Don't be cruel: Assessing beliefs about punishments for crimes against animals
Abbreviated Journal Title
animal abuse; animal cruelty; cruelty laws; prosecution; punishment; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; CHILDHOOD CRUELTY; EMPATHY; JUDGMENTS; FORGIVENESS; AGGRESSION; ATTITUDES; POLICIES; PEOPLE; SCALE; Anthropology; Environmental Studies; Sociology; Veterinary Sciences
Hypothetical scenarios depicting an act of animal abuse were given to 438 participants who rated the appropriateness of eight types of punishments. The predictive value of sex of participant, animal type, crime type (acute abuse or neglect), crime outcome (victim lives or dies), and sex of perpetrator for ratings of appropriate punishments was evaluated using a canonical correlation analysis. Sex of participant and animal type emerged as the two strongest predictors, suggesting participants tend to concentrate on the victim rather than the crime, and then use their own beliefs about that specific animal to make a decision regarding punishment. Among the various punishment types, participants placed the greatest importance on restricting the perpetrator's ability to adopt an animal in the future, rather than recommending rehabilitative measures. Also, mandatory counseling, a monetary fine, and jail time were desired. Exploratory analyses showed that early experience on a farm moderates the gender effect such that females who lived on a farm rated harsher punishments as more appropriate, whereas males who lived on a farm rated more lenient punishments as more appropriate.
"Don't be cruel: Assessing beliefs about punishments for crimes against animals" (2007). Faculty Bibliography 2000s. 7658.