Quote:
Originally Posted by Annabelle
Russ Boston's reply to PennBF
What you state here is elitist BS! You keep saying these things as if they are/were in evidence and us normal folk could never understand unless we read some books that I guess you've read. You're making an assumption that mental illness is involved. To my knowledge that was never argued in this case. If I'm wrong then please educate me. You also ignore the cultural aspect of the case that a few people (Red, LivingLarge, Myself) have pointed out. You act as if all crimes must be avenged beyond what the courts pass out for judgement. I trust in our system regardless of the crime. Some people are sent to death row, some are given probation and most are in-between.
I guess now I'm done.
BTW: If someone sees me around TV in the next few weeks please smack me on the head (and don't be gentle!) for getting back to this site  |
Russ,
May I "smack you on the head" with a few facts regarding animal torture and mental illness? You may be interested in the following facts:
According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children.
Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.
If you break it down to its bare essentials:
"Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend itself."
Now break down a human crime, say rape. If we substitute a few pronouns, it's the SAME THING.
"Rape is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend themselves."
Now try it with, say, domestic abuse such as child abuse or spousal abuse:
"Child abuse is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend themselves."
Do you see the pattern here?
The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable of committing human abuse is much finer than most people care to consider. People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.
Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past, and since there's no way to know which animal abuser is going to continue on to commit violent human crimes, they should ALL be taken that seriously.
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..." It should be looked at as exactly that. Its a clear indicator of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes.
www.pet-abuse.com[/QUOTE]
What she is saying is correct. Abusing animals, bedwetting and fascination with fire (when they occur together) are the big 3 for predicting bad things to come. Will every person displaying these behaviors become violent? Probably not. Will a greater number show violence then those who do not have these behaviors? Probably so.