:56PM (#31377852)
      If their punishment is too short, then extend the sentences. If the jails are too crowded, stop sending non-violent people there for the "crime" of ingesting non-state approved substances. Otherwise, stop condemning people to a lifetime of harassment by vigilantes. This goes for sex offenders and for this new animal abuse registry. If none of this persuades you, then perhaps you should consider: a)there are those who are convicted that are innocent (and are exonerated later) b)what makes it onto the registry is determined by politicians and judges, who will add things such as drunk men urinating in public to the sex offender list. Who is to say the same cannot happen for animal abuse?
      • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:30PM (#31378044)
        Mod parent up.

        Exactly. What we really need to do is stop using jails as "time out" and start only keeping violent people there. If the crime was non-violent and they don't pose a threat to society, put them on probation and make them pay restitution. If there was no one harmed to pay restitution to, how was it a crime in the first place? On the same vain, we need to elect our executive branch by allowing for the direct election, supervision and removal of police officers and make every move they make public record so we can end police brutality and abuse.

        What is next? A list of people who bought cigarettes, drinks and porn?
  • by SlappyBastard (961143) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:25PM (#31377632) Homepage
    I hate to discover only after the fact that someone I'm having a conversation with likes to beat a dead horse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by anss123 (985305)
      VHS is better than Beta! People often compare high quality beta players with cheap VHS players, but that's not fair at all. The better VHS players have just as good an image as Beta and has longer playtime too.

      ...nothing quite like revisiting an old horse I'm afraid.
  • Just wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich @ a o l.com> on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:27PM (#31377642) Journal

    It won't be long before we have public registries of parents whose kids misbehave in school, registries of people who buy pr0n, and registries of people who do anything else the masses of paranoid freak helicopter soccer moms don't like...

  • by Bob_Who (926234) <Bob@@@who...net> on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:28PM (#31377652) Homepage Journal
    Violent bestiality with a minor?
  • End run? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by headkase (533448) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:28PM (#31377660)
    Is this an end-run around the "served your time" part? I thought our theory of law was that once you served your punishment you were a Citizen again (yeah like convicts can't have guns...). So, is this indefinite punishment? And this is coming from someone who thinks animal abusers have serious psychological problems: the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
    • by mog007 (677810)

      I'm not sure about the finite punishment bit, but as far as creating a list, and retroactively adding people to it goes, the Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't violate the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution. I imagine they've also judged these lists as not violating the eighth amendment.

    • Re:End run? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:55PM (#31377844)

      the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?

      . I think they already exist, it's just that most of us aren't aware of them, or at least don't have access to their contents (the TSA's "no-fly" list being a prime example.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rolfwind (528248)

      There are people on the sex offender list merely "caught" peeing in bushes and then charged with exposing themselves. And how about teens texting nude pics of themselves and charged with child porn? It has become a district attorney's game where they can claim putting X number of sex offenders away. Lots of good people's lives ruined for political bullshit. And the list itself becomes nearly worthless in telling good people from bad.

      Animal abusers shouldn't be put on lists. It's disgusting what they did, th

    • Re:End run? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Reziac (43301) * on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:56PM (#31378544) Homepage Journal

      Consider that under some interpretations, failing to license your pet is "abuse"... there have already been confiscations citing a few fleas as "abuse"... In San Francisco, failing to provide "quality food" (which is not defined by their new law) is "abuse"... the ways an ordinary pet owner could find themselves on this list is endless, everyone can play!

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:29PM (#31377664)

    For reference, see Les Miserables.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by martas (1439879)
      can you explain please?

      yes i'm illiterate.
      • by wizardforce (1005805) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:29PM (#31378038) Journal

        The title means "miserable ones" It's about a guy that was in jail, served his time and had to carry a document identifying him as a former criminal. Then pretty much everyone in society that knew he was a former criminal because of that identification made his life outside of prison a living hell. There is a lot more to it that comes later but that is the gist of the beginning.

  • IIRC all crime statistics are public knowledge anyway. If a person is convicted of a crime, this is recorded and this record is made available to the public.

    It wouldn't be impossible to establish a 'registry of serious criminals' using only scannings on newspaper articles and the like. The data is already public, it just needs to be collated together.

    Of course, I know I'm being simplistic... there's a lot more to it than that, but I don't want to right an essay on the implimentation, merely point out that i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      Yes, but have you seen the paranoia over these "sex" offender registries? People are afraid to move into houses because there might be a "sex offender" living on the next block. Never mind that these people don't seem to look at the real picture and look at the trial and see that his only crime was peeing in public and he is now 73 years old and wheelchair bound. The point is, taxpayer funds are being used for this completely stupid project that adds nothing (who the hell cares if someone kicked a dog? I su
  • by wizardforce (1005805) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:31PM (#31377690) Journal

    Apparently they estimate that it will take several hundred thousand dollars to run the registry annually and claim that the number of federal convictions for animal abuse in California is not large enough to levy enough fees on the convicted to fund the registry. In short, they want to levy a tax on pet food to pay for the registry.

    • by terraformer (617565) <tpb@pervici.com> on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:35PM (#31377722) Journal

      Apparently they estimate that it will take several hundred thousand dollars to run the registry annually and claim that the number of federal convictions for animal abuse in California is not large enough to levy enough fees on the convicted to fund the registry. In short, they want to levy a tax on pet food to pay for the registry.

      In a state that is bankrupt no less...

      • In a state that is bankrupt no less...

        And now you know exactly why California's bankrupt. Remember: only in San Francisco would Nancy Pelosi be considered mainstream.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes.

    Yeah, right. What orifice was that pulled out of.

    It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' say, often escalates to violence against people.

    I was once out with a woman who trained dogs. This rather large dog went ape shit towards this woman and child. The owner of the dog talked to the dog and "scolded" it for its behavior. That was it. The trainer said that the owner of the dog was an idiot because one day that dog is going to attack someone and maybe seriously hurt them or kill a child. The owner should have put that dog in a head lock, slammed it into the ground, and let in know by no uncertai

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)

      Good bye pharmaceutical and any other animal based research in California! No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state? Will they offer relocation to the deer? Just wanna know.

      Yeah, it's pretty messed up all right. A friend of mine who lived in California for many years recently suggested that I move there. It's when I read articles like this that I realize why I never did. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember reading about how LA's government doesn't allow the use of the word "slave" in technical documentation. This is just an extension of that same mental illness, and I hope it doesn't spread Eastward.

    • No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state?

      Yes, actually that is what they do. I'm from the midwest and in a city (I think it was near Kansas City) they were proposing opening a small (like 1 week) hunting season in this park that was overwhelmed with deer (far beyond the carrying capacity and people kept hitting deer left and right) and they seriously proposed putting birth control or something in the food to stop this overpopulation. And this is in Missouri where the first day of deer season practically is a state holiday! Let alone what the idi

    • The registry is just a new way to levy another tax (on pet food) that said, the registry applies to *felony convictions of animal abuse* in California. Unless hunting is now a felony in California, it will not show up on this list.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        This is from a state that requires warning labels to be put on anything more than pure water (and even then they are probably attempting to pass a bill with a warning sticker "This product contains Water a chemical known to the state of California to cause drowning and water poisoning"), who basically is bankrupt, who thinks they need to tax everything for the little they do to help the people and now have this. The people running California, I'd have to say, are basically brain-dead idiots.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Itninja (937614)

      Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes.

      Yeah, right. What orifice was that pulled out of.

      Um, that's kind of like basic criminology [wikipedia.org] and stuff. Just read through the histories of a few killers on Wikipedia and see how many 'got their start' killing neighbors cats (Edward Emil Kemper lll) or burning the eyes out of crabs with matches (Andrew Cunanan).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:47PM (#31377786)

    Sheep farms could background check employees against this type of list.

    If someone's puppy goes missing they could use these lists to interview suspects.

    And if a dead squirrel is found, detectives might be able to rule out natural causes if an abuser is found.

    They should be careful not to take it so far. Many birders could be put at risk merely for taking a picture of a young chick.

  • by Xamusk (702162) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:47PM (#31377790)
    Next time they will create a public online registry of slashdotters.
  • Does the country really need yet another list like this? How much more of the shun/banish behaviour must we exhibit in our increasingly shrill nation?

    • by game kid (805301)

      How much more of the shun/banish behaviour must we exhibit in our increasingly shrill nation?

      LOL gb2/4chan fgt

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      As always, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people do not think about anything. Nobody stops to think about the other registries we have, or the fact that we are publicly shaming people for less and less serious crimes, or the fact that people who are released from prison are supposed to have the right to put the past behind them.

      This is not a system that can last forever, but it is going to get a hell of a lot worse before it falls apart.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Stumbles (602007)
        This type of thing is starting sound like a witch hunt. Let's shame them in public before we see if they will float... erm weight less than a duck... or was that wood?
    • by Reziac (43301) * on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:09AM (#31378604) Homepage Journal

      I predict that it will not stop until we are ALL wearing *some* sort of scarlet letter. :(

      BTW under other legislation being pushed by this same HSUS-backed crowd, owning more than N-many animals is "abuse" (how well they're cared for is absolutely irrelevant), and breeding pets AT ALL is also "abuse". Best-practices for some types of livestock have already been classed as "abuse". The fact is, such a registry will expand right along with these irrational laws, until everyone who owns a purebred dog is included, everyone who hunts is included, and everyone who farms is included.

      And it's all about the money:

      Recommended reading:
      http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/comments/the_humanewatch_interview_frank_losey/ [humanewatch.org]

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:49PM (#31377800)

    That is all.

  • I support this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stimpleton (732392)
    I like to think I am as objective as they come. I am for privacy. I hate "for the children" mentality.

    But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to harm people, especially given a one in a million encounter.

    From Wikipedia: "Cruelty to animals is one of the three co
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)

      But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to harm people, especially given a one in a million encounter.

      Same thing could be said for any number of behaviours. Let me reword your post.

      But when it comes to porn watching, I loose some of that rationality. porn watchers are dangerous and cant be trusted. And I believe it is a behavior that once practiced may never leave a person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there to have sex with someone, especially given a one in a million encounter.

      And hopefully you will see how stupid it sounds.

      Sure, let animal abusers serve their time. Even give'em a job. Good luck feeling inner piece when your daughter says she is going camping with him, when his little discresion in life was nailing a cat to a plank of wood while performing some autopsy while it was still alive. Over the course of an hour.

      Who cares? Guess

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by martas (1439879)
      vivisection, it's called
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mysidia (191772)

      Ok, great reason to create a registry of Bedwetters also, then (however).

      Whenever you move into a new house, you will be required to inform all your new neighbors that you were a persistent bedwetter past the age of 5.

      Since all past bedwetters are dangerous and cannot be trusted. It is a behavior that once practiced may never leave the person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there especially given a one in a million encounter.

      From Wikipedia: "The t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The majority of animal abuse cases do not involve psychopathic individuals. Neglect, accidents, and one-time assaults are more common and not much worse than what happens to farm animals or the billions of poor castrated pets.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by corbettw (214229)

      I like to think I am as objective as they come.

      As do we all.

      But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose some of that rationality. Animal abusers are dangerous and cant be trusted.

      At least you admit to being irrational. I score you full points for that honesty. But do you really think someone who keeps 24 cats in their house and lives in squalor should be on a public registry? Or what about someone who participated in blood sports that were legal in their own country before they moved here? The first deserves our pity, the second needs either a one-way ticket back home or a quick education on what's acceptable in their new homeland. Neither needs to be saddled with this

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by D Ninja (825055)

      But when it comes to animal abuse, I loose (sic) some of that rationality.

      Exactly. You admit yourself that you are not nearly as rational when it comes to acts of cruelty against animals.

      Don't get me wrong - I love animals. Had a number of pets as a kid. But, lists like these ones are an extremely slippery slope and are really just politicians playing against people's fears and/or lack of rationality, or are a way to mask real problems. Lists create an environment for a person to be judged for the rest of their life (because, ya know, everybody ELSE is messed up, but I'm perf

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by carcosa30 (235579)

      Loss of rationality on the subject is precisely the reason why they chose animal abusers to enact these new unconstitutional laws.

      Consider: why don't they do it with murderers? Well, because they don't think they could get the laws passed, because people like you are far more concerned about cute little puppies and cows than people.

      No, they'll do this first. Prevent the people from getting jobs, subject them to perpetual shame and humiliation.

      If you think our government is concerned about animal welfare,

  • Also reported was the decision not to make a mass-emailer's registry. Since they self-announce the list was deemed redundant and scrapped.

    However THE PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS TYPE IN CAPS registry will continue as planned.

  • by athlon02 (201713) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:12PM (#31378292)

    a state that every American, with any kind of attention span, knows is broke and needs to CUT spending is creating more financially wasteful bureaucracy. California you truly love to live up to your title as the land of fruits and nuts, don't you?

  • by beadfulthings (975812) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:21PM (#31378346) Journal

    As somebody who (a) values privacy and finds government's invasion of it abhorrent; but (b) has seen some of the results of chronic animal abuse, I feel a bit like the proverbial Christian Scientist with an appendicitis attack.

    From the animal-rescue point of view, the world is full of crazy and vicious people who cruise around "adopting" animals for subsequent abuse. This includes dogfighters looking for bait, people who produce crush films, hoarders, puppy mill operators, crazed cat ladies, people who practice killing and torture rituals, and even idiots who just want a fresh puppy every year or so. Most animal adoptions take place on a sort of honor system, the potential for abuse is huge, the actual amount of abuse going on is both shocking and sickening, and there simply isn't any money for any investigation or follow-up.

    From the invasion of privacy standpoint, it should be observed that there are also plenty of animal-loving lunatics abroad in the land. That would be the folks who think that animal abusers should be tortured, castrated, deprived of their children, burned out of their homes, or otherwise "suitably" punished for their misdeeds. People exist who believe that the death penalty as it's administered here is too mild for animal abusers. Such a list in their hands would be downright dangerous.

    There must be a way that law enforcement could share information regarding convicted abusers with licensed shelters and rescue groups without making such information readily and publicly available in a one-stop database.

    Sigh.

  • Chelsea King (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argStyopa (232550) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:22PM (#31378352) Journal

    Another list seems relatively pointless.

    Chelsea King's murderer was nicely listed. Now an innocent 17 year old girl is dead, having probably spent the last moments of her short life in terror and misery, because she was foolish enough to go for a run.

    How, precisely, did the list help her?

    Personally, I think the lvl 3 sex offender list should be retitled to the "no legal consequences for murdering the scumbags on this list" list, but that's just me.

  • by maillemaker (924053) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:23PM (#31378370)

    I don't understand the outcry of privacy advocates here.

    All matters of criminal law are matters of public record, as they should be.

    Making this information easily searchable is just technology, folks.

  • Don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by feepness (543479) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:44PM (#31378486) Homepage
    It's just a side effect of our state government being so flush with cash they don't even know how to spend it all! Huzzah!
  • slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cas2000 (148703) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @01:09AM (#31378908)

    Is this the slippery slope to further government mandated lists and registries?

    no. the beginning of the slippery slope was the introduction of sex-offender registers. as has been amply proven by this new register.

  • Some sicko... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xororand (860319) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @05:15AM (#31379604)

    Some sicko tied up a cat's tail to his car and dragged it to death. I'm usually not a violent person but I still feel the urge to beat up that low-life badly, years after it happened.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...