From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:13:48 GMT
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Ferrell S. Wheeler spews forth:

>Two abstracts on the topic of linking violence against animals
>and violence against humans: 
>
>**********
>
>Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and non-criminals
>Stephen R. Kellert and Alan R. Felthous
>Human Relations V. 38, No. 12, pp. 1113-1129
>
>This paper examines the relationship between childhood cruelty toward animals
>and aggressive behaviour among criminals and noncriminals in adulthood.
>
>Data were derived from personal interviews with 152 criminals and non-criminals
>in Kansas and Connecticut. A standardized, closed, and open-ended interview,
>requiring approximately 1-2 hourse to complete, was administered to all
>subjects. Aggressiveness was defined by behavioural criteria rather than reason
>for incarceration.
>
>Childhood cruelty toward animals occurred to a significantly greater degree
>among aggressive criminals than among nonaggressive criminals or
noncriminals.

And here we have yet another of the AR propaganda machine's wonderful
theories.  The infamous "If A-->B, then Q-->X."  Come on, people.  Your
typical "If A-->B, then B-->A" is bad enough, but this is comical.
According to this wonderful study, people that poke icepicks into
other random peoples' eyes are more likely to have poked icepicks into
a random animals eyes' when they were younger (thanks for letting me
borrow your imaginative description, Russell).  Why the hell doesn't
that surprise an old mountain man like me???  And now from that, we
are all supposed to conclude that mean-old-nasty-scary hunters like
myself that go out and shoot animals for food are all going to become
the next Jeffery Dahmer.  What on Earth are you folks thinking?  There
is *nothing* that shows that cruelty towards animals implies cruelty
towards humans, or that a lack of respect for animal rights implies a
lack of respect for human rights.  And a bunch of psych studies on
violent criminals abusing animals, as well as people, is bogus
"evidence."  Grow up, kiddies.


>Additionall, the occurrence of more than 40 cases of extreme animal cruelty
>facilitated the development of a preliminary classification of nine distinct
>motivations for animal cruelty. Finally, family violence, particularly
>paternal abuse and alcoholism, were significantly more common among aggressive
>criminals with a history of childhood cruelty toward animals.

Again, that fact that some guy that beats his kids also beats his dog
really doesn't shock me.  It sure doesn't imply that beating his dog
means he's going to beat his kids.  Observation: isn't it a shame that
they don't make psych majors take enough logic courses?  Perhaps
that's yet another reason why it's not a science. ;-)


>*********
>
>Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures
>generalized?
>Alan R. Felthous and Stephen R. Kellert
>Bull. Am. Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 14, N0. 1, 1986.
>
>An association between childhood cruelty to animals and dangerous aggression
>against people at a later age could have important implications
>regarding early               ^^^^^

Oh boy, I'm convinced!


>detection and treatment, preventive psychiatry, and a social ethic that
>encourages positive attitudes toward living creatures in general. Research
>reports in the literature are inconsistent and inconclusive regarding a
>possible relationship between animal cruelty and aggression against
>people.

No doubt because there is *no* relationship.  At least not the one the
AR folk are dreaming about/hoping for.


>Although a single act is not predictive of another act, a pattern of
>substantial animal abuse may conceivably be associated with a pattern of
>recurrent violence directed against people.

Sure, and Martians "may conceivably" be blue instead of green. :-)  The
*only* possible link is that people that are cruel to other people are
often cruel to animals.  Ad nauseum, this shouldn't shock anyone.


> In the present study, extensive
>interview schedules were administered to aggressive criminals, nonaggressive
>criminals, and noncriminals. The nature of abuse was described for each subject
>who gave a history of substantial abuse. A clear relationship was found
>between early substantial abuse and recurrent violence against
>people.

Again, the guy that beats other people used to beat his dog.  You
folks are going to have to do a lot better than this before I start
worrying that my girlfriend (a fellow deer hunter) is thinking of
putting me on the lunch menu tomorrow. :-)


>Possible explanations for conflicting results in the literature are
>discussed.

Final comment:  Get a clue, boys and girls.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals