Animal Cruelty and Neglect Prosecutions in the US

A Qualitative Study of the Intersection of Animal Cruelty and Neglect Prosecution, Speciesism, and Animal Sentience in California, Connecticut, and Iowa

People

Researcher

• Deborah Weinrauch

Background

As a prosecutor, the frustration of repeatedly being instructed by the deputy-in-charge to drop animal abuse cases because they were insignificant, the animals was already dead or returned to their abusers, there were more serious charges to prosecute such as domestic violence, caseloads were much too heavy, there were budgetary constraints, and that ‘only emotional women  prosecute animal cases’ left a lasting impact. Ultimately the case rejections and controversies planted a seed to analyze the reasons that animal abuse cases are rarely prosecuted. As a few more attorney colleagues joined in, the motto became ‘abused animals deserve justice’.

Aims/Objectives

Defining the salient factors that point to underuse of existing animal cruelty legislation and lead to inconsistent case prosecution constitute the principal aim of this research project. Analyzing literature, case law, and state legislation highlighted the varied experiences of stakeholders tasked with handling animal cruelty and neglect cases generally throughout the United States, and specifically in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. However, this research raised stark questions of causation that called for a theoretical lens. Understanding and explaining how and why animal abuse cases routinely appear to be underprosecuted in the three states opened a window into several theories. Eventually, the intertwined theories of speciesism and animal sentience offered historically uncomfortable explanations that warranted current qualitative data.

Methods

The research project was conducted in two main parts, with the first utilizing legal desk-based research methods. Once the literature was examined, the next phase was to focus on the epistemological approach of social constructivism and the ontological position of animal sentience over property status. This was done through semi-structured interviews conducted over a period of nine months with law enforcement officers (police, animal control, humane officers), attorneys (prosecutors, defense, advocates), judges, and veterinarians (forensic, general) in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. The open-ended questions focused on the same issues covered in the literature sources, offering comparative insight into prosecution reality while also shedding light on ever-present speciesism and the need to frame animals as victims rather than property.  In due course, patterns began to emerge that supported and explained gaps but, on rare occasion, also identified examples of positive developments.

Outcomes

As the interviews progressed, it became clear that despite greater interest and societal awareness, animal abuse legislation continued to be underused and cases underprosecuted either because the stakeholders were impacted by factors such as undertraining, heavy caseloads, or negative attitudes or because cases were undercharged, dismissed, or settled with an inadequate plea bargain. There was no single reason or overarching problem. Instead, the literature, together with interview participants, elucidated areas of needed improvement that included training, colleague support, funding, improved attitudes, reduced caseloads, and specialists. Participants requested copies of the completed findings to review and disseminate amongst other stakeholders and expressed an aspiration that the data would be incorporated into other publications, expanded education, and legislative amendments.

Research Impact

The data revealed a need for advanced research into solutions suitable for individual jurisdictions. These included courtroom animal advocates, specialized animal cruelty units, designated prosecutors, animal courts, and animal victims’ rights officers. Focusing on the effects of speciesism and animal sentience further spotlighted the interconnectedness between speciesism and theology. Lastly, it was queried whether a comparable qualitative study in other states and United States territories would mirror the findings in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. While the research project fulfilled its aim to explore the causes of legislation underenforcement and case underprosecution in animal cruelty and neglect cases, it also provided a model for broader research.