Introduction: The American Society for the preclusion of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) defines animal cruelty as “acts of violence or neglect perpetrated against animals are considered animal cruelty” (Animal Cruelty). Animal cruelty is a serious crime that occurs in different forms worldwide today. To deter or reduce the volume of this severe felony proper legislation and enforcement is very much essential. Animal cruelty such as hunting, experimentation, animals for entertainment and fur farms have heated debates all around the globe and these have culminated in number of legislations against animal cruelty in many parts of the world. The people who do not care for animals and maltreat them should be brought under the limits of laws; perpetrators in this area need to be prosecuted and punished. It is evident that a person who engages in animal abuse is most likely to indulge in more serious crimes in future if he is not punished or prosecuted. In United States, several laws have been implemented to prevent animal cruelty from time to time and this essay seeks to bring out the history of legislation with regards to animal rights, the existing laws that prevent animal cruelty in New York State, the theories that form the basis for these legislations, the pros and cons of these policies in the State, and to draw conclusions based on the future implications of these policies and legislations.
History and Background information: Animal cruelty must have originated ever since the origin of the human species. The holy books, Bible and Quran have exposed the several evidences on animal cruelty; however, many of these cruelties were exercised as the part of their religious rituals and practices. Wide ranges of laws and policies have been introduced by various nations in an effort to eradicate animal cruelty and to restore animal rights. The ancient Athenian legislator, Triptomaleus implemented the law for Athenians against animal cruelty. One of the provisions of the law exhorts: “honor your parents; Sacrifice to the Gods from the fruits of the earth; injure not animals”. Similarly, Asoka, the ancient Indian emperor believed that all beings are not to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. He propagated his doctrine called ‘Ahimsa’ (non aggression), banned the royal hunts and asked the people to stop the slaughter of animals in the entire kingdom (Animal Rights Law). Setton (1984) in his seminal article “The papacy and the Levent(1204-1571)” shows how bullfighting was an exceptional entertainment event in royal weddings and religious festivities in Rome where aristocrat men would compete and the public thoroughly enjoyed the excitement of such sports. Pope Pius V was totally against this brutality and issued the papal bull in November 1567 to put an end to fighting as well as other beast fights; however, this was eliminated after 8 years by his heir Pope Gregory XIII at the demand of Emperor Philip II (Setton, 1984, p. 912-913). In Europe, Judaism and Christianity held that the creation of animal by god was for human consumption. However, there were many Christian philosophers who argued that humans had no rights to treat animals cruelly, because they were not, like human being, made in the image of god. This perspective was widely propagated by the 18th century ethical philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. He applied the ideas and views of utilitarianism to avoid sufferings on animal. According to Ryder, the first known legislation against animal cruelty in the European nations was established in Ireland in 1635 (Ireland-Act against Cruelty to Horses-Sheep, 1635). This law was referred to as ‘the cruelty used the beasts’ and had provisions to prosecute the person who used sheep for pulling wool, and attached ploughs to horse’s tails. In the middle of the 20th century, there flourished several animal right movements and many such movements actively involved in variety of animal abuse issues. The main target of Animal rights movement is to enhance the quality of life of animals by deterring brutality to animals or butchering the beasts except to deter their own suffering. Massachusetts Bay colony Puritans performed the first animal protection law in the western globe. New York State enacted the animal protection law in 1829. Animal right became a major public issue in United state during the period of the American civil war .Hendry Bergh was the founder of the first human organization, ‘American Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ in 1866 , the aim of which was to reduce the ache, fear and suffering of all beasts. Bergh took legal action against butchers, animal transporting drivers, carters, and the coordinator of bull fights and cock fights. In 1874 the New York legislator passed the first animal cruelty law called US1 but first it was used to protect a child, Mary Ellen. By 1907, every state of United States implemented anticruelty policies and in the 2oth century, state government performed advanced policies to prevent this cruelty. By the end of the 19th century the United States Congress enacted a number of laws with a view to preserve animal rights. The extreme use of animals in laboratories, on factory farms, and the other business purposes prompted the United States Congress to enact the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. T In 1970, 1976, 1985 and 1990 the law was re-structured and strengthened (Dierauf & Gulland, 2001, p. 755). The primary functions of the AWA is ensure that animal intend for use in research facilities, public displays, or brought up as pets were provided with humane care and treatment (Dierauf & Gulland, 2001, p. 755).
Unites States policies against animal cruelty: United states Department of Agriculture (USDA) and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) are governing the Animal Welfare Act. The Laws made by Animal Welfare Act highlighted the importance of keeping a minimum standard of care and treatment for animal when they used for sale, used in biomedical research, transportation and exhibition in the public. A person who comes under above mentioned categories should provide sufficient care and treatment in sheltering, handling, hygiene, nutrition, medical care, water and safety from extreme climate conditions to their animals. The Animal Welfare Act controls the care and treatment of warm-blooded animals but the law gives an exception for farm animals and birds those that consumed for food, wool and domestic usage. However, the cold blooded animals and retail pet shops did not come under the AWA statute. Animal shelters and pounds are controlled by AWA if they trade to dealers. Similarly, a private citizen who owned the pets does not come under the regulation act of AWA. AWA maintains the exact records of purchase, sell and description of animals which help to prevent the selling of missing and stolen animals.
New York state policies on animal abuse
It is worthwhile to analyze the various provisions guaranteed in Article 26 (circular 916): of the Agriculture and Markets Law relating to cruelty to animals by State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York as it offers a comprehensive view of the existing laws with regard to animal cruelty in the State. The various provisions in the article are briefly described below:
Section 351: Section 351 0f the article strictly prohibits any sorts of animal fighting. The section ensures the prevention of animal fighting such as cock, bull, dog, bears or any other animals. According to this section animal fighting is a serious felony and the person will get up to four years of imprisonment or up to twenty-five thousand dollars or both simultaneously.
Section 353: The section prohibits overdriving, torturing, animals and failure to provide proper sustenance: an individual who engaged in severe torture, overrides, overloads or beats cruelly, or unreasonably injures damages or kills or not provide adequate food and water to any beasts is considered as guilty of misdemeanor and he will get the punishment up to one year of imprisonment.
Section 353: Section 353 of the article aims at eradicating any types of aggravated cruelty to animals: The person who kills or intentionally makes serious physical injury to animals comes under the section of ‘Aggravated Cruelty’. According to New York state policy, aggravated cruelty is a serious offence and the guilty will get imprisonment for not more than 2 years as well as fine to those who involve in the below mentioned cruelties:
1. A person who intentionally kills or makes serious physical injuries
2. The person who involve in hunting, trapping, or fishing
Section 353-b: The section is aimed at ensuring appropriate shelter for dogs out left outdoors. The main purpose of this section is to ensure healthy physical condition of dogs that suffer from illness, sickness, wound, and infection. Therefore the owner of pet should take care of the shelter of the pet animal according to their breed, physical condition, and the climate. If the person violates any one of the provisions of this section in first time, he/she shall be punishable by not below than fifty dollars. The person is punishable by either not below than hundred dollars or not more than 250 dollars if he/she engages in the same offences in future.
Section-353c: The section seeks to offer electrocution of fur-bearing beasts: the main purpose of the provision of this section is to prevent fur-bearing animal from being killed intentionally by the use of electrical current. Any person who violates the provision this section shall be considered as guilty of misdemeanor.
Section-353-d: The section addresses issues related to the imprisonment of companion animals in motor vehicles even in extreme temperature. According to this law, a person should not imprison a companion animal in a vehicle in severe temperature without adequate airing or other safeguards. A person who violates any provision of this section in one time shall be punishable of not below than fifty dollars or not more than hundred dollars. The person shall be punishable of more than 100 dollars if he involves in the same offenses in future.
Section-354: The section puts restrictions on the sale of baby chicks and rabbits: The New York state policy is very strict on the Sale of baby rabbits and baby chicken. According to the statute, no one should sell or offer for sale living baby chicks and baby rabbits if it is less than 2months of age, no one should not sell or offer for sale colored, or dyed chicks and rabbits. If anyone violates or involves in above mentioned cruelty will get imprisonment for not exceeded to one year or fine of up to five hundred dollars.
Section 355: The addresses the abandonment of animal: According to New York State policy, abandoning of animal is a very serious crime. The person who engages in this kind of cruelty will get a maximum of one year of imprisonment as well as a fine not to exceed thousand dollars. The person who neglects to supply adequate food, water, wholesome air, shelter also will get the one year punishment and thousand dollars fine. A person who sells or offer to sale of diseased animals particularly contagious or infectious diseases threat to the life of human beings as considered as guilty of misdemeanor. So that a person who engaged in the above offence will get a punishment of up to one year imprisonment and fine of up to thousand dollars.
Section 356: The section offers provisions for any failure to provide adequate food and water to impounded animal: a person who neglects to provide adequate food, water, and shelter to his her impounded animals can be considered as the guilty of misdemeanor and shall be punishable by one year imprisonment or fined by thousand dollars.
Section-357: Marketing or offering to sell or exposing diseased animals is punishable under this section. A person who sells or offers to sale diseased animals and thus causes contagious or infectious diseases threat to the life of human beings is considered as guilty of misdemeanor. Any person who engaged in the above offence will get a punishment of up to one year imprisonment and fine of up to thousand dollars.
Section- 358: The section aims at putting restrictions on the selling of disabled horses: selling disable horses shall be illegal according to the New York state policy. A person who holds the license of selling or auctioning the diseased horses at public place is violating the rules and regulation against animal cruelty and shall be get the punishment of imprisonment for not more than six months or by a fine of less than hundred dollars
Section-359: The section prohibits carrying animal in cruel manner: A person who transports the animal in a closed container or small cages are comes under the part of animal cruelty. So it is also punishable of not more than one year imprisonment or fine of not more than thousand dollars
Section-360: The section addresses poisoning or attempting to poison an animal: Poisoning or attempting to poison an animal is very serious felony. A person who intentionally uses the poisonous substance into the food of horse or domestic cattle is considered as the guilt of misdemeanor and will get the punishment of imprisonment or fine, or by both.
Section-362: The section of the article addresses issues such as throwing substance injurious to animals in public place. A person who harms with nails, glass, pieces of metal and other substances are considered as guilty of misdemeanor and shall be get punishment of one year imprisonment or fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by both.
Section 363: The section holds that unauthorized possession of dogs is presumptive evidence of larceny: a person who possesses the dog without license or authority shall be punishable if he is not notified the true owner within the ten days of time.
Section-364: The section deals with the running horses on highway: Running horses on public highways as considered as guilty of misdemeanor and shall be punishable for about one year imprisonment or about five hundred dollars of fine or by both. Similarly issues such as clipping or cutting the ears of dogs (Section-365), dog stealing (Section-366), removing, and seizing or transporting dogs for research purposes (Section-366-a), leaving state to avoid provision of this article (Section-367), operating upon tails of horses unlawful (Section-368), interference with officers (Section-369), protection of the public from attack by wild animals and reptiles (Section-370), powers of peace offices (Section-371), issuance of warrants upon complaint (Section-372), seizure of animals lost, strayed, homeless, abandoned or improperly confined or kept (Section-373), human destruction or other disposition of animals lost, strayed, homeless, abandoned or improperly confined or kept (Section-374), disposal of dead animals (Section-377), spaying and neutering of dogs and cats (Section-377-a), unlawful tampering with animal research (Section-378), are also part of guilt of misdemeanor. A person will get severe punishment if he or she violates any of the statute (AGM Article 26, 2009, pp. 4-20 ).
Today, Depiction of animal cruelty is also considered as serious crime. The United States implemented the new policy namely ‘US Code-Section 48: depiction of animal cruelty’ in addition to the above mentioned policies. A person who draws or creates sales or possess a depiction of animal cruelty shall be punishable by imprisonment as well as fine or by both according to the severances of the crime (18 U.S.C. § 48: US Code – Section 48: Depiction of animal cruelty, 2009).
Court cases: There are many prevalent animal abuse court cases reported in the United States. A retired physician of Kalispell namely John L. Heine was prosecuted for abandoning 12 puppies in Somers. The doctor was charged on aggravated cruelty to animals and the flathead county Attorney’s office issued the arrest warrant against him. Heine said that infection of parvovirus is the main reason for abandoning his puppies. The puppies were detected from the garbage bag with common household litter. The person namely Makulec who is a contractor of maintain green dumps sites in Somers site, and salvager of the county heard the squeeze of puppies inside the container. The only two puppies were survived out of 12when his salvager open the container .Makulec took the surviving puppies and brought them to Flathead county animal shelter. The director of Flathead valley animal shelter, Kirsten Holland stated that dumping animals is serious felony and inhuman way. He says to Heine that he had to report about the puppies to the animal shelter instead of abandoning those puppies into the street .But Heine was unaware of this facility otherwise he should seek the assistance of Animal shelter. He claimed the ignorance of statute in front of Flat head county district court and narrow escape from the imprisonment and severe fine (Animal Abuse Case Details 2008).
The other animal abuse case reported was against Christopher Todd Foster who was accused of shooting a dog and posing for pictures with its dead body. He has been charged with the case of aggravated animal cruelty. The dog was owned by Buddy Lemaster and put a complaint against Foster in Yellow county Sherrif’s office when he got the clear evidence. Lemaster found his dog shot dead in several months earlier but he did not lodge any complaint due to the unawareness of culprit. Finally he found out that Foster is behind of this brutality when he received the pictures of his dog with Foster. The court analyzed the photos and noticed that three of the photos Foster posed with a rifle out of 5 pictures. Finally Foster was admitted his crime (Animal Abuse Case Details: Dog shot and killed, photographed Billings, MT (US)
The animal policies aimed at the preservation of animal rights have their theoretical backgrounds in theories such as the deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and the biological theory and therefore it is mandatory to see each of these theories, one by one.
Deterrence theory: Zagare (1987) purports that no single concept has dominated the strategic field over the past forty years as has the concept of deterrence (p. 1). In our daily life we can see so many examples for deterrence. Deterrence has become popular and it has become part of the criminal justice system too. Deterrence is not a new theory because it has been used by man in various aspects in ancient time. The earliest known example of deterrence as it relates to crime and punishment is the code of Hammurabi (Koppenhaver). This ancient text categorized the punishment according to the crime that one does. This text was carved on large stone slabs and sited in open view because this would be educate the people or society to know the punishment it they violate the rule. Deterrence theory is based on the question answer format, which seeking the answer of questions. This theory is the twig of philosophy of law which consists of criminal justice and meticulous punishment. The theory of criminal justice deep rooted with other segments of philosophy like political philosophy and ethics. What is criminal justice and how does it differ from other types of justice are the common questions consists of theory of criminal justice. Should we punish? Why we should punish? Whom we should punish? How should we punish? and how much should be punish? are the basic questions of the topic of punishment. According to legal theorists and philosophers, correlative, procedural, distributive and retributive justices are the four different kind of justice. Criminal law comes under retributive justice that believes proportionate punishment who involved in the crime. The main principle of retributive justice is ‘an eye for an eye’. But the theory of deterrence is frequently dissimilar with the retributive justice. Deterrence is separated in to three categories according to the volume of crime. They are specific deterrence, general or indirect deterrence, and incapacitation. Specific deterrence concentrates the culprit to make them know about the consequences of the punishment if they engaged crimes in future. General or indirect deterrence suggests that punishment should make in public view in order to prevent other persons from involve in crime in future. Incapacitation considers criminals are put it in jail to unable to engage in crime in future instead of rehabilitating. Successful prosecution such as prison sentence, community service, and financial penalties would help authority to do more course of action. Here one can easily identify that New York State Policy against Animal abuse has its strong roots in the deterrence theory. Deterrence is mainly aimed at the prevention of animal crimes in future. Similarly, deterrence theory restricts one to repeat any sorts of animal abuse. Deterrence presupposes provisions such as visible and successful prosecution, consistent investigation and prosecution and it also holds that cases should not be abandoned because of other commitments or interests, and the criminals must be punished. Deterrence and rehabilitation go in hand and enable maximum animal cruelty prosecutions. Rehabilitation offers an authoritative justification for the trial of animal abuse offenses. For any child or adolescent, who does cruelty against animal there is a possibility of do more offense in future. The child may grow up in his crimes and therefore there should be sufficient provisions to prevent subsequent future crimes of similar type. The adults also have some kind of Rehabilitation in animal abuse such as many states enforce as a sanction community projects which comprise communication with beasts in a kind and positive way.
Rational choice theory: Rational choice theory is associated closely with Ron Clarke, the former Head of the British Home Office Research and Planning Unit, which did so much in the 1970s to establish and develop the situational approach to crime prevention, such that it “became the main form of government intervention during the 1980s(Gilling 1997, p 60). Every human being wants to keep away from hurt and punishments on activities if they are rational. The theory, rational choice, is clearly probing the reasoning process of culprits. Comparatively, rational choice theory is much vaster and effective than deterrence theory because the criminals think about multiple costs and rewards prior to making assessments about felony. Mainly, this theory differentiates between two forms of decision building. They are criminal involvement and criminal event. Rational choice theory was introduced by a man named Cesare Baccaria and it was widely accepted throughout Europe and United States because of its utilitarian ideas and views. This theory helped to get rid of cruel and strange punishment existed in the 19th nineteenth century (Vito, Maahs & Holmes 2006, p 16).
Beccaria points out that severe punishment tempted people to commit crimes in future without any fear of punishment. He suggested that the only solution to prevent criminals from involving more serious crime is to make sure that the punishment is well matched for the offense. It means an individual who involves in minor offences would not get the same punishment as the person does serious offences. The British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham highly structured on Beccaria’s utilitarian views and ideas (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2006, p.28). He believed that the creations of laws were keep society or community to happy and punishment is only acceptable if it is used as a form of deterrent. This theory reached at its peak in 19th century and began to decline by the end of 20th century by the negligence of criminologists.
According to some criminologist rational theory is one of the strongest hypotheses available to describe the causing of offences. The rational theory demonstrates strong rational consistency and broad views and ideas of all types of crime and criminals. For instance the person committed robbery or burglary for the economic benefit but rape and murder are intentional offence. Therefore both of the criminals should get the punishment according to their crimes. The rational theory clearly mentioned the punishment according to their offense. The most common criticism on rational theory is that which gives more importance on individual choice rather than social factors such as broken families, poverty, inauspicious living circumstances and neglected childhood into an individual’s possible for criminality. It is very difficult to describe all causes of criminal behavior without unifying these aspects. Rationality, personality, self-consciousness are the characteristic features of immoral being but this features are lacking in Animals. Rational choice theory is mainly based on utilitarian views and ideas. But utilitarianism does not have the rights or basic protection to any individual or animal, apart from the right to have one’s interests given equivalent consideration in the grand calculation.
Biological theory: (“According to Fishbein (2005:60) “control is best achieved through effective means of preventing and treating those characteristics that underlie antisocial behaviors. Biological theory states that social and biological factors are playing vital role in development of one’s criminal behavior” (Einstadter & Henry 2006, p.93). Biological factors are very broad which consists of physiological, neurological, biochemical and genetic causes. Genetic factors are considered as biological factors that are hereditary but social factors are not hereditary. Generally people are considered that certain physical characteristics were passed down from parent to child, sometimes this attributes making the child of committing offences. Animal abuse is very much interrelated with biological theory. According to the theory, the past criminal behavior of one’s tends to do more crime in future because of genetically disorder. The studies proven that 25 of men who imprisoned for animal cruelty in the past found to have still engaged in same brutality than the person have non- criminal background. The physiognomist, Johan Casper Lavator suggested that the figure of the skull and other facial features are impacted on the development of human behavior. Cesare Lombroso, the creator of Criminal Anthropology” took these ideas to an advanced level and started investigating other parts of the human body as well as animals. He examined the other characteristics such as size of ear, volume and length of hair, and so on to compare with the attributes of criminals. The English physician, Charles Goring took initiative steps in Lombroso’s theory and began research to discover if the theory carried any truth. “As a physician he initially conducted research on the physical anomalies among military soldiers, mental patients, and prison inmates” (Moyer 2001, p.39). He selected prisoners and members of Royal Engineers of London for his research but he found no dissimilarity in their facial features or skull sizes among the two groups. These earlier biological theorists did not give much consideration on social factors when they conducting their research. To examine the one’s criminal behavior, biological theories recently researched into, hormones, the autonomic nervous system, and the central nervous system with the help of neurotransmitters. There is a credence that the person more likely to act in violent when some hormones are released from the body. Another believes is that problem of central nervous system particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain can lead the person to be very aggressive and It can also pilot a person to be sexual offending. The improper work of autonomic nervous system can also lead a person to be involved in culprit manner. However, criminal behavior is a broad subject so that we cannot give simple answer to why it takes place. Biological theory has produced different answers and results, and each condition may have a diverse reason for the actions happening (Tehrani & Mednick).
Section 3: Pros and cons of the policy
Pros and Cons: Generally systems and laws are implemented for preventing or reducing the crimes and to make a person for well being. Gary L. Francione, a professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, a distiguished Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, NewJersey have propagated the need for animal rights. Francione “has been teaching animal rights and the Law over 20 years. He has lectured on the topic of animal rights throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe” (Interview with Gary L. Francione regarding abolitionism as opposed to animal-welfare reforms). Gary L. Francine analyses criminal, civil, and regulatory laws are essential for preventing animal cruelty. By Francis observance he find out that people are using animals for all types of purposes even if it is not necessary. There are several laws implemented for animal welfare, but they are very ineffective because they proscribe only unreasonable imposition of suffering or fatality on animal. In nineteenth century, implemented several anti cruelty laws incorporated with every state of United States. Many of these laws provide lesser form of punishments if an individual involved in animal cruelty. For instance, section 353, consider overdriving torturing, and injuring animals, and failure to provide proper substances, as serious guilt but fail to mention exact nature of punishments that can be offered to those who violate any one of the provision of section. In addition, the New York state law and regulation implemented for preventing animal cruelty at its maximum. The main concept of the New York law against animal cruelty is deterrence theories ‘eye for an eye’ approach. According to many of the criminologists, this approach would not be sufficient for preventing animal abuse than for offenses against people (New York Animal Law in Perspective, 2009). Francois points out the limitation of anticruelty laws is that this statues gives clear freedom for using animal for agriculture, use of animals in biomedical laboratories, and the use of entertainment purposes. Francine blames anticruelty laws not right for the interest of animals, but it balanced the interests of human being. But many of the criminologists argue that New York state policies are very effective in accomplishing its ultimate goals. New York State policy confirms the maximum punishment and treatment to those who engage in the animal abuse. For instance, the New York state policy, 353-a, aggravated cruelty to animals, gives severe punishment to the culprits-he or she will be imprisoned for less than 2 years (New York Consolidated Cruelty Statutes, 2009).
There are nearly sixty million domestic dogs and over thirty-six million owned by household According to the survey conducted by private agency in United States. The half of the family of United States presents the birthday and Christmas gift to their dogs. Most of the owners will not do any hazardous against their domestic pet. In United States, state anticruelty statutes go well beyond prohibiting brutal activities such as beating, injuring, clipping the air, docking the tail and so on. The New York state statutes provide severe punishments and penalties to those who engage in animal cruelties in an inhuman manner. Even though the violation of statutes increasing day by day. Generally the anticruelty laws implemented for the rights of animals but its protecting human beings many of the situations. Punishment is not remedy for preventing crime. There are many statutes and punishment existed in the beginning of the human life to prevent and avoid crimes, but the ratio of felony has increased day by day and now it is reached at its maximum level. One can easily find the failure of policies with the help of deterrence theory. According to Biological theory, ones criminal behavior is belonging to his inheritance. The person who got criminal behavior by birth no one can prevent them to do the crimes. But there are not so much evidence inheritance is the main reason for the formation of one’s criminal behavior. One can identify that Childhood Environment is the key factor of development of one’s criminal behavior. A person, who has cruel and crime experience in his or hers childhood which carries this characteristic into his or hers entire life. Mental instability also causes a person for committing a crime. This mental instability makes them to do the crimes and cruelty against people and animal such as murder, rape, beating, and so on. By analyzing the anticruelty policies one easily identify that the punishment and fines are not much effective to prevent the animal cruelty as well as crime. Education and awareness campaign against animal cruelty are the only remedy is to avoid or prevent from this brutality. Education will help adolescent or children to develop the kindness towards animal and also help to become a well being in the society or his or hers country.
Section 4: the conclusion and future implications
By summing up one can easily identify that there are so many anti social activities and crimes increasing every day throughout the world in terms of animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is not only considered as national problem but it also as international problem. There is no exception for domestic and wild animals when it comes to the display of Animal cruelty on animals. Both of them are suffering from extreme tortures and hurting from the human being. The famous philosopher Kant states: “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men…” and “tender feeling towards dumb animals develop human feelings towards mankind” (Leiden 2000). There are many strict policies and laws existing to prevent animal brutality. But the laws and policies are not sufficient enough to provide adequate punishment for those who were are engaged in such crimes. Many of the courts could not gather sufficient evidences to prove the crime. As a result, most of the culprits are challenging the judiciary without any fear. There are many petitions given to the courts to bring an end to the prevailing animal cruelty in various parts of the nation. The theories like deterrence, biological, rational analyze the reasons and causes behind crime; however, the theories do not throw light on the human criminal behavior against animals. Even though the New York State Policy on animal cruelty has beeb interrelated with these theories specially deterrence theory, most of these theories have become old fashioned, lost their originality and have been restructured. By analyzing this one can agree that policies and laws are not enough for keeping away from the felony. Education and awareness campaign is the best remedy for cruelty against animal. It should start from the childhood and government has to include animal cruelty as the part school and university syllabus.
Animal Abuse Case Details. (2008, August). Retrieved October 19, 2009 from: http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14450/MT/US/
Animal Abuse Case Details: Dog shot and killed, photographed Billings, MT (US). (2008, September). Retrieved October 19, 2009 from: http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15219/MT/US/#UPDATESAnimal Cruelty. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from LearningToGive.org: http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper359.html
Animal Protection: Animal Welfare Act. (2009). Retrieved October 19, 2009 from American Humane Association website: http://www.americanhumane.org/advocacy/animal-protection/animal-welfare-act.html
Animal Rights Law. Animal Rights History. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from : http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-law.htm
Article 26: of the Agriculture and Markets Law relating to cruelty to animals. State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets Albany, NY 12235. Circular 916: Revised January 2009. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from: http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AI/AILaws/Art 2026 20- 20Circ. 20916 20Cruelty.pdf
Dierauf, L.A & Gulland, F.M.D. (2001). CRC handbook of marine mammal medicine. Illustrated 2nd Edition: CRC Press.
Einstadter, WJ & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions. Illustrated 2nd edn: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gilling, Daniel. (1997). Crime prevention: theory, policy, and politics. Reprint Edition: Routledge.
Interview with Gary L. Francione regarding abolitionism as opposed to animal-welfare reforms. (2005, December). Retrieved October 19, 2009 from: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/veganimal-en-200906.pdf
Ireland-Act against Cruelty to Horses-Sheep, 1635. Act against Plowing by the Tayle, and Pulling the Wooll off Living Sheep. Animal Rights History. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from: http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-law/renaissance/1635-ireland-act-horses-sheep.htm
Koppenhaver, JJ. Deterrence Theory: Four Branches. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201802/Deterrence-Theory-Four-Branches
Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV (2000). Society & Animals 8:1. Book Review. JAMES M. JASPER. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997
Moyer, IL. (2001). Criminological theories: traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Illustrated edn: SAGE.
New York Animal Law in Perspective. Animal Blawg: Transcending Speciesism Since October 2008. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/new-york-animal-law-in-perspective/
New York Consolidated Cruelty Statutes. (2009). Michigan State University College of Law. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from: http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusnyag_mkts332_379.htm#s353a
Setton, K.M. (1984). The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). Volume 4 of The Papacy and the Levant. Volume 162 of Memoirs Series 1204-1571 : The Sixteenth Century from Julius III to Pius V. DIANE Publishing.
Tehrani, JA & Mednick, SA. Crime Causation: Biological Theories – Genetic Epidemiological Studies, Gene-environment Interactions, Sex Differences In Genetic Liability To Criminality, Is There A Genetic Liability To Violence? Retrieved October 19, 2009 from: http://law.jrank.org/pages/795/Crime-Causation-Biological-Theories.html#ixzz0UCoHv9Vj
Vito, GF., Maahs, JR and Holmes, RM. (2006). Criminology: theory, research, and policy Criminal justice illuminated. Illustrated 2nd edn: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Zagare, FC. (1987). The dynamics of deterrence. Illustrated Edition: University of Chicago Press.
18 U.S.C. § 48 : US Code – Section 48: Depiction of animal cruelty. (2009). FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from: http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AI/AILaws/Art 2026 20- 20Circ. 20916 20Cruelty.pdf