Teenage violence seems to be on the increase, and one of the hidden casualties is the household pet.

When Jamiroquai first hit the pop music scene in 1992, the first single selected for release by its main man, Jay Kay, was “When You Gonna Learn?” It was accompanied by graphic footage of animal experiments, and whaling operations. The footage was intended to highlight the troubled relationship between the human race and the animal world, but it caused outrage in some circles, and was banned from being shown by MTV in its original version. The clip gave rise to much debate: how do you highlight such cruelty without showing it? Does showing it just contribute in some way to our insensitivity? Why do we need to show something in order to bring people’s attention to it? On the other hand, there are many people who prefer to ignore it. How do we wake them up?

The morality, or, to use the more trendy word, ethics, of cruelty to animals has never been as simple as it seems. At one extreme, we have radical animal activists whose methods and beliefs are considered extreme by many average people, including pet owners. On the other, we have animal haters, many of whom believe that animals are an inferior life-form and not worthy of human emotions such as compassion. This latter group ranges from those who have a religious rationale for their attitude to animals, to those who seem to need little justification for their sadism.

Statistics show quite starkly that cruelty to animals is most likely to be perpetrated by males. Furthermore, according to American figures, 20% of all cases of cruelty to animals are committed by teenage boys.

The statistics are not always as powerful as the anecdotal evidence, however, because scientists are often only interested in data they can quantify. They don’t always tell the stories of increasing peer pressure in an age in which the need to conform to certain behaviours is more compelling than it ever was; of a male “image” that does not always include kindness to animals or, if it does, is selective as to which pets best “enhance” that image.

The average person has got to the stage where they no longer care whether statistics or studies verify their feeling that the world is becoming a more violent, less caring place. Certain feelings are taking hold, and people feel something needs to be done.

How do pets sit in this scenario? There is an animal connection within the culture of violence that seems to be deepening daily. It’s a known fact that those who have perpetrated cruelty as adults generally got their sadistic grounding as children who “practiced” on animals. Famous examples include Ted Bundy, The Boston Strangler, Jeffrey Dahmer, The “Vampire of Düsseldorf”, and Martin Bryant. Without going into the nature of the crimes committed, we can state that a number of studies have proved conclusively that in a very high percentage of such cases, the perpetrator had a history of animal abuse as a child or adolescent, and often even carried these behaviours into adulthood, adding people to their list of victims along the way.

A number of different approaches have been instigated for the purpose of addressing this disturbing trend.

The QLD RSPCA presents a confronting program called “Tested on Animals”, designed to make people more conscious of the link between adult violence and childhood cruelty toward animals. “In Queensland, domestic violence counsellors regularly speak to women whose pets are beaten or tortured by abusive partners in order to frighten them and control them into staying in violent relationships”, says the introduction to the Tested on Animals program on the QLD RSPCA website. “In addition, RSPCA Qld Inspectors often report suspected domestic and child abuse while investigating claims of animal cruelty and neglect.” The QLD RSPCA provides care for animals while families deal with domestic violence, and have developed an education kit titled “Teaching Kids to be Kind.”

In response to statistics that reveal many animal cruelty cases in the USA are committed by teenagers, and pet abuse often accompanies elder abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence, the First Strike campaign was started up in 1997 by the Humane Society of the United States. The campaign directly reaches out to teenagers in the effort to prevent animal cruelty. They provide advice to teenagers on action to take if they witness an abusive act, and have taken to the airwaves with “edgy” public service announcements. According to their website, the program “aims to eradicate cases of animal cruelty while educating animal caregivers, law enforcement, and social workers about the link between animal abuse and violence in general.”

Studies have also demonstrated that the most obvious solution resides in the family home, where acts of animal cruelty can often be tacitly condoned. The journal of the New England Vivisection Society cites a study by White and Shapiro (1994): “Children learn responsibility from animals and develop the capacity for empathy and unconditional love from them. Thus, the foundation for the development of self-esteem is often acquired through a child’s relationship with her/his companion animal. Unfortunately, in certain unhealthy family situations, children can also learn that animals are even more helpless than they are, being at the bottom of the family pyramid, and can act out their aggression against them. Or, alternatively, they can see their animal friends abused by other family members and either be traumatized vicariously or learn that aggression is acceptable behaviour toward human and nonhuman animal alike.”

This violence chain, which goes from the parents down to the pets, can be described in simple terms: “The dog kicks the cat, the cat kicks the canary.” Violence, or a hostile attitude, toward a pet is generally considered a “red flag” which can predict the behaviour of the child as he or she grows into an adult. Generally, it means that a child might be passing on their own sense of victimization, or signalling their inability to deal with their own aggression. If parents are routinely cruel to the household pet, especially when they are angry, the child may seek to identify with that parent and imitate this behaviour. On the other hand, if parents are cruel to their children, and kind to pets, children may displace their aggression toward their parents and direct it toward the family pet.

If any good is to come of identifying such webs of victimization and aggression, it may be that it helps to understand the trajectory the child is likely to take, as well as the child’s current situation. A 1981 paper by J.S. Hutton titled Animal Abuse as a Diagnostic Approach in Social Work reported that of 23 families investigated by the RSPCA for animal abuse or neglect, 82% also had “children at risk”, according to local social service agencies.

No matter what has been identified by psychologists or sociologists, the reasons why violence toward animals should be considered intolerable seem obvious: they are a sign that something is wrong in the lives of the individual concerned, and his/her family. And this is a portent of wider social damage. Such behaviour toward pets is known to increase the threshold of tolerance toward sadism and a diminution of empathic behaviour which is so important to any civilized society.

Fortunately, in Australia and around the world, animal protection agencies are aware of the pet connection in teenage violence, are working hard to better our society by increasing awareness, and are protecting our pets in the process.

Published in the Autumn issue of Pet Lifestyle, 2008