Research paper written by Meda Miller Summer 2011.
From
the beginning of human civilization there have been conflicts between and among
human beings. It is part of our nature to display dominance to ensure the
survival of our kind. However, somewhere in the history of human development as
a society there became a group that separated from the standards of normalcy.
For centuries experts in the field of Forensic Science have searched for a
common thread that could be found in serial killers. Alphonse Bertillon, a
French Police officer created the science of anthropometry which was a system
of measurements used to identify criminals prior to the development of the
fingerprinting methods (Mouat). Bertillon discovered a correlation between the
circumference of the head and criminal behavior. Later his findings would be
discredited due to the natural tendency for the body to modify with age. In
recent years, as researchers are still striving for answers to solve the
question of what drives some individuals to commit violent crimes more in depth
examinations have been conducted on those who are incarcerated. Some studies
have placed emphasis on how a crime takes place, and methods used. However, few
have established a strong argument for the motivation that drives violent
crimes. In an attempt to bring forth more information for the motivations for
interpersonal violence some researchers have conducted studies on serial
killers looking into events of their childhood that could trigger adverse
behavior. Recent research can demonstrate that there is a significant correlation
between the motivations for childhood animal cruelty which can indicate
tendencies for anti-social behavior and interpersonal violence as an adult.
The idea that animal cruelty is a behavior that deserves special attention is
not of recent times. Prominent influential writer of his time John Locke wrote
concerning children in in 1693 that the enjoyment they experience in inducing
harm to animals will harden their minds and could bring them to turn on their
own kind. To clarify the definition of
animal cruelty for the purpose of this argument the information will be
presented based on Asicone’s description of animal cruelty as the generally improper
behavior that deliberately causes undue pain, suffering, distress to and/or the
death of an animal (Henderson 2).
Some
people believe that animal abuse has little correlation with later
interpersonal violence claiming that the motivations for violent offenses stem
from abuse experienced as a child whether it is physical, sexual or emotional.
It is suggested that children learn these abusive and anti-social behaviors and
replicate them as adults.
On
the other hand, it is also possible for the child to learn pro-social behaviors
in the home as well. R. Kumar from the
Department of Genetics at the Center for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics at
the Children’s and Women’s Hospital with the University of British Columbia has
researched a brain enzyme that could protect victims of childhood abuse from
becoming antisocial or criminalistic later in life. There is a new study that
is developing known as “Traumatology” which is used by child psychiatrists to
look into the psychiatric and psychobiological influence of child abuse during
childhood. Kumar has begun looking into the genetic makeup and life environment
to develop an understanding why some children cultivate adverse behavior during
their youth. It is well established that childhood abuse could be a substantial
“risk-marker” for antisocial or violent behavior. New evidence supporting a
gene known as the monoamine oxidase (MAOA) can help predict a child’s tendency
to become antisocial or violent (Kumar 181).
The
results of a study conducted in New Zealand confirmed that the MAOA activity
weakened the effect of abuse on antisocial behavior. Those who had low-MAOA
levels were more likely to have an association between abuse and antisocial
behavior than those who had high-MAOA levels. Kumar’s research supports the
claim that there are individual genetic differences that create the
susceptibility for one to develop deviant behavior when placed in an abusive
environment. This particular gene could also be responsible for a protective
nature that guards the abuse victim from developing antisocial behaviors (Kumar
181). Kumar does admit that childhood
“maltreatment” could be a risk-marker for later violent behavior but doesn’t
necessarily condemn them to a life of criminal acts.
Recent
research and media coverage has brought the concept of animal cruelty leading
to interpersonal violence to the general public. In support of those who claim that
interpersonal violence stems from experienced childhood abuse it is common
belief that childhood animal cruelty could be significantly influenced by
adverse family conditions such as physical child abuse, sexual child abuse,
paternal alcoholism, paternal unavailability, and domestic violence. A 2005
study conducted by Alexander Duncan, Jay C. Thomas and Catherine Miller
revealed that this basic assumption held truth. The results revealed that
children who were cruel to animals had a higher chance of physical or sexual
abuse in their past; in contrast children with paternal unavailability or
alcoholic parents had no significant difference in their tendencies to commit
animal cruelty. (Duncan 237). The findings of the study revealed that children
that participated in cruelty to animals were twice as likely to have been
subjected to physical abuse, sexual abuse or domestic violence. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that
the trauma experienced as a child through various forms of abuse can cause
lasting effects on neurotransmitter activity. This trauma can also affect
certain biological systems creating adverse effects on the child’s brain and
psycho-social development (Kumar 181).
However, among
researchers the theory that animal abuse stems from the child’s own experiences
with abuse is not yet agreed upon. Mark R. Dadds, Clare Whiting, and David J.
Hawes in 2006 provided researched based on 131 students’ ages 6-13 both male
and female in Queensland, Australia to measure possible correlates in animal
cruelty. In the discussion of the survey,
animal cruelty was investigated as a contributor to the development of
alternative psychopathic pathways and could lead to anti-social behavior.
Overall, it was concluded that family problems did not prove influential in the
development of childhood animal cruelty. However, it contributed that the most
influential factor was the early psychological development of a callous or
unemotional personality (Dadds, Whiting, and Hawes 423). It was noted that
although the study was conducted on both male and female subjects, it was
apparent that males exhibited a greater likelihood to commit animal cruelty.
The research did show a moderate correlation for the level of education
achieved by the parents and its ties to the children’s adverse behavior with
animals indicating that a parent’s lower level of education had an effect on
the child’s tendency to participate in animal cruelty for both male and female
children (Dadds, Whiting, and Hawes 423). However, at the same time family
conflict did not impact the reported cruelty for males or females. Despite
family issues not being connected with animal cruelty it was noted that the
issues within the family are responsible for general behavioral misconduct
(Dadds, Whiting and Hawes 424).
Three theories are
introduced by Duncan and Miller about the source of animal cruelty, they are:
“modeling of cruel parental behavior, psychoanalytic conceptions of projection
and need to control and a failure to develop normal empathy (Duncan 238).”
A
common theory regarding crimes is the “cycle of violence” or “intergenerational
transmission of violence hypothesis.” Claiming that the abused will abuse and
victims become offenders (Kumar 181). Another study conducted by Bill C. Henry in
2004 investigated the connection between observing animal cruelty and
participating in animal cruelty. It was noted that those who had observed
animal cruelty were 42.9% more likely to participate in animal cruelty (Henry
194). These findings could support the
claim that cruelty to animals is a learned behavior. Children that are associated with
domestically violent homes can learn abusive tactics (Duncan 238). These
abusive tactics which are learned as a child can be replicated on animals
demonstrating their control.
The
psychoanalytic conceptions of projection would address the unconscious
thoughts, or impulses especially those considered undesirable to others. By
taking a retroactive look at the childhood development of projection one can
see that the thoughts, impulses or feelings could stem from other childhood
issues including physical, sexual or emotional abuse, paternal unavailability
and paternal alcoholism (Duncan 238).
The
need for control and lack of empathy are interrelated. It can be noted that
animal cruelty for a child simulates the experience an adult has in complete
control over a human. Also, a victimized child may choose to victimize an
animal in an attempt to gain back a sense of power or control that they can
feel deprived of in an abusive environment or home. Furthermore, cruelty to
animals lessens the individual’s perception of pain. Observing animal cruelty
as a child hindered the ability to develop proper feelings of concern for
animals and humans (Henry 201). Some children are unsuccessful at learning
proper inhibitory control and concern for others (Dadds, Whiting and Hawes 414).
Dadds also contributed that a lack of inhibitory control and callous or
unemotional behavioral tendencies are predictive symptoms of psychopathy in
both adults and adolescents. The
complete domination over an animal as a child is extremely similar to the
feeling one would have as an adult controlling a human (Henderson 12). For
people who have a mindset of seeking complete control it is a process of
escalation. Typically they will begin with something they can control easily
and then progress as their abusive/aggressive needs intensify. This pattern
demonstrates a graduation process as the offender experiments and progresses in
deviant behavior from animals to humans.
Hensley
and Tallichet list possible motivations for animal cruelty which include: peer
pressure, mood enhancement, curiosity or exploration, forced abuse, sexual
gratification, attachment to the animal, animal phobias, identification with
the child’s abuser, posttraumatic play, imitation, vehicle for emotional abuse,
self-injury and rehearsal of interpersonal violence (Hensley and Tallichet 177).
The
following information is based on study by Hensley and Tallichet on 180 inmates
in a southern U.S. state and continued research to investigate motivations and
situational factors. Of the 180 inmates in the study, at least 90 of them had
particpated in animal cruelty or had killed an animal in their childhood. The
motivation of killing for fun occurred about 3 times as often as any other
motivation. Other motivations included anger, imitation, sex, hate for the
animal, shocking others or revenge against others. “Angry” animal abusers were
less likely to cover up their actions and are prone to repeating. “Shock”
animal abusers are usually urban and commit the act alone. It could be concluded that abusing for anger,
revenge, shock could be a sign of built aggression and abusing for fun could be
for emotional satisfaction to immulate thrill, entertainment or a solution for
boredom. It was found that inmates in
urban areas were more likely to commit animal cruelty that those from rural
areas. A possible explanation is that those who grew up in rural areas were
more accustomed to animals. As far as concealing their acts, those who commited
sexual acts of animal cruelty were about 17% more likely to conceal. Those who
participated in bestiality were more likely to conceal but repeat and it was
concluded that they could have developed a need to continue their actions with
animals (Hensley, Tallichet and Dutkiewicz).
Furthermore
Henderson,
Hensley and Tallichet wanted to take a look into the methods used by
participants of animal cruelty and its influence on later interpersonal
offenses. The most popular method of animal cruelty reported in their study was
hitting animals. The most hands on method were perpetrators having sex with
animals which was a considerable predictor of continuing violence as adults. It
was noted that the sexual overpowering of an animal for a child replicates the
feelings of control that an adult would have over another human being in a
sexual nature. Of the 180 inmates who participated in the study, it was found
that 23 participated in bestiality as a child. The findings from the 23
bestialics proved that there is a greater significance for interpersonal crimes
in bestialics than non-bestialics with the statistic that nearly 65% of those
who participated in bestiality had committed four or more crimes. The findings
also revealed that offenders that began their animal cruelty at an earlier age
where more likely to become recurrent offenders. There was also a connection
found regarding the witnessing of animal cruelty and its influence on the
observer participating in animal cruelty on their own. It was found that the
earlier age one witnesses animal cruelty, the earlier they will commit animal
cruelty on their own (Henderson, Hensley and Tallichet 13).
Specifically,
there are nine cruelty classifications: control of the animal, retaliation
against the animal, to satisfy prejudice against the animal/species, expression
of aggression though the animal, enhancement on one’s own aggression, to shock
people for amusement, retaliation against a person, displacement of hostility
towards a person to the animal and to satisfy nonspecific sadism (Hensley and Tallichet 177).
Notable
groups within animal abusers are Exploratory/Curious Animal Abusers,
Pathological Animal Abusers and Delinquent Animal Abusers (Hensley and
Tallichet 177).
Exploratory abusers were typically pre-school aged or young children who with
little or no supervision abused animals due to lack of experience around
animals. Pathological abusers are usually a bit older and are prone to having
psychological disturbances. Delinquent animal abusers are also typically older
and tend combine their abuse with the use of drugs or alcohol as well as other
anti-social practices. However with all groups very often the methods used on
animals as a child are replicated in offenses involving humans.
Some
would argue that these findings in support of the theory that animal cruelty
leads to anti-social or violent behavior are showing a narrow demographic since
many of the studies on animal cruelty are conducted using incarcerated
subjects. Furthermore, these studies are retrospective and reliant on
self-report data or interviews in which the subject has already climaxed in a
violent career climaxing with severe interpersonal violence such as murder or
rape (Dadds 412). Although many of the studies have been post incarceration
Bill C Henry conducted a study on male and female college students enrolled in
an Introduction to Psychology course. In support of the general theory that
animal cruelty leads to other forms of anti-social behavior his study confirmed
but emphasized that these findings exist in the common population and not only with those who are incarnated for their
crimes. There was modest support for the theory that witnessing animal cruelty
is correlated to the development of compassion and concern for animals. The
study also found that witnessing animal cruelty is has more of an impact on
creating genuine concern for animals than actually participating in animal
cruelty. There is inadequate research on the topic of the social and group
aspects of animal cruelty. In a group of male and females agreeing to abuse an
animal, it is expected that males would exhibit a more callous persona and
females might have more of an emotional distress. It was also predicted that males would behave
to encourage a reaction from the females in the group. Henry found that only
three out of 92 females in the study reported participating in animal cruelty.
Following in line with other studies it was noted that those who observed
animal cruelty were more likely to participate in animal cruelty. Specifically,
observing their father/stepfather had a high impact on the likelihood to
develop cruelty to animals. Also those who observed animal cruelty prior to the
age of 12 were more likely to commit animal cruelty than those who first observed
animal cruelty after the age of 12.
Observing animal cruelty as a child hindered the ability to develop
proper feelings of concern for animals and humans (Henry 200). Witnessing
animal cruelty or participating in animal cruelty desensitize the perpetrator
or spectator to the violent act.
When
a child actively participates in animal cruelty they can be predisposed to
anti-social behavior which can lead to violent offenses (Duncan 238). Some studies have been done on the childhood
backgrounds on some famous serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis
Nilsen supporting this claim. Both criminals had circumstances during their
childhood where their parents were not involved. Both had fathers that were
consistently away. Both felt neglected
once younger siblings arrived and both experienced the onset of their
loneliness at an early age, 5 or 6.
These feelings of neglect and loneliness had an effect on their
interpersonal and emotional development hindering their ability to cultivate
and maintain relationships with peers in a school environment and later with a
counterpart in an intimate setting (Martens and Palermo 303). Similarly, both
Dahmer and Nilsen were homosexual and killed for sexual, lustful and
companionship purposes. Also, both Dahmer and Nilsen participated in
necrophilic fantasies. A person that
partakes in necrophilia has sexual feelings or participates sexually with dead
bodies.
Dahmer’s
interest in animals began around age 12. He would search for dead animals in
his neighborhood to dissect. Palermo was the court appointed forensic
psychiatrist in Jeffrey Dahmer’s trail and noted that Dahmer would hang the
skulls of dead animals on sticks in his neighborhood for others to witness
indicating a possible motivation to induce shock. Dahmer would be classified as
a delinquent animal abuser as he also partook of drugs and alcohol as well as
his regular practice of other anti-social activities. He had a strong interest
in the internal workings of animals (Nichols 248). The procedures he used on
animals during his childhood pioneered his methods as an adult on humans. At the age of 13, he began daily rituals of
masturbation to the bodies of dead animals which would demonstrate a sexually
driven motivation to harm animals. Like
Nilsen, he developed a sexual arousal for corpses and began enacting his
necrophilic practices. Dahmer’s home state of Illinois has no laws governing
Necrophilia, or Abuse of Corpses; however, sex with dead animals is against the
law (Troyer 136). Dahmer later stated that he killed because he could not stand
the idea of being abandoned (Martens and Palermo 301). He also explained that
he had no hatred for his victims but acted out of a deep need for total
control. This falling under the theory presented earlier by Duncan and Miller
that a motivation for animal cruelty was the need for total control, only
Dahmer progressed to humans.
It
is important that those who work in close proximity to children, such as
teachers, coaches, childcare providers, and parents are able to recognize signs
a child may be actively abusing animals. If a child is found to be abusing
animals, intervention can be made in an attempt to detour the progression of
violence. The most influential intervention backed by studies currently is
humane education to increase a child’s awareness of animals and encourage an
empathetic nature toward their treatment (Duncan, Thomas and Miller 283). As
Kumar also mentioned, pro-social behaviors can also be learned. If intervention
is not possible and an individual has already progressed to severe, repetitive
acts of animal cruelty some people that harsher penalties may be needed to end
the crimes against animals. Currently, animal cruelty is considered a
misdemeanor in Idaho, South Dakota and North Dakota, while in the remaining
states it is classified as a felony (Podgorski).
Further
research can be used to support the theory that adverse situations within the
family environment can provoke loneliness and anti-social behavior which can be
expressed through a child’s cruelty to animals. Animal cruelty can be seen as
an outlet for this build up frustration and trauma. The actions required to
participate in animal cruelty can reduce the individual’s perception of pain
and lead to further acts of violence on human victims. Recognizing that is a
significant form of aggression and anti-social behavior may help further the
understanding and prevention of repeated acts of adult interpersonal violence.
Works Cited
Dadds, Mark R. Clare Whiting, and David J.Hewes.
"Associations Among Cruelty to Animals, Family Conflict, and Psychopathic
Traits in Childhood." Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 21.3(2006): 411-429 Print.
Duncan, Alexander, Jay C. Thomas and Catherine Miller.
“Significance of Family Risk Factors in Development of Childhood Animal Cruelty
in Adolescent Boys with Conduct Problems.” Journal
of Family Violence 20.4 (2005): 235-239 Print.
Henderson, Brandy B. Christopher Hensley and Suzanne E.
Tallichet. "Childhood Animal Cruelty Methods and Their Link to Adult
Interpersonal Violence" Journal of
Interpersonal Violence (2011): 1-17 Print.
Henry, Bill C. "The Relationship between Animal Cruelty,
Delinquency and Attitudes toward the Treatment of Animals" Society and Animals 12.3(2004): 185-207
Print.
Hensley, Christopher and Suzanne E. Tallichet. "The
Effects of Inmates' Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty:
Motivations on the Number of Convictions for Adult Violent Interpersonal
Crimes." International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52.2 (2008): 176-184 Print.
Kumar, R. "Violence begets violence or Does it? A Brain
Enzyme Protects Victims of Childhood Abuse From Becoming Antisocial and
Criminal" Clinical Genetics
63.3(2003): 180-183 Print.
Locke, John. "Some Thoughts Concerning Education of
Cruelty" Animal Rights History. Animal
Rights History.Org. April 2011. Web. 22 July 2011 <http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-l/loc-john-locke/1693-education-cruelty.htm>
Martens, Willem H. J. and George B. Palermo. "Loneliness
and Associated Violent Antisocial Behavior: Analysis of the Case Reports of
Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Wilson." International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49.3 (2005):
298-307 Print.
Mouat, F.J. "Notes on M. Bertillon’s Discourse on the
Anthropometric Measurement of Criminals" The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 20(1891): 182-198 Print.
Nichols, David S. "Tell Me A Story: MMPI Responses and
Personal Biography in the Case of a Serial Killer." Journal of Personality Assessment 86.3(2006): 242-262 Print.
Podgorski, Natalie. "Harsher Punishments Sought for
Animal Cruelty" KTVB. King
Broadcasting Company. 13 July 2011. Web. 22 July 2011 <http://www.ktvb.com/home/Humane-Society-wants-harsher-punishments-for-animal-cruelty-125426973.html>
Troyer, John. "Abuse of a Corpse: A Brief History and
re-theorization of necrophilia laws in the USA." Morality 13.2(2008):
132-152 Print.
The inclusion of the secondary classification made Vucetich’s system a viable method for classifying, cataloging and retrieving prints for comparison when needed. Vucetich publicized his newly devised system in 1896 in a pamphlet entitled “General Instructions for the ‘Province of Buenos Aires’ System of Identification” (Rodriguez, 2004). Vucetich attributed much of his achievement to Sir Francis Galton’s preliminary research and sent Galton a copy of the 1986 pamphlet. To which Galton replied with the following: “My knowledge of Spanish is unfortunately too limited to enable me to properly read your volume, but I have understood its main features and fully recognize the great pains you must have taken to compose it.” (as quoted in Rodriguez, 2004). 
