Terminology

The terms animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect are often used interchangeably but, depending on context, they may have specific meanings and weight, particularly in a court of law, and legal definitions vary by jurisdiction. Rowan (1999) distinguishes “cruelty,” “abuse,” and “neglect,” where cruelty is the intention to derive pleasure from inflicting harm to another, abuse is leveraging physical power and inappropriate force on an animal, and neglect is a failure to provide an animal with care to an extent that it harms an animal whether intentional or not.

It may be helpful to think of cruelty as deliberate harm, abuse as a deliberate act (where the action that ultimately harms the animal is intended but the resulting injuries were not necessarily part of the plan), and neglect as a passive failure (and the injuries caused by failure to act may or may not be deliberate). However, it must be acknowledged that animals who have been neglected often live tortured existences, and not all forms of cruelty and abuse share the same level of harms. Injuries resulting from a failure to act are also considered nonaccidental injuries.

Because laws vary, the United States Department of Justice uses the following definition of animal cruelty for the purposes of data collection:

Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly taking an action that mistreats or kills any animal without just cause, such as torturing, tormenting, mutilation, maiming, poisoning, or abandonment. Included are instances of duty to provide care, e.g., shelter, food, water, care if sick or injured; transporting or confining an animal in a manner likely to cause injury or death; causing an animal to fight with another; inflicting excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering, e.g., uses objects to beat or torture an animal. This definition does not include proper maintenance of animals for show or sport; use of animals for food, lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping.

(FBI n.d.)

A felony law for animal maltreatment exists in all 50 states (Randour 2004). In some states, cruelty is a felony crime, and neglect may only be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. In some places, the mens rea, or “state of mind” of the offender must be proven – that the harm to the animal was intended. In other states, only the intent to commit the act that harms the animal must be proven, which is one step away from intending to hurt the animal. Whether the animal survived the abuse may determine decisions on how to charge a crime. Restraining an animal by a leash while kicking them is an indication of mens rea – by restricting the animal’s movement and preventing escape, the abuser ensures the blows will land.

The animal hoarder who keeps animals in cages long term intends to keep the cage doors shut and intends to restrict the animals to their limited and often filthy space, but they may not intend the specific harms of nutritional deprivation, dehydration, dermatitis, or psychological distress. Another abuser might lock an animal away in retaliation for perceived bad behavior or out of revenge toward another person who cares about the animal, deliberately denying access to food and water until they starve or dehydrate to death. The difference between the two is known as “general intent” versus “specific intent.” The hoarder intended to lock the animals up and the vengeful person had specific intent to cause suffering through starvation abuse.

Because abuse, cruelty, and neglect can have either specific or ambiguous interpretations in the law depending on the context and the perception of those terms by different individuals, some prefer to use the umbrella term “animal maltreatment” when referring to all nonaccidental harms to animals. This parallels the widely used term “child maltreatment.”

Animal Hoarding

Animal hoarding is a specific type of animal maltreatment that straddles the definitions of abuse and neglect. Animal hoarding may be passive accrual of animals due to unintended accumulation or breeding, or active accrual secondary to “rescue” efforts, or intentional, intensive but poorly managed breeding for profit.

Animal hoarding is defined by Patronek (1999) as having more than the typical number of companion animals; failing to provide even minimal standards of care, with this neglect often resulting in illness, suffering, and death. Additionally, hoarders often deny their inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals and human occupants of the dwelling. There may be persistence, despite this failure, in accumulating and controlling animals. The accumulation and even caging of animals may be deliberate, but the failure to provide the population of animals with adequate care is generally an unintended sequela. The person with animal hoarding disorder either does not recognize the poor conditions, or they may simply not care (Ferreira et al. 2017). Hoarders are now believed to possibly suffer from a number of psychiatric disorders (Ferreira et al. 2017).

The suffering in animal hoarding far exceeds the benign picture of the “crazy cat lady.” Stressed, crowded animals living in filth have reduced immunity and may incubate more intense forms of infectious disease. Inadequate grooming may lead to painful matting that strangulates limbs, forms fecal dams, or even leads to ocular rupture. Ammonia and toxic bioaerosols render the air unbreathable. There is intense mental anguish caused by overly dense or restrictive housing, competition for resources, an inability to escape filth or find a comfortable position, and other stressors.

Animal Maltreatment Is Underrecognized

Official reports of animal maltreatment far undercount the number of cases that occur each year. Every locality has animals exempt from cruelty laws, whether it is animals used in agriculture, wildlife, research, or animals of certain species. It must be acknowledged that egregious animal maltreatment does occur within these “extra-label” settings, but they are currently beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.

Beyond the exemptions for enforcement, potentially prosecutable cases of animal cruelty go unrecognized, and therefore unreported. Deceased animals found on public streets, lands, or in bodies of water, are often picked up and disposed of without examination. In other communities, dogs and cats found dead may be photographed for potential future owner identification but the animals are not examined for evidence of nonaccidental injury. While it is often assumed the deceased animals are victims from hit by car, a certain percentage died for other reasons.

The Department of Justice maintains a National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and counts animal maltreatment in the four categories of intentional abuse, neglect, animal sexual abuse, and organized abuse (animal fighting). These incidents are recorded if the report of suspected animal maltreatment is made to an investigating agency with an Originating Agency Identification (ORI) number. It is estimated that approximately 55% of animal control officers are employed by agencies without an ORI number (e.g. Department of Agriculture, Department of Public Health, or a private humane agency) (M.L. Randour and L.A. Addington, Summary of Survey to Animal Control Agencies on Animal Cruelty Crime Statistics, 2011, unpublished). Only law enforcement agencies can report data to the NIBRS. If data are collected by an animal control agency, humane society, or other municipal or government office that is not in some way associated with law enforcement, the data may not end up in the NIBRS data submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Palais 2021).

Crimes of Commission Versus Crimes of Omission

The distinction of abuse as a crime of commission and neglect as a crime of omission is a helpful one. These are sometimes also referred to as active and passive abuse. There may be distinctions that are of value from a sociological, psychological, or criminological perspective. However, whether the abuser intended the harm or not, and whether they performed an act that harmed an animal or failed to intervene in a situation that would have prevented suffering does not matter to the veterinarian. The veterinarian’s job is to effectively document and capture the animal’s physical condition and any statements made related to the animal’s condition. Understanding common motives underlying animal cruelty can aid the veterinarian in asking appropriate questions when gathering a history (Lockwood and Arkow 2016).

Who Maltreats Animals, and Why?

Any profile of person may maltreat an animal or animals: however, there are certain trends. Animal hoarders are more likely to be single, older, socioeconomically disadvantaged women who live alone (Patronek 1999; Ferreira et al. 2017; Elliott et al. 2019). Poisoners are more likely to be neighbors and usually target a single animal one time rather than continuing a pattern of poisoning, but they can be strangers who are indiscriminate poisoners (Gwaltney-Brant 2007). Perpetrators who are intimate partners or family members of the owner of the animal are more likely to demonstrate active cruelty such as kicking or blunt-force injuries, while owners themselves are more likely to evidence forms of neglect. Interpersonal relationships and the types of animal maltreatment perpetrated are more complex than previously understood, as are the motivations to maltreat animals. Actions taken to reduce harms to animals must be multipronged and consider these variations (Richard and Reese 2019).

While the reasons for any criminal conduct can be complex and multifactorial, it is helpful to understand generalities of criminal motivations. Reasons for harming animals include: a need or desire to control or punish human partners; frustration over a pet’s actions; retaliation against a particular animal; retaliation against a person; satisfying a prejudice against a certain species or breed of animal; enhancing one’s personal aggressive persona; entertainment; and sadism (Kellert and Felthous 1985). Animal abusers are bullies who seek to harm and intimidate vulnerable animals and the people who care about them.

“The Link” refers to the strong association between animal maltreatment and human violence, especially toward women and children (Newberry 2017). This knowledge has been the driving force behind legislation to include animals in protective orders and mandatory cross-reporting of animal and child abuse (Gentry 2001; Flynn-Poppey et al. 2016). Animal maltreatment may occur in the context of human maltreatment within an interpersonal relationship or household. Interestingly, perpetrators of intimate partner violence who also abuse animals have a likelihood of more intense forms of domestic violence (DV). In a survey of violent acts perpetrated in a home setting, 8% of DV abusers committed acts of forced sex, but 26% of those who had also abused pets forced sex on their human partners (Campbell et al. 2021). Forty-seven percent of DV abusers had attempted strangulation of their victim, but 76% of the DV/animal abusers had done so. Thirty-five percent of DV victims reported they feared their abuser would kill them, but 78% of those abused by a person with animal abuse history thought their life was at risk. This study suggests that DV perpetrators with a history of animal abuse are significantly more dangerous than DV perpetrators who have not abused animals.

A person may redirect misplaced aggression on an animal out of frustration at not being able to act against their actual target (Kellert and Felthous 1985). They may be thrill-seeking, alleviating boredom, or harming animals for shock value (Hensley et al. 2011). Children may commit animal abuse as a response to violence within the home (Ascione 2001) or they may use animal cruelty as a form of “dirty play” that allows them to explore aspects of adult life by acting independently of adult monitoring, or to exert control and dominance over their environment (Arluke 2002).

Animal neglect may occur because an individual overestimates an animal’s ability to care for itself. A person who self-neglects will likely fail to provide adequate care to animals in their control as well, usually secondary to cognitive decline or distortion from mental illness (Nathanson 2009).

Animals may be sexually abused for reasons of perversion (Beirne 1997). Animals may be criminally abused for financial gain, through intensive breeding operations without regard for the experience of the animal that fail to provide a life worth living for the breeding animals. The environment and animals both suffer when animals are poached for the dollar value of their meat, fur, hides, or other body parts.

Dogfighters may have financial and other motivations including membership in a group bonded by shared clandestine activity, or the machismo bragging rights of owning a vicious and dangerous winner. Likewise, should the dog shame the dogfighter by losing, the dogfighter may dispatch the animal in a cruel manner to save face (Ortiz 2010).

Mental Capacity and Burden of Proof

Law enforcement investigates crimes regardless of questions about the accused person’s mental capacities. In a prosecution, it is up to the defense to argue that the accused lacks mental competence and cannot bear criminal responsibility. For similar reasons, veterinarians should not avoid reporting suspicions of animal maltreatment out of feelings of sympathy for an animal abuser. A veterinarian’s report simply ensures that the legal system is allowed to perform investigations and decide about appropriate next steps.

The criminal justice system has increasing levels of certainty needed at various steps. For instance, a police officer may detain someone briefly for questioning based on “reasonable suspicion.” They only need to have “probable cause” that a suspect committed a crime to arrest a person: probable cause is present when an officer has 51% or higher certainty. For this reason, probable cause can exist even where there is some doubt. Conversely, the burden of proof for a judge or jury is that they must have “certainty beyond a reasonable doubt” to affirm a criminal conviction of a defendant. A veterinarian’s report of suspected animal cruelty is at the lowest level of the burden of proof pyramid (Figure 20.1).

In cases of borderline care verging on neglect, it is appropriate for a veterinarian to counsel their client before reporting suspicions of maltreatment. Advice given for improving care should be noted in the animal’s record and a recheck appointment scheduled. It may be appropriate to advise the client that if they do not follow up or if the animal is not improved at recheck, the veterinarian will have an obligation to make a report of suspected animal neglect.