This document provides an overview of animal cruelty, including definitions, types, motivations, and connections to other crimes. It discusses passive and active cruelty, as well as contexts like animal fighting, hunting, and factory farming. Research findings on links between childhood animal abuse and later interpersonal violence are summarized. The document also covers animal cruelty laws in the US and other countries, challenges in enforcement, and growing public concern about cruelty.

1. Thompson, Carol Y. (forthcoming). “Animal Cruelty.” In Encyclopedia of Social
Deviance. Edited by Craig Forsyth and Heith Copes. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Publications.
Animal Cruelty
Animal cruelty is a general term used to refer to a broad range of offenses against non-
human animals, generally including such behaviors as intentional and unintentional
neglect, abuse, torture, fighting and abandonment. The American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) defines animal cruelty as causing unjustified
injury or death to an animal and is divided into two broad categories: active and passive
cruelty.
Passive Cruelty refers to behaviors that endanger or produce suffering and/or
death of animals by failing to provide adequate food, water, environmental needs,
veterinary care, and/or shelter. Not acting on behalf of a non-human animal can produce
devastating and/or lethal consequences for the animal, e.g., starvation, dehydration,
parasite infestations, a tight collar growing into an animal's skin, inadequate shelter in
extreme weather conditions, and the lack of necessary veterinary care. According to the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), these offenses, which are the basis for the
majority of cruelty complaints to authorities, are usually covered in state cruelty laws.
The most common types of animal cruelty are neglect (failure of people to provide
adequate care for animals in one’s charge) and abandonment. In many, but not the
majority, of these cases, the underlying reasons are rooted in ignorance or lack of
financial means on the part of the human caretaker. One form of animal neglect that has
garnered much attention recently is hoarding (the accumulation of large numbers of
animals), which can lead to extremely unsanitary conditions, often resulting in the death

2. of animals and negative health consequences for the people who live with them.
Ironically, many animal hoarders unintentionally harm non-human animals by trying to
save too many of them.
Active Cruelty, also known as acts of commission or non-accidental
injury, refers to cruelty resulting from malicious intent. Active cruelty takes many forms
and can occur for many reasons. Some examples include punching or hitting, kicking,
choking, stabbing, burning, torturing mutilating and sexual assault of an animal. Early
research on the causes of animal cruelty, which focused on dogs, cats, other pets, located
the problem in the psychological and developmental roots of sadism in humans.
Particular attention was paid to parental loss and rejection as correlates of animal cruelty
in children. This early research, although narrow in focus, did set the path for future
research that broadened the examination of the motivations for and social conditions
related to animal cruelty. Important research by Stephen R. Kellert and Alan R. Felthous
included the additional motivations of the desire to retaliate against another person,
amusement or shock value, displaced aggression, desire to control an animal, retaliation
against an animal, prejudice against a specific breed or species, the enhancing of one’s
own power, the expression of aggression through an animal, and sadism. Their research
also emphasized the social and cultural factors related to animal cruelty, pointing to the
strong correlation between children who abuse animals and those who, in adulthood,
commit aggressive acts against humans. Since then many social scientists have
empirically demonstrated that animal cruelty can be a predictor of various forms of
crime.

3. Animal Cruelty in Sport, Recreation and Agriculture
Intentional animal cruelty often occurs as part of sport, recreation and the use of
animals in agriculture. Extensive investigations by the HSUS and ASPCA have
demonstrated that cruelty to animals is commonplace in the subcultures of animal
fighting (e.g. dog fighting, hog-dog fighting, badger baiting, and cockfighting). Some
forms of hunting also involve extensive cruelty toward animals, such as bear or bobcat
hunting using dog packs, a practice called hounding, and coyote and fox penning, in
which wild foxes and coyotes are trapped in pens and hunting dogs are set loose on them.
A form of extreme animal cruelty related to entertainment is the use of animals in
crush films, in which animals are killed by being crushed or stepped on. As of 2010,
federal law prohibits interstate commerce in animal crush films. Other forms of
recreation that involve intentional animal cruelty include: bull fighting, pigeon shoots,
circuses, and beastiality/zoophilic pornography.
One of the most controversial areas related to animal cruelty is the use of factory
farming methods for the production of food. Animal rights and welfare groups, including
the HSUS, ASPCA and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), have
conducted many undercover investigations of factory farms that revealed extreme acts of
abuse and conditions of animal keeping that constitute cruelty. This undercover work
often involves taking extensive video footage documenting incidents of cruelty, which is
then turned over to local and state authorities to assist in criminal investigations. Animal
welfare groups also argue that some common practices used on animals in factory farms
are cruel, e.g., debeaking, dehorning, severe confinement and overcrowding, the use of
electric prods, and forced feeding. Critics of animal welfare groups’ claims maintain that

4. state laws are sufficient for protecting animals used for food production, incidents of
cruelty are isolated, and the methods used on farms are humane if proper protocols are
followed by workers.
Cruelty to Animals and Violence Against Humans
Over the past two decades many studies across the social sciences have
investigated the relationship between cruelty to animals and violence against humans.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) researchers were among the first to recognize the
connection between serial murder and the killing or torturing of animals in childhood.
Other research has since demonstrated that violent offenders are more likely than others
to have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. Much
of the research in this area has been replicated, showing consistent connections between
childhood animal cruelty and violent crime and aggression in adulthood. Moreover,
childhood animal abuse has been linked to later abuse of children, spouses and elders.
The findings are so robust that the American Psychiatric Association considers animal
cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of Conduct Disorder. Many researchers have noted
that acts cruelty toward companion animals, because these animals are deemed worthy of
social inclusion and compassion, present a more serious threat for the transfer of cruelty
and aggression to humans. A review of the literature on animal cruelty and crime by
Linda Merz-Perez and Kathleen M. Heide shows that animal cruelty is also associated
with other serious offenses in adults. In some cases the offense rates of those who abused
animals are five times higher than those of non-abusers.
Social science research has documented a strong connection between animal

5. abuse and domestic violence. Some of the major motivations for animal cruelty by
batterers are: to gain control and power over victims, to intimidate and make victims
fearful, and to retaliate, punish and/or isolate the victims. Moreover, domestic batterers
who also abuse pets tend to be more dangerous and use more aggression and controlling
behaviors than batterers who do not harm animals. In many cases, battered women and
children who seek protection in shelters delay leaving abusive situations for fear of what
might happen to their companion animals. In several studies of women who sought safety
in shelters over half of respondents reported that their partner hurt or killed their
companion animal, and in most cases, did so while they were watching. Women and
some children report risking their own lives in an effort to protect their pets from acts of
cruelty. In recognition of these problems, currently twenty states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws to address the connection between animal
cruelty and domestic violence.
Laws and Prosecution
Modern animal cruelty laws have their beginnings in the work of Jeremy
Bentham, English philosopher and social and legal reformer who argued that the
important question of animal suffering as a legal consideration is not whether they can
reason; but whether they can suffer. These laws are founded upon the animal welfare
viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer
unnecessarily, including those used for food, work, companionship, or research.
In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which was signed into law
in 1966 and revised in 2010, is the only Federal law that regulates the treatment of

6. animals in research, exhibition, transportation and commerce. The AWA mandated the
creation of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC), which provides information
regarding appropriate care of non-human animals used in research, testing, teaching, and
exhibition. This act, which establishes the minimum acceptable standard for animal care,
is enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS).
Every state in the U.S. has enacted its own statutes to punish individuals who
engage in cruelty toward animals. State level statutes provide the wording and content for
what constitutes illegal animal cruelty in that state. While forty-three states have felony
cruelty laws, the vast majority of cruelty offenses fall under misdemeanor statutes. States
vary a great deal in terms of the level of culpability required to prove misdemeanor or
felony offense, with most requiring a high level of culpability and/or aggravating
circumstances to establish a felony offense. All states expressly exempt certain practices
from the coverage of the animal cruelty laws. One of the most important omissions is that
cruelty toward ‘wild’ animals is not considered a felony (or even a misdemeanor) in
many jurisdictions. Furthermore, the legal definition of “animal” varies by state. For
example, Arizona limits the term to mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, whereas
Alaska law covers acts committed against non-human vertebrates, but not fish, and New
York applies aggravated cruelty laws to only companion animals.
Also, problematic is the vague and/or dated language used in cruelty statutes.
Wording such as “depriving of necessary sustenance,” or “failure to provide proper food”
inevitably lead to questions of what constitutes “necessary,” “proper,” etc. As a result,
establishing proof of cruelty in many cases depends on the interpretations of veterinarians

7. and animal control officers who investigate complaints. According to Randall
Lockwood, ASPCA Vice President for Research and Educational Outreach, because
prosecution of crimes against animals often requires specialized knowledge of relevant
laws, veterinary forensics and medicine, animal care protocols and the practices used in
crimes against animals, animal control agencies, humane societies and veterinary
associations are important allies to prosecutors in successfully pursuing animal cruelty
cases.
Internationally, the recognition of animal cruelty as a criminal offense varies
greatly across geopolitical regions and nations. The European Union has some of the
strictest and most extensive animal cruelty laws in the world, which prohibit cruelty to
non-human animals across the board, even those used in agriculture. In fact, due to the
pervasive cruelty to animals associated with intensive factory farming methods, Austria,
Germany, Switzerland and Sweden have banned the use of these methods in the
agricultural production of eggs. In many European Union nations it is now illegal to crop
dog’s ears, declaw cats, dock the tails of animals, or use choke or shock collars, and
several E.U. countries outlaw the use of wild animals in circuses. In contrast, some
countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as China, are virtually devoid of
animal cruelty laws.
Public Perceptions of Animal Cruelty
There is growing awareness of and concern for animal cruelty among the public,
because many consider animals to be innocent victims. According to the Humane Society
of the United States, the majority of U.S. citizens favor strong animal cruelty laws and a

8. significant percent believe that harming animals is morally wrong. This growth in
sympathy toward animals has been attributed to: (1) public access to scientific
information about the connection between animal cruelty and violence against humans,
(2) increased media coverage of animal related crime and news, (3) growth of the animal
welfare and protection movement, (4) specific campaigns of animal rights and advocacy
groups and (5) social and demographic changes that have facilitated stronger
relationships between humans and companion animals. As public concerns about animal
cruelty have increased, media coverage of cases of extreme cruelty can lead to the
strengthening of animal cruelty laws. In the U.S., the highly publicized conviction of the
National Football League player Michael Vick on federal and state charges related to
illegal dog fighting and gambling facilitated passage of the Animal Fighting Prohibition
Enforcement Act of 2007, which amended federal law to include tougher penalties
related to animal fighting ventures.
In spite of these changes, there are a number of behaviors that are widely believed
to be acts of animal cruelty, but are committed routinely by small segments of society as
part of adherence to subcultural norms and traditions (e.g. participating in animal fighting
and animal sacrifice). Although, within these cultural contexts, such acts are seen as
integral to a way of life, increasingly those from outside are defining them as acts of
animal cruelty.
Carol Y. Thompson
See also: domestic violence, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
beastiality
Further Readings

9. Arluke, A. (2002). Animal abuse as dirty play. Symbolic Interaction, 25, 405-430.
Arluke, A. (2004). Brute force. West Lafayette, IN:Purdue University Press.
Beirne, P. (2002). Confronting animal abuse: Law, criminology, and human-
animal relationships. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Flynn, C. (2012). Understanding animal abuse: a sociological analysis. Brooklyn
NY: Lantern Books.
Kellert, S.R. and A.R. Felthous. (1985). Childhood cruelty to animals among
criminals and non-criminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-29.
Lockwood, R. (2006). Animal cruelty prosecution opportunities for early
response to crime and interpersonal violence. Alexandria VA: American Prosecutors
Research Institute [Online]. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/animal_cruelty_06.pdf
Merz-Perez, L. & Heide, K. (2004). Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against
people. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Springsteen, E. R. (n.d.) States’ anti-cruelty statutes [Online]. Retrieved May 23,
2012, from http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/animalcruelty/index.html
Wisch, R.F. (2012). Domestic violence and pets: List of states that include pets in
protection orders [Online]. Retrieved May 23, 2012, from
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusdomesticviolencelaws.htm