Should those who abuse animals be treated in a manner similar to arsonists and sex offenders? Some people in California seem to think so :
California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.
[ . . . ]
The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.
“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”
If the concern is to protect vulnerable humans, as Mr. Otto claims, then why not simply advocate having a registry of violent felons instead? The truth is that the concern is purely about animals, not humans. While the proposed law may be well-intentioned, its effect would merely be to further undermine human exceptionalism.
I truly believe that protecting animals from abuse should be a priority for any civilized society. But unlike a sex offender registry, a public list of animal abusers is unnecessary. The danger posed to the community by a child rapist is of a completely different order than that posed by someone involved in, say, dogfighting. While I’d want to be notified if Roman Polanski were to move in next door, I don’t have the same concerns about Michael Vick moving into the neighborhood.
