Recognizing the ‘other:’ issues of animal–human relationships and animal rights in crime and justice

Researchers have been complaining about the lack of attention to animals in social science literature for the past 30 years or more (Bryant, 1979). As social science disciplines, criminology, criminal justice, and victimology have ignored an entire category of sentient beings, namely nonhuman animals, as victims as well as sources of therapeutic benefit to at-risk human populations. My own review of textbooks in victimology alone reveals the stark omission of thoughtful, scholarly consideration of animal–human relationships, whether abusive or therapeutic, and the legislative history of animal rights. This absence of animals in these disciplines must bring scholars and practitioners back to the roots of important concepts of harm, crime, rights, and who or what is impacted and in what way.

Although there has been progress in the social sciences with animals making an appearance in the literature here and there (see Beirne, 1999; who writes how animals have ‘infiltrated’ sociology; Arluke & Sanders, 1996), there still remains a dearth of research on animals, with much social science study being largely anthropocentric in its purpose and focus on relationships among humans (Arluke & Sanders, 1996; Flynn, 2001). For instance, Arluke (1993) pondered why scholars and researchers in academic circles have not taken a stronger interest in animals and our relationships with them and our world, despite numerous publications on animals in popular and other scholarly literature. Arluke (2006) and others (e.g., Agnew, 1998; Beirne, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2007; Flynn, 2001) have also continued to ask this question for criminology and sociology.

These disciplines, including victimology, have a lot to offer to researchers and practitioners alike in the way of a solid understanding of human and nonhuman relationships. While the presence of animals in victimology and criminology is quite sparse, efforts by Beirne (1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2007), for example, have begun to make progress. According to Beirne (2002), criminology has enjoyed the increased presence of animals in its works since around 1970, but why has the study of animals remained largely absent from the research, even today? First, societies, generally, tend to value animals less than people (Arluke & Luke, 1997). Likewise, criminologists prefer to investigate harms committed by humans against other humans. As a result, violence committed against animals is not taken very seriously. Moreover, due to demands placed on research and teaching faculty on the tenure-track, the focus of scholarship and curricular development emphasizes what is important and ‘hot’ in the field (i.e., gangs, delinquency, drugs, crime mapping). Lastly, since the media does not capture the full scope of animal cruelty cases, public perception suggests that animal abuse is a rare event, with only a very small percentage of prosecuted animal cruelty offenses being publicized, and many are seen as isolated incidents (Flynn, 2000).

Nonetheless, the neglect of animals within victimology and other social sciences, such as criminology and sociology, may be coming to end. The genesis for the first volume of this special issue lies with my own research on and analysis of victimology texts concerning the inclusion of animals as victims (Escobar, 2012). My research involved systematic content analysis of thirteen victimology textbooks published between 2002 and 2012¹ and focused specifically on the tables of contents and indices, and, the actual text, if indicated or present in the table of contents and index. Content analysis involves ‘any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages’ and becomes useful when examining and coding patterns, trends, and determining meaning within texts or visual media (Holsti, 1969, p. 14).

My analysis involved focusing on topical themes within victimology texts and how much attention, if any, was given to animal cruelty. I measured attention to animal cruelty by looking at where animal cruelty or pet abuse was present in the texts: Was there an individual chapter on animal cruelty? Was animal cruelty listed as a topic in the Table of Contents? and Was animal cruelty listed as a subject in the book’s index? I developed the following research questions to measure and evaluate the presence, frequency and representation of animals and animal cruelty in victimology textbooks: (1) How frequently do the following terms or phrases appear in the index: animal cruelty/animal abuse/pet abuse/companion animals; (2) In what context are abused animals described, if at all? and (3) What is the larger meaning behind the presence or absence of animal cruelty in victimology textbooks? Unfortunately, since very little to no animal cruelty content was present in all but two texts, no evaluation of the content was done. With respect to the phrase, animals as victims, one book had a single chapter on it (McShane & Emeka, 2011), and for pet abuse, there was only a single paragraph devoted to this subject in one textbook (Meadows, 2009). Consequently, my findings confirmed a continued dearth of material and lack of attention on this important component of victimology.

My findings support significant reasons why animals should be included more often in crime and justice publications, including this journal. The papers in this first volume address, in different ways, the important themes of animal–human relationships and animal rights. The connection between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence is explored in the Simmons, Knight, and Ellis paper, which examines animal cruelty committed by youth and future behavioral outcomes. Spencer and Fitzgerald take the discipline of criminology to task by showing the ways that animals have been classified, categorized, and labeled, when juxtaposed against humans. By equating animals with stupidity and feeblemindedness, the criminal justice system continues to harm animals, rendering them and their atavistic human counterparts without value. Three of the papers, by Komorosky and O’Neal, Kelly and Cozzolino, and Furst, focus on the therapeutic role that animals play in the rehabilitative work with various at-risk populations. While distinct, all three papers demonstrate the significant impact that animals have on rehabilitating inmates as well as veterans with PTSD and generating empathic and pro-social behavior among youth who face numerous challenges, including delinquent histories, substance abuse, and aggression. Lastly, Jones’ manuscript provides a thoughtful discussion and analysis of animal rights as a social justice issue.

Taken together, these six manuscripts embody my personal and professional goal of integrating animals into a crime and justice context and are the answers to the question of ‘why are animals absent from crime and justice publications’. I hope that you, the reader, enjoy reading them as much as I did.

Sue Cote Escobar
California State University, Sacramento, USA

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Selection of the 13 victimology textbooks was based on whether the textbook offered comprehensive coverage of a variety of issues pertaining to victimization and victimology, with attention given to contemporary textbooks published by well-known and respected publishing companies in higher education (see Burgess, Regehr, & Roberts, 2010; Daigle, 2012; Davis, Lurigio, & Herman, 2007; Doerner & Lab, 2008; Karmen, 2009; McShane & Emeka, 2011; Meadows, 2009; Sgarzi & McDevitt, 2002; Shichor & Tibbetts, 2002; Turvey & Petherick, 2008; Walklate, 2007; Wallace & Robertson, 2010; Williams & Goodman-Chong, 2009).