HomeAnimal RightsShould Those Convicted Of Animal Cruelty Be Banned From Owning Pets?


Should Those Convicted Of Animal Cruelty Be Banned From Owning Pets? — 6 Comments

  1. Persons convicted of animal cruelty are likely to re-offend but individual circumstances can alter the picture considerably. Either which way any individual convicted of animal cruelty should be placed on an (extended) probation program due to the seriousness of the crime. I have zero tolerance for persons who commit acts of animal cruelty in any form. ‘Whether or not a convicted individual should be permitted to lawfully possess animals ever again’ cannot be ascertained without viable evidence to prove such a behavioral abstraction.. The worst that can happen is having such vicious individuals carry out the unspeakable on innocent creatures in a deprived sense of revenge. God Bless All The Innocent Creatures, amen.

  2. Even in the UK with our Pet Welfare Law, animal abusers get away lightly. For example the woman who abandoned 15 cats, 4 of them she had hidden away were so ill and neglected the RSPCA took them and 2 were PTS immediately.
    When they finally caught up with her she was fined £200 and banned from keeping animals for 2 years, it should have been for life!
    As in all Court cases the Court decides the sentence, the Police and RSPCA unfortunately have no say.
    I agree Michael, there should be a register of all cats in every country, all pet cats neutered and every cat microchipped so that abandoned cats owners could be traced and prosecuted.
    But it will never happen because cats are still a long way down the scale of priorities worldwide.

    • Your comment is a good example of how cats and pets are low down the list of things to do. Cats are second class citizens in the eyes of the establishment and politicians, magistrates and judges are the establishment. What chance?

  3. Elisa’s question about the moral question of the difference between 2 kinds of ‘abuse’ is really hard to answer. I don’t think you can answer it and be fair without looking at each different situation and how it got out of hand, with regard to the hoarders. Michael I would assume is right about the priority of putting these sorts of laws into place but I think the overall deciding factor is going to be one of money (which is time) – it doesn’t seem realistic given the level of importance governments apply to these things that any kind of serious action will happen any time soon. But I do agree that any such law making, although it might not necessarily enforce successfully against those who want to break it, will generally up the standards of animal ‘ownership’

  4. For me, and I would have thought all cat and animal lovers, the answer is Yes. You can argue that there are millions of people who don’t abuse animals who should be banned from keeping them because they are not up to scratch. They are irresponsible pet owners.

    The problem, as you imply, is enforcement. The whole area of keeping pet animals is deregulated. It does not matter which country you are living in. It is very loosely applied law.

    Personally, and I know a lot of people disagree with this, I would like to see cat registrations. All cats identified and registered with the owner’s name and contact details.

    With that information you could enforce the law relatively easily and raise cat ownership standards immeasurably. It would also dramatically reduce cat euthanasia of unwanted cats.

    But cats are low down the list of priorities for any government, state, local or national.

    The politicians have financial problems on their minds…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Note: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified.