Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology http://ijo.sagepub.

com/

The Social and Emotional Context of Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty : Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes?
Suzanne E. Tallichet and Christopher Hensley Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2009 53: 596 originally published online 27 May 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0306624X08319417 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/53/5/596

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/53/5/596.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 3, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 27, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

The Social and Emotional Context of Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty
Suzanne E. Tallichet
Morehead State University, Kentucky

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume 53 Number 5 October 2009 596-606 2009 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0306624X08319417 http://ijo.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes?

Christopher Hensley
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

The link between early animal abuse and later violence toward humans may depend on how acts of animal cruelty are experienced by those whose behavior demonstrates this graduation. Unfortunately, the research investigating the social and emotional context for the youthful commission of animal cruelty as it escalates to adult interpersonal violence is relatively nonexistent. Using 112 cases from a larger sample of 261 inmates surveyed at both medium and maximum security prisons in a southern state, the present study examined the effects of age of onset and frequency of animal cruelty, the covertness of animal cruelty, the commission of animal cruelty within a group or in isolation, and empathy for the abused animals. Inmates who had covered up their childhood and adolescent animal cruelty were more likely to have been convicted of repeated acts of interpersonal violence, demonstrating that the role of empathy and individuals present during acts of animal cruelty were less important than concealing those acts. Keywords: animal cruelty; interpersonal violence; concealing violence

or the past few decades, the assertion that youthful animal abusers graduate to later aggression against humans, known as the graduation hypothesis, has become more commonly accepted by clinicians, social scientists, law enforcement, and animal advocates alike. Beginning with Meads (1964) admonition about never allowing youthful acts of animal abuse to go unpunished, animal abuse has been increasingly regarded as both pathological and as a potential precursor for eventual acts of interpersonal violence. Even so, the results of research investigating the link remain ambiguous (Felthous & Kellert, 1987), perhaps because this phenomenon
Authors Note: Please address all correspondence to Christopher Hensley, PhD, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Department of Criminal Justice, 615 McCallie Avenue, Department 3203, Chattanooga, TN 37403; phone: (423) 425-4509, (423) 425-2228; e-mail: Christopher-Hensley@utc.edu. 596

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

Tallichet, Hensley / Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes? 597

has yet to be systematically investigated within the socioemotive context in which it occurs. Arluke (2002) has suggested that not all cases of abuse have the same significance and call for researchers to examine the meaning and use of abuse by its perpetrators (p. 406). The link between early animal abuse and later aggression toward humans may depend on how acts of animal cruelty are experienced by those whose behavior demonstrates this progression. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the social and emotional factors related to the youthful commission of animal cruelty among an inmate sample.

Literature Review
Researchers and clinicians were among the first to recognize animal cruelty as possibly leading to later interpersonal violence. During the late 1980s, animal cruelty was listed as a conduct disorder symptom by the American Psychiatric Association (1987) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). The more recent versions of the manual, the 1994 DSM-IV and the 2000 DSM-IV-TR, define conduct disorder as a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated based on the presence of three or more criteria during the past 12 months with at least one occurring within the past 6 months (DSM-IV, p. 85). Animal cruelty is listed as 1 of the 15 symptoms without any further definition of what it constitutes. The DSM-IV further elaborates that a substantial portion [of children diagnosed with conduct disorder] continue to show behaviors in adulthood that meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder (DSM-IV, p. 89). For researchers, animal cruelty represents an objectively definable behavior that occurs within a definable social context (Lockwood & Ascione, 1998, p. 443). In several recent studies, researchers have refined their definition and measurement of the phenomenon, frequently using Asciones (1993) definition of animal cruelty as socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal exclusive of socially condoned behavior, such as legal hunting and certain agricultural and veterinary practices (p. 228). Based on this definition, Ascione, Thompson, and Black (1997) developed the Children and Animals Assessment Instrument (CAAI), which was the first screening instrument for measuring animal cruelty. This instrument consisted of nine dimensions of animal cruelty, namely, severity, frequency, duration, recency, diversity of animals abused, intention to do harm, covertness of the act, commission within a group or in isolation, and empathy. Later, other researchers developed similar instruments based on the same nine dimensions (Guymer, Mellor, Luk, & Pearse, 2001; Pearse, 1999). Although these instruments were developed for early detection and subsequent intervention by clinicians, the commonly accepted usage of these animal cruelty dimensions have also served as a general guide to the more systematic study of animal cruelty as it leads to later aggression against humans.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

598 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Although the findings from studies attempting to establish the link between animal cruelty and violence against humans have not been unequivocal, a review by Felthous and Kellert (1987) has shown that those early studies that failed to show a link suffered from significant limitations. Collectively, these studies failed to clearly define the behaviors being studied (i.e., animal cruelty and personal aggression), examined only single acts of violence toward humans, or relied primarily on the chart method of data collection rather than surveys or direct interviews with respondents. Rather, many of the more recent studies that included this methodological rigor have found an association between early animal cruelty and later adult violence. These researchers examined recurrent violence rather than single acts of violence and relied exclusively on case studies, interviews, and self-report surveys (Gleyzer, Felthous, & Holzer, 2002; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001; Ressler, Burgess, Hartman, Douglas, & McCormack, 1998; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004; Verlinden, 2000; Wright & Hensley, 2003). Some of these studies examined the cases of serial killers and school shooters initially exposed by the media. Serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Bundy, Edmund Kemper III, Albert DeSalvo, and David Berkowitz had histories of abusing, torturing, and killing animals, sometimes in ways that mirrored the heinous acts they committed against their human victims (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Wright & Hensley, 2003). Likewise, Verlinden (2000) examined the individual, family, social, societal, and situational risk factors of 11 perpetrators of U.S. school shootings, including animal abuse. She found that 5 of the 11 perpetrators (in 9 separate incidents of school shootings) had histories of alleged childhood and adolescent animal abuse. For example, Evan Ramsey (the Bethel, Alaska, school shooter) was known to throw rocks at dogs for amusement. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Littleton, Colorado, school shooters) frequently discussed their mutilation of animals with friends. Kipland Kip Kinkel (the Springfield, Oregon, school shooter) bragged to peers about his animal cruelty which encompassed beheading cats and blowing up a cow with explosives. One of the most well-documented cases was Luke Woodham (the Pearl, Mississippi, school shooter), who prior to killing his mother and two schoolmates had tortured and killed his own pet dog. Other relatively recent studies have drawn from less sensational but no less violent samples of individuals. For example, in 1998, Ressler et al. conducted a study examining the possible link between animal cruelty and sexual homicide. They examined various behavioral characteristics of 36 sexual murderers. Their research provided detailed qualitative characteristics, as well as specific quantitative measures. Of the 36 men, 28 were interviewed for certain childhood characteristics, including the commission of animal cruelty. The authors found that 36% of these 28 offenders had perpetrated animal cruelty as children, 46% were cruel to animals as adolescents, and 36% continued their abusive nature toward animals as adults. Similarly, in 2002, Gleyzer et al. examined whether having a history of recurrent animal cruelty was related to a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (APD), a

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

Tallichet, Hensley / Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes? 599

diagnosis often associated with recurrent acts of personal violence. Their comparison of 48 men with a history of childhood animal cruelty and 48 men with no such history revealed that animal cruelty was significantly associated with APD, psychotic disorders, antisocial personality traits, and alcohol abuse. During their interviews with 45 violent and 45 nonviolent offenders incarcerated in a Florida maximum security prison, Merz-Perez et al. (2001) found that violent offenders were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed acts of animal cruelty as children, especially against pet animals. They, too, discovered that the ways in which violent offenders abused animals as children sometimes resembled the methods that they then used to commit crimes against their human victims. This was not the case for nonviolent offenders who had committed acts of cruelty; these offenders were more apt to feel badly for their acts and to desist (see also Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). Finally, in 2004, Tallichet and Hensley found that respondents who had more siblings and who had committed repeated acts of animal cruelty were more likely to have engaged in recurrent acts of interpersonal violence. These findings were based on 261 surveys of inmates who self-reported their childhood and adolescent animal abuse histories, as well as their convictions for adult interpersonal crimes. The study lent support to the possible link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. As a brief review of these studies has shown, although not all violent individuals have been previously cruel to animals, a sizeable percentage have. As Ascione (2001) has concluded taken together, these studies suggest that animal abuse may be characteristic of the developmental histories of between one and four and nearly two in three violent adult offenders (p. 4). Despite the extent to which a few studies have failed to support the graduation from animal to human violence (Arluke, Levin, Luke, & Ascione, 1999; Miller & Knutson, 1997), it is important to consider as Merz-Perez et al. (2001) have pointed out that to ignore cruelty to animals as incidental acts . . . is to dismiss an opportunity to identify behavior that might indeed be a precursor to violence against humans (p. 571). Such a conclusion strongly suggests that further research attempting to replicate and expand these findings is still needed, particularly among inmate populations (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). Moreover, because there exists a substantial amount of support that animal cruelty is one potential precursor to repeated acts of interpersonal aggression, it may be even more important to understand this violence, particularly among those who have graduated. Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) have asserted that animal cruelty itself is a complex expression of violence, the investigation of which requires methodological rigor and conceptual clarity. As they have pointed out, frequency indicates a pattern of escalating violence in the form of animal cruelty. Regarding the experiences and ages of animal abusers, Coston and Protz (1998) have suggested that there is an intergenerational transmission of both human and nonhuman violence by stating that there is a pecking order of aggressive acts, involving a lack of empathy, being passed down

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

600 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

from the head of the household through the child and down to animals (pp. 154-155). To date, among those studies of incarcerated populations, only four have examined animal cruelty as a recurrent behavior (Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Miller & Knutson, 1997) or have addressed the age at which animal cruelty began. Moreover, the role of empathy, covertness, or the lone commission of animal cruelty as it escalates to adult violence has been almost nonexistent in the animal cruelty literature. In his review of the studies demonstrating a pattern of recurrent animal cruelty and later human aggression, Miller (2001) asserted that numerous researchers believed the root cause of animal cruelty is a lack of remorse. Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) have stated that the role of empathy in the commission of animal cruelty is especially important in understanding later interpersonal violence. In their study of animal cruelty among violent and nonviolent offenders discussed earlier, they investigated empathy in terms of the participants own response to committing animal cruelty, specifically a lack of or varying degrees of remorse their participants expressed for abusing an animal. Statistical analysis demonstrated that the proportion of violent participants who did not express empathy for acts of cruelty was significantly greater among violent offenders toward wild animals (27% vs. 7%) and for pet animals (22% vs. 7%). Although their sample size was insufficient for quantitative analysis regarding farm and stray animals, inspection of the raw data reveals striking differences between violent and nonviolent offenders. Only violent offenders reported committing acts of cruelty to stray animals; none of them reported a response of remorse. Rather, violent offenders responses included not cruel or no affect, thrill, power or control, and sadism. Only 1 of 45 nonviolent offenders (2%) committed an act of cruelty toward a farm animal. This individual expressed remorse as he came to realize as a boy that the pig he killed with his new gun was a living creature capable of feeling pain. In contrast, six violent offenders (13%) committed acts of cruelty toward farm animals. None of these offenders expressed remorse. Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) also investigated possible differences between violent and nonviolent offenders lone commission of animal cruelty and their attempt to conceal the act. Again, although their numbers made only qualitative distinctions possible, they found when wild animals were abused, both violent and nonviolent participants reported having been with peers, but only violent participants reported that they committed these acts alone. The only two participants who concealed the abuse of wild animals had histories of human violence. Eleven violent offenders reported being cruel to pets. Eight of these respondents committed cruelty alone and four had tried to conceal their abuse of the animal. In contrast, nonviolent offenders only reported being involved with dogfighting which were overt, public acts of cruelty. Interestingly, nonviolent offenders did not view dogfighting as animal cruelty. Rather they were proud of their dogs and believed that it would be cruel not to allow them to fight. They took no pleasure in seeing their dogs harmed; they expressed affection

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

Tallichet, Hensley / Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes? 601

for these animals. Although these findings about the covert and isolated nature of animal cruelty provide a beginning, given the tentative nature of these findings, these two factors also warrant further study. In sum, animal cruelty is a phenomenon about which numerous and varied questions remain concerning its associated contextual factors. Unfortunately, few studies have explored the circumstances under which animal cruelty occurs, especially among individuals incarcerated for violent acts toward humans. Researchers need to begin to untangle the complex web of feelings and thoughts behind early animal abuse as it leads to later interpersonal violence. More specifically, how could differences in the way animal cruelty was experienced explain why some youthful animal abusers graduate to interpersonal violence whereas others do not? Thus, the present study examines the effects of age of onset and frequency of animal cruelty, the covertness of animal cruelty, the commission of animal cruelty within a group or in isolation, and the emotional response participants had for the animals they abused among an inmate sample incarcerated for both violent and nonviolent crimes.

Method
Participants
A southern state department of corrections granted permission to distribute questionnaires to all male inmates in two medium security prisons and one maximum security prison between May and June 2003. Each questionnaire contained a cover letter explaining that participation was voluntary. Inmates were asked to return their completed questionnaires in a stamped, self-addressed envelope within 3 weeks of distribution. Inmates were told it would take approximately 20 minutes to complete the 39-item questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed in part using a combination of previous researchers questions regarding animal cruelty and its possible link to later violence against humans (Ascione et al., 1997; Boat, 1994; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004 ). It should be noted that animals were defined as dogs, cats, birds, horses/cattle, and wild animals (with the inmate listing the type of wild animal hurt or killed). Inmates were also informed of their anonymity while participating in the project. No incentives were given for completion of the survey. Of the 2,093 inmates incarcerated at the three facilities, a total of 261 agreed to participate in the study, yielding a response rate of 12.5%. Although this response rate appears low, most prison studies dealing with sensitive issues attract 25% or fewer respondents (Hensley, Rutland, & Gray-Ray, 2000). Table 1 displays the characteristics of the state prison population and the sample. A comparison of the racial composition, age distribution, and type of offense committed by the respondents and the state prison population revealed no significant differences. Thus, the sample appears to be representative of the state prison population in terms of these three variables.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

602 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Table 1 Population and Sample Characteristics


Sample N Race White Other Type of offense Violent crime against person Other crime Median age (years) Percentage n Percentage

10,654 5,280 8,000 7,934 33

67.0 33.0 50.2 49.8

182 78 125 136 33.5

70.0 30.0 47.9 52.1

Measures
The primary goal of the article was to determine whether the social and emotional contexts of inmates who had engaged in childhood and adolescent animal cruelty impacted the number of subsequent violent crimes they had been convicted of as adults. Inmates were asked a series of questions regarding their interpersonal violent histories. They included: (a) Have you ever been convicted of murder or attempted murder? (b) Have you ever been convicted of rape or attempted rape? and (c) Have you ever been convicted of aggravated assault? These questions were coded 0 = no and 1 = yes. More importantly, they were asked how many times they had been convicted of each of these interpersonal crimes. To develop a cumulative score of repeated interpersonal violence, we added the number of times each inmate had been convicted of these crimes. The scores ranged from zero to nine with an average of .89. The cumulative score for each inmate was then used as the dependent variable. Inmates were also asked to indicate if they had hurt or killed the animals alone, if they had tried to cover up the animal cruelty, and if engaging in animal cruelty had upset them. Each response was coded 0 = no and 1 = yes. In addition, respondents were asked how many times they had hurt or killed animals as children and/or adolescents and how old they were when they first hurt or killed animals. These items served as the independent variables.

Results
Table 2 presents the zero-order correlation matrix between the independent variables. Respondents who first committed an act of animal cruelty at younger ages were more likely to have engaged in multiple acts of animal cruelty. None of the relationships exceeded a value of .35, indicating no multicollinearity. To examine the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable, multiple regression analysis was performed. According to Table 3, covering up animal

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

Tallichet, Hensley / Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes? 603

Table 2 Zero-Order Correlation Matrix Between Independent Variables (n = 112)


X1 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Alone Cover up Upset Times hurt or killed animals Age when hurt or killed animals .09 .10 .05 .09 X2 X3 X4

.05 .14 .05

.17 .18

.35*

Note: (X1) Hurt or kill animals alone (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X2) try to cover up animal cruelty (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X3) hurt or kill animals upset you (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X4) number of times hurt or killed animals (1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = more than twice) (average = 1.04); (X5) age when first hurt or killed animals (continuous variable) (range = 3-18 years; average = 11.53 years). * p = .05.

Table 3 OLS Regression Solutions Predicting Repeated Interpersonal Violence (n = 112)


b X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Adjusted R2 F value Significance Alone Cover up Upset Times hurt or killed animals Age when hurt or killed animals .22 1.17 .27 .20 .03 .13 2.85 .02 SE .40 .39 .35 .23 .03 .05 .39* .07 .09 .10

Note: OLS = ordinary least squares. (X1) Hurt or kill animals alone (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X2) try to cover up animal cruelty (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X3) hurt or kill animals upset you (0 = no, 1 = yes); (X4) number of times hurt or killed animals (1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = more than twice) (average = 1.04); (X5) age when first hurt or killed animals (continuous variable) (range = 3-18 years; average = 11.53 years). (Dependent variable) Number of times convicted of personal crimes (continuous variable) (range = 0-9 times; average = .89 times). * p = .05.

cruelty was the only statistically salient variable in the model. Inmates who had covered up their childhood and adolescent animal cruelty were more likely to have been convicted of repeated acts of interpersonal violence.

Discussion
A review of recent studies has demonstrated that animal cruelty committed during childhood and adolescence is a relatively persistent predictor of adult interpersonal

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

604 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

violence. In particular, this study investigated several qualifying circumstances in the commission of animal cruelty to better understand the link among male inmates incarcerated in a southern state. Among this population, we examined the factors of recurrent childhood and adolescent animal cruelty, the age of its onset, the covert and isolated nature of the act, and whether such acts upset the perpetrators and the effects on their subsequent propensity for violence against humans. We found that the younger the perpetrators in our sample began committing animal cruelty the more likely they were to continue abusing animals, suggesting that their violent tendencies at least toward animals may have followed a progressive path. However, unlike the outcomes suggested by other studies, neither acting alone nor being upset by their own animal abuse was significantly related to recurrent human violence. At the same time, the slight patterns that were apparent suggest that inmates with histories of interpersonal violence were not upset by their own animal abuse and they did not act alone. Rather only inmates concealment of their animal cruelty was a significant predictor of later adult violence. So although there was no clear indication concerning the role of empathy or whether acting alone when abusing animals as youths led to later adult acts of human aggression, it was the case that the more violent inmates in the sample were more likely to try to conceal their violence against animals at the time they engaged in it. In sum, it is doubtful that these youthful animal abusers wanted to cover up their acts out of shame or guilt or because someone present disapproved of their behavior. It is implied by these findings that concealing their acts to harm animals was more likely only because of the potential punishment that discovery by an authority figure might incur. The present study contains several methodological strengths and limitations. On one hand, the studys strengths lie in the use of a survey technique and our response rate yielding a sample that was representative of the inmate population across the state. On the other hand, the studys limitations are mirrored in the same strengths. Most prison studies dealing with sensitive topics yield relatively low response rates. Our 12.5% return rate is no exception, making generalization to the larger inmate population problematic. Relying on paper/pencil self-reports may have excluded illiterate inmates. Moreover, the validity of self-reports can be questioned, especially when using self-report, conviction data from an inmate sample. Thus, the current selection criteria for violent and nonviolent offenders is such that some violent individuals may be characterized as nonviolent despite their behavior. It would be more fruitful if future researchers selected offenders by commitment offense, checked their official offense history, and then verified that nonviolent offenders were in fact nonviolent (or that violent offenders were in fact violent). This methodology was used by Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) and as a result of this triple screening process, some offenders initially identified as nonviolent were found to have histories of violent offending and were eliminated from the nonviolent sample. In addition, our cumulative score of violence is based on self-reported, conviction status and thus suffers from the same limitation as noted above.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

Tallichet, Hensley / Is There a Link to Adult Interpersonal Crimes? 605

Another important limitation is how we measured the concept of empathy. The respondents were asked if engaging in animal cruelty had upset them. This introduces the concept and may bias the results (i.e., offenders might not have thought of this concept had it not been introduced to them). A better way to measure the concept would have been to ask, Did you have any feelings after engaging in this behavior? If the offender had felt upset, he would have responded accordingly. If he had no feelings about it, and many offenders do not, he would be more apt to report that. Thus, the lack of finding with respect to empathy could clearly be the result of this methodological problem (see Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). As previous researchers have asserted (Ascione, 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004), we suggest that future studies incorporate severity as another important contextual variable in the examination of animal cruelty as a precursor to human violence. Moreover, researchers need to reexamine the role of empathy and whether others were present during the commission of animal cruelty, perhaps developing more valid and effective measures for these concepts (as noted above). We urge researchers to continue to explore the social context for the commission of animal cruelty as a potential precursor for aggression against humans. Ascione (2001) has concluded that addressing cruelty to animals as a significant form of aggressive and antisocial behavior may add one more piece of the puzzle of understanding and preventing youth violence (p. 27). On the basis of our findings, if it is the case that individuals caught up in a propensity toward violence against animals and later against humans cover up their crimes against animals, it may make their detection more difficult for clinicians, law enforcement, and the general public. As Mead (1964) asserted, animal cruelty could prove a diagnostic sign, and that such children, diagnosed early, could be helped instead of being allowed to embark on a long career of episodic violence and murder (p. 22). Thus, the present study draws attention to the importance of this research relative to the prevention of violence in our society. However, in a more general way, culturally we are guilty of sending inconsistent messages about the humane treatment of animals (Arluke, 2002). For example, the diversity in state statutes for defining animal cruelty and lax enforcement of these statutes reflects our cultural inconsistency and even contradictory messages about humans relations to animals. On a positive note, there is evidence demonstrating that the public awareness of and promotion of the humane treatment of animals is growing. Even so, we need to send a more singular message via humane education that the suffering of any animal for any reason is too much. Indeed, that suffering may one day be our own.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012

606 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author. Arluke, A. (2002). Animal abuse as dirty play. Symbolic Interactionism, 25(4), 405-430. Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. R. (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 963-976. Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozos, 5, 226-247. Ascione, F. R. (2001, September). Animal abuse and youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-15. Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozos, 10, 170-197. Boat, B. (1994). Boat inventory on animal-related experiences. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Department of Psychiatry. Coston, C. T. M., & Protz, B. M. (1998). Kill your dog, beat your wife, screw your neighbors kids, rob a bank? A cursory look at an individuals vat of social chaos resulting from deviance. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26(2), 153-158. Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1987). Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression against people: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 710-717. Gleyzer, R., Felthous, A. R., & Holzer III, C. E. (2002). Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30, 257-265. Guymer, E. C., Mellor, D., Luk, E. S. L., & Pearse, V. (2001). The development of a screening questionnaire for childhood cruelty to animals. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(8), 1057-1063. Hensley, C., Rutland, S., & Gray-Ray, P. (2000). Inmate attitudes toward the conjugal visitation program in Mississippi prisons: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 137-145. Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129. Lockwood, R., & Ascione, F. R. (1998). Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Mead, M. (1964). Cultural factors in the cause and prevention of pathological homicide. The Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 28, 11-22. Merz-Perez, L., & Heide, K. M. (2004). Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against people. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K. M., & Silverman, I. J. (2001). Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 556-573. Miller, C. (2001). Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 735-749. Miller, K. S., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 59-82. Pearse, V. A. T. (1999). Pilot study of children with persistent disruptive behavior problems and cruelty to animals. Unpublished masters thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1998). Murderers who rape and mutilate. In R. Lockwood & F. A. Ascione (Eds.), Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence (pp. 179-193). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Tallichet, S. E., & Hensley, C. (2004). Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice Review, 29(2), 304-316. Verlinden, S. (2000). Risk factors in school shootings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR. Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(1), 72-89.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Mehrnoosh Mehdizadeh moghaddam on October 3, 2012