Page: 9026
The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.28 p.m.]: In the 1970s research into prisoner profiles found a strong link between serial killers and a history of cruelty to animals. More recent studies into current and past cases have confirmed the link. Retrospective studies of the life of convicted sadistic murderers and serial murderers showed a startling proportion of those murderers had a history of animal abuse, often starting in childhood. The roll call of internationally infamous killers includes Jeffrey Dahmer, Milwaukee's cannibal killer of 16 young men; Albert deSalvo, the Boston Strangler, who murdered 13 women; David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam; David Harker, Britain's cannibal killer; and even the two 10-year-olds, Robert Thompson and John Venables, who killed toddler Jamie Bulger. They all had a history of animal torture or violence in their youth. Australia has not escaped the profile: Paul Denyer, the Frankston serial killer of three women in 1993, and John Travis, one of the Cobby killers, both have a history of animal abuse, starting in childhood.
Since the prisoner profiles studies, there has been a growing body of literature—both anecdotal and scientifically derived—showing that the level of abuse to family pets is a strong indicator of the level of violence within the family, be it wife bashing, harsh corporal punishment or child abuse of a sexual or other form. Most scientific literature concentrates on prison populations and could be accused of population bias, but more recent work has studied victims of domestic violence or child abuse. The links can be examined in two ways: first, abuse of animals as an indicator of violence within the family, usually perpetrated by the animal abuser; and, second, abuse of animals by a child as an early indicator of social or psychological dysfunction which may lead to later problems in society.
In the first case, children are often another victim of the person who abuses the pet or pets. The identification of the animal cruelty can serve as a red flag for social workers, doctors or law enforcers to investigate the family situation. This can be a life-saving warning. In the second case, the animal victim may be the first sign that the child is in need of medical or psychological assistance, that the child is abused and is mimicking behaviour within a violent family or releasing frustration by attacking a lower member of the dysfunctional family's so-called pecking order. Animal cruelty by a child is a strong indicator of serious developmental problems or potential psychopathology. It has been commonly associated with empathy distortions, conduct disorders and later antisocial behaviour.
In both the United Kingdom and the United States of America programs have been established to help communities confront violence in society by sharing information to allow more rapid identification of families in need of help. The Humane Society of the United States has developed the First Strike campaign to help co-ordinate professionals and the general public with networking between animal care and control agencies, law enforcement officials, family and domestic violence personnel, educators, medical professionals, veterinarians and many others. Australia does not have such a program. We should investigate the overseas outcomes and, if the results warrant, look at the ways of setting one up.
Not all children who abuse animals go on to be sociopathic or delinquent. In an interesting adjunct, a publication last year—called "Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children's cruelty to animals", by Flynn in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, No. 61, pages 971-981, November 1999—examined all university students enrolled in one course at the university without knowing any individual's background of family or animal violence at the entry to the study. The study itemised spanking, slapping or hitting and ruled out any punishment which used hitting with objects, biting and other potentially injurious methods, which might classify as harsh or abusive. It found that males who committed cruelty to animals in childhood or adolescence were physically punished more frequently by their fathers than males who did not. The same did not hold true for those fathers' daughters.
Nearly 60 per cent of males spanked by their father as a teenager perpetrated animal abuse. Also, the greater the frequency of punishment to pre-teen males by their father, the greater the incidence of animal abuse by the sons. There was no way of ascertaining whether these children were violent with animals because of the punishment or whether punishment was caused initially by the violent behaviour of the child. This study separated so-called acceptable corporal punishment, such as spanking, from harsher forms of physical punishment and child abuse in the analysis of results, yet still showed a correlation between corporal punishment and animal abuse. In summary, there is a strong link between family violence and the abuse of family pets, between later antisocial or sociopathic behaviour by a child and the child's history of animal abuse, and between the use of mild corporal punishment by fathers upon their sons and animal abuse by the sons. This is an issue that requires and deserves further attention.