Search

Simple Summary: Laws punishing individuals who have sex with nonhuman animals have existed since the earliest written legal codes. In the United States, bestiality has long been prohibited. The rationale for criminalizing sex acts with animals has changed over time and has included moral condemnation, considerations of animal rights and animal welfare, and most recently, a concern about the relationship between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, colloquially known as the Link. This article reviews the history and current state of bestiality law in the United States. It notes important differences in language, specificity, and potential punishments for offenders depending on the jurisdiction. It also reviews the research basis of the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence and some risks associated with a reliance on the Link to promote legislative reform. Societies have proscribed bestiality, or sex between humans and nonhuman animals, since the earliest recorded legal codes. In the early American colonies, religious prohibitions against bestiality provided the grounds for punishing those who engaged in such acts. In the 1800′s, Henry Bergh imported the animal welfare approach to the United States, which modernized the legislative treatment of animals in the country. Until recently, however, many laws in the U.S. have been outdated and vague and have utilized moralistic terminology. Since the 1960′s, a growing body of literature has developed suggesting that individuals who harm animals may also interpersonally offend. This concept, known as the Link, has served as a major motivation for advocates to promote new legislation criminalizing bestiality, to modernize old state statutes, and to expand penalties for individuals convicted of having sex with animals. Unfortunately, data supporting the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence are limited and of questionable generalizability to the broad public. The Link's weaknesses can assist in guiding further research. This article summarizes the history of bestiality law, the current state of bestiality legislation in the United States, the body of Link-related literature on bestiality and interpersonal violence and other problematic sexual behaviors, and the empirical weaknesses and needs revealed by this legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: animal cruelty; animal welfare; violence; the link; one welfare; veterinary social work EN animal cruelty animal welfare violence the link one welfare veterinary social work N.PAG N.PAG 22 04/26/22 20220415 NES 220415 1. Identification of relevant articles was performed using the following keywords: "animal cruelty", "animal abuse", "companion animal abuse", "children animal abuse", "animal welfare", "domestic violence", "lack of empathy", "callous-unemotional traits in children", "animal protection laws", "one welfare", "MacDonald triad", and "veterinary social work". Children from households with domestic violence who have perpetuated acts of animal abuse with their pets, exposed to interpersonal violence, and acts of animal abuse tend to normalize physical punishment in animals [[123]]. For this review, the terms cruelty, abuse, and maltreatment are used as synonyms because studies linking interpersonal violence to animal abuse use the terms interchangeably and refer to non-acceptable social behaviors that intentionally cause pain, suffering, distress, or even the death of an animal [[5]], including acts of non-accidental injury, abandonment, neglect, or torture that may occur as kicking, hitting, stabbing animals, failing to provide food and water [[6]], veterinary services [[7]], organized fights, sexual abuse (bestiality), burns, wounds with projectiles or sharp weapons, shootings, suffocation, poisoning [[8]], or even theriocide [[9]]. [Extracted from the article]

Violence towards animals and violence towards people are often interconnected problems, and as such, this phenomenon has been termed the Link. Violence towards animals is a strong predictor that the abuser may inflict violence on people. However, it must not be assumed this is always the case. Professionals treating an animal or a human patient/client who has been subjected to abuse are uniquely situated to act in the role of 'first responders' when they suspect or recognize animal abuse, human abuse, or family violence. To more fully understand the Link the authors introduce Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems model through which to examine the complexity of the problem. Using data from earlier studies in which they interviewed police officers, other law enforcers, veterinarians, social workers, and community and family members, the authors discuss the correlation between animal cruelty and family violence. Furthermore, they examine how Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems model has the potential to better support animal and human health and welfare professionals in the identification of strategies for animals and humans caught in abusive settings. The authors recommend that these professionals become familiar with the bioecological systems model, which will enable them to better understand the psychological problems of animal cruelty and family violence and the different bioecological contributing factors. The authors emphasize transdisciplinary collaboration as vital in the recognition, prevention, and protection of animal and human victims trapped in family violence.