Animal abusers registers. Should governors keep a record of people that abuse animals?
"Should" is always such a subjective term. So perhaps the question might be "what are the arguments, for and against, keeping a record of people that abuse animals"?
If a person is convicted of an animal welfare offence, then one of the potential penalties that the court may consider is application of a banning order, which prevents the convicted individual from owning, or having responsibility for, animals in the future. From a pragmatic perspective, while the outcomes of legal cases are usually a matter of public record, obtaining a list of people who have banning orders applied to them can be problematic.
In addition to protecting animals, there is good research to suggest that there is a link between animal abuse and domestic violence.
So, in the first instance, a registry of people that abuse animals all seems very compelling to keep an animal abuse register, doesn't it?
What are the counterarguments however? Do you believe that the law and societal opinion always "get it right"? There is, for example, a foundational principle in law which holds that a person is "innocent until proven guilty". And while the "name and shame" process has its merits, technology and the open forum may keep on punishing an individual long after they have learnt their lesson, and reformed their ways.
So how would you balance and control that registry?
Read more at