Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty - Research Paper Example

Abstract. Over the past two decades, resurgence of interest in the relationship between animal abuse and serious violent behaviors among the youths have been witnessed. Several investigations have, since then, unveiled numerous complexities of this particular form of violence. This research proposes that there is a relationship between animal cruelty and adolescent crimes committed to human beings. The research used a sample of 200 inmates surveyed at both medium and maximum security prison. The study featured individual influence of demographic attributes such as race, education and the residence occupied while growing up. It also took into consideration situational factors during the act and the reaction. The specific methods of animal cruelty studied included shooting, hitting, drowning or kicking, choking, burning or sexual assault. Perhaps, the evidence that is more conclusive in supporting or discrediting the potential link between childhood animal cruelty and adulthood animal cruelty. Also, adult violence towards human can be found if contributing factors are considered individually. The factors may include, but not limited to, the type of animal abused and the motivation for the abuse. In this research, we investigate the influence of demographic characteristics and situational factors that are closely associated with animal cruelty. The study also relies on the chosen methods of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty. In the study, we attempt to limit investigation to describing the specific methods by which animals are abused. Finally, the research further correlates with the childhood and adolescent animal cruelty methods, both individually and collectively, on later violence against human. Regression analysis proved that white inmates tended to shoot animals more frequently than the non-white inmates. It also revealed that the whites were less likely to be upset or even cover up their brutal act. The respondent who had sex with animals were more likely to have been alone to conceal their cruelty towards animals. However, we failed to obtain a direct link between childhood and adolescent cruelty methods listed and late violence against human beings. Introduction. Animal cruelty can be defined as a socially undesirable conduct that intentionally leads to needless pain, suffering, distress, or even death of the animal. The definition omits the behaviors that could be socially condoned in a simpler context. Such actions include, but not limited, laboratory research, agricultural, hunting and veterinary practices[Gul14]. Although researchers and other agents have recognized the solemnity of animals` cruelty, it took up to early 1980s for clinicians to recognize that the cruelty is one of the legitimate symptoms of mental sickness. The American Psychiatric organization listed animal cruelty as a sign of conduct disorder in Diagnostic and the statistical manual III R in 1987. The fourth Manual of Diagnostic and Statistical (1994) has been defined as a repetitive and insistent pattern of behaviors, in which the basic right of others are violated[McD14]. One must have at least demonstrated at least 3 out of the 15 identified symptoms of in the previous one year in order to be diagnosed with a conduct disorder. The 15 recognized symptoms include: inducing physical cruelty to animals, frequently bullying or threatening, often starting fights, and using weapons that can easily cause harm to the animals[Hen12]. Other forms of cruelty include inducing physical cruelty to other people, theft with confrontation and forcing sex on someone. Intentionally setting fire to initiate significant damage, intentionally destroying property and steal property from others are part of the symptoms among others[Hen11]. A substantial portion of children continues to portray behaviors in childhood that meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Thus, animal serves as an indicator of a serious psychological disorder[Mil14]. Research has also proved the existence of a link between childhood animal cruelties to violence exhibited by adults towards human beings. From his first publication on studies, based on experience in 1963, MacDonald analyzed the childhood behavior composition of 48 inpatients suffering from psychosis and another 52 without psychosis in one of the mental hospitals[Gri14]. All the inpatients he studied had threatened to kill animals. He realized that sadistic patients had three common childhood characteristics namely enuresis, fire setting and animal cruelty. He also tried to investigate if this triad could serve as a preemptive tool to intervene in and possible correct violent behavior. Many researches have been conducted to ascertain whether animal cruelty is correlated with a mental disorder and also to determine if it is leading to violence in adulthood against humans, but little research has been carried out to examine individual methods of animal cruelty. Research meant to examine these least studied active forms of animal cruelty is critical, in order to understand the interconnection between childhood animal cruelty and later adulthood violence against human[Hen12]. If it could be determined through research that particular component of cruelty towards animals was more reliable in determining future violence against human beings, it could be easy to identify the childhood life of an adolescent, in relation to animal abuse that needs immediate intervention[Wal14]. Such understanding will help preserve the lives of innocent animals and human victims. Methodology and procedure. Permission was granted by the southern state department of correction to distribute the questionnaire to male inmates in two of their medium-security prison and one maximum security prison. The exercise was conducted from May to June 2003. The questionnaires were delivered to each inmate in all the facilities through their correction counselors. The correction counselor had a responsibility to distribute and collect the questionnaires from the prisoners. Since it was a voluntary exercise, all the inmates were advised to return the filled questionnaire in an official envelope addressed to every inmate within three weeks of distribution[Gul14]. In addition, they were also informed on their anonymity while participating in the exercise. Of the 2093 inmates incarcerated in the facilities, only 261 accepted to take part in the study. It thus yielded a response rate of 12.5%. It might appear low, but such sensitive prison research conventionally attracts less than 25% respondents. Also, given the complicated nature of the exercise, such a percentage of respondent can be reliable[McD14]. Prison population characteristics Sample (N) % n % race White Other 10654 5280 67 33 182 78 70 30 Type of Offense Interpersonal Violent crime Other crime 8000 7934 50.2 49.8 125 136 47.9 52.1 Median age 33 years 33.5 years The table above shows the prison population characteristics. The core objective of the study was to analyze methods used by the inmate while conducting animal cruelty during their childhood (12 years and below) and adolescence, between 13 and 18 years, of age. Variable in use were derived from past research dealing with the link between childhood animal cruelties to their later violence toward humans[Mil14]. Inmates were encouraged to show what they did, in order to hurt or kill the animal. They were expected to cycling each of the methods mentioned above. The methods served as the independent variables in the analysis. The race, education level, and residence while growing up were used as the predictor variables in the research. The animal was defined as pet, stray, farm or wild. As a means of coding the methods, an inmate was expected to fill 0 to represent no or 1 to represent yes. The inmates were also asked several questions to ascertain whether they have ever been judged for murder or attempt to murder, rape or attempt to rape and aggravated assault[McD14]. The respondent were also asked if they were alone while hurting or killing the animal. They had to ascertain if they covered up what they had done to the animal or not. The respondent was also supposed to state if the act had upset them. Finally, the inmates were requested to identify the number of times they had executed the act of hurting or killing animal. They were also expected to state their age when they first participated in animal cruelty[Gri14]. Results. From the 112 inmates who accepted to have participated in animal cruelty, about 64% had shot the animal. Another 45% had performed animal cruelty by either hit or kicked the animal, and 15% of them accepted to have either drowned, had sex or had burned the animal. The resulting percentage is more than 100% because some inmates had chosen more than one method. Method n % shot 72 64.3 choked 24 21.4 sexual 16 14.3 drowned 16 14.3 Hit or kicked 50 44.6 burned 17 15.2 The table above shows the frequency and the percentage of inmates who committed childhood or adolescent animal cruelty. From the questionnaire, white inmates had higher chance to have been brought up in the rural areas and had a likelihood to have shot an animal. Respondents who engaged at a very young age in animal cruelty had a likelihood to commit many acts of animal cruelty[McD14]. The respondents who were not upset by their act of animal cruelty had committed various animal cruelties had a likelihood to have shot animals. Inmates who reported covering up for their animal cruelty, those with multiple acts of animal cruelty together with those who had not covered up for their animal cruelty had a likelihood to have chocked the animals. Respondents who were not upset by the animal cruelty were more likely to have burned or had sex with the animal. Finally, inmate who had participated in drowning of the animal had higher chance to have choked or burned animals[Mil14]. Discussion. The present study concentrated on the method by which the animal was abused, the situation and the demographic factors that influenced the abuser. It can be observed that shooting was a method frequently used to conduct animal cruelty. The next most used method is kicking or hitting, followed by choking, burning, drowning, and having sex with the animal[McD14]. Many respondents who used another method apart from shooting showed to have performed more than one of the other animal cruelties. The finding thus suggests a potential useful dichotomy for future studies since apart from shooting all the other methods require more direct contact with the animal. Conclusion. The present study can provide an initial step in examining the methods of animal cruelty. However, the study is associated with its strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths lies in the use of understudied factors. The study also closely mirrors the larger inmate population of the States, and thus the finding could serve as a beginning of the demographic and situational profile about those who engage in animal cruelty. On the other hand weaknesses do exist; the study yielded a response rate of about 12.5% and thus it can be concluded that the return rate is low. It can also imply that the results are generalized to a larger population of inmates since there is no comparison group which can serve to verify the results. Relying on pencil only could have also excluded the illiterate prisoners thus further narrowing the sample. It can, therefore, be concluded that animal cruelty occurs in all races, where different methods are applied. The childhood environment is a contributing factor to animal cruelty. References Gul14: , (Gullone, 2014), McD14: , (McDonald, 2014.), Hen12: , (Hensley, 2012), Hen11: , (Henderson, 2011), Mil14: , (Milne, 2014), Gri14: , (Grimes, 2014), Wal14: , (Walters, 2014), Read More