Some people are arguing that the bill is unnecessary and would be another step towards a society where everything is essentially a crime. After all, if not a database of animal abusers, why not a database for shoplifters or people who don’t return library books?
Who’s to say that one crime is above another and deserves its own database? Well, first of all, this isn’t to say that certain crimes are taking precedence over others or that we’ll all one day fear a wall of databases that will brand us all as criminals.
What this is about are the rights of living things who share the landscape with us. It’s about protecting animals and creatures with the same right to live in comfort and dignity as you or me.
You wouldn’t let a sex offender near your child, so why would you entrust someone convicted of animal cruelty to watch the family dog for the weekend or hire them to work on your farm?
Animal cruelty is no joke. Felony level crimes of this sort are typically brutal, bloody and heartbreaking. Disturbingly enough, these crimes are often precursors to violent crimes committed against other human beings.
Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Director of Legislative Affairs, Stephan Otto stated, “We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence.”
The proposed California registry (which would cost less that $1 million to establish) could go a long way towards preventing offenders from jumping from one jurisdiction to another, thus protecting pet owners, animals and communities.
Attorney Gillian Deegan, who has experience in animal welfare law, said, “A lot of times these people will just pick up and move to another jurisdiction or another state if they get caught. It would definitely help on those types of cases where people jump around.”
If it’s a question of maintaining privacy for what may be minor offenses, I can understand, but in my opinion I’d like to know if the person who volunteered to watch my family pets can be trusted.
