虐待动物福利(CAAW)违法行为:2010-2014年美国《动物福利法》和《马福利法》执法行动研究

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
M. Lynch, L. Genco
{"title":"虐待动物福利(CAAW)违法行为:2010-2014年美国《动物福利法》和《马福利法》执法行动研究","authors":"M. Lynch, L. Genco","doi":"10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Green criminology has stimulated criminological examinations of crimes against wildlife, discussions of nonhuman animals as victims of crime, and expanded conceptualization of animal rights. In recent years, increased attention has been directed toward studies of wildlife crimes, which have primarily been restricted to studying crimes against animals that occur through animal trafficking and poaching. At the same time, empirical studies of the social control of animal crimes, especially against nonwildlife animals, have been neglected. As a result, empirical knowledge concerning how nonwildlife animal laws are enforced and the extent to which they are enforced is lacking. The present study addresses that gap in knowledge by examining the enforcement of two animal protection laws in the US that apply to nonwildlife animals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The results indicate that these laws have low enforcement rates, and that the majority of enforcement efforts involve the lowest levels of formal social control available in those statutes. Furthermore, there are relatively few fines for such violations, and when fines are meted out, they tend to be small. Quantitative and qualitative data from 3,719 cases for the years 2010–2014 were employed to assess the extent of, and how the AWA and HPA Acts were enforced in the US. The empirical evidence suggests lack of enforcement of these statutes which, as the qualitative data suggests, involves some serious harm outcomes that were accompanied by rather small penalties.","PeriodicalId":47106,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Spectrum","volume":"41 1","pages":"255 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cruelty against Animals’ Welfare (CAAW) Violations: a Study of Animal Welfare Act and Horse Welfare Act Enforcement Actions in the US, 2010–2014\",\"authors\":\"M. Lynch, L. Genco\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Green criminology has stimulated criminological examinations of crimes against wildlife, discussions of nonhuman animals as victims of crime, and expanded conceptualization of animal rights. In recent years, increased attention has been directed toward studies of wildlife crimes, which have primarily been restricted to studying crimes against animals that occur through animal trafficking and poaching. At the same time, empirical studies of the social control of animal crimes, especially against nonwildlife animals, have been neglected. As a result, empirical knowledge concerning how nonwildlife animal laws are enforced and the extent to which they are enforced is lacking. The present study addresses that gap in knowledge by examining the enforcement of two animal protection laws in the US that apply to nonwildlife animals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The results indicate that these laws have low enforcement rates, and that the majority of enforcement efforts involve the lowest levels of formal social control available in those statutes. Furthermore, there are relatively few fines for such violations, and when fines are meted out, they tend to be small. Quantitative and qualitative data from 3,719 cases for the years 2010–2014 were employed to assess the extent of, and how the AWA and HPA Acts were enforced in the US. The empirical evidence suggests lack of enforcement of these statutes which, as the qualitative data suggests, involves some serious harm outcomes that were accompanied by rather small penalties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Spectrum\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"255 - 272\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Spectrum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2021.1893239","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

绿色犯罪学促进了对野生动物犯罪的犯罪学研究,对非人类动物作为犯罪受害者的讨论,并扩大了动物权利的概念。近年来,对野生动物犯罪的研究受到了越来越多的关注,这些研究主要局限于研究通过贩卖动物和偷猎发生的针对动物的犯罪。与此同时,对动物犯罪,特别是对非野生动物犯罪的社会控制的实证研究一直被忽视。因此,缺乏关于非野生动物法律如何执行以及执行程度的经验知识。本研究通过检查美国适用于非野生动物的两项动物保护法的执行情况来解决这一知识差距:《动物福利法》(AWA)和《马保护法》(HPA)。结果表明,这些法律的执行率很低,而且大多数的执行工作涉及这些法规中最低水平的正式社会控制。此外,对此类违规行为的罚款相对较少,而且即使罚款,数额也往往很小。本研究采用了2010-2014年3,719个案例的定量和定性数据,以评估美国AWA和HPA法案的执行程度以及如何执行。经验证据表明,缺乏这些法规的执行,正如定性数据所表明的那样,涉及一些严重的损害结果,伴随着相当小的惩罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cruelty against Animals’ Welfare (CAAW) Violations: a Study of Animal Welfare Act and Horse Welfare Act Enforcement Actions in the US, 2010–2014
Abstract Green criminology has stimulated criminological examinations of crimes against wildlife, discussions of nonhuman animals as victims of crime, and expanded conceptualization of animal rights. In recent years, increased attention has been directed toward studies of wildlife crimes, which have primarily been restricted to studying crimes against animals that occur through animal trafficking and poaching. At the same time, empirical studies of the social control of animal crimes, especially against nonwildlife animals, have been neglected. As a result, empirical knowledge concerning how nonwildlife animal laws are enforced and the extent to which they are enforced is lacking. The present study addresses that gap in knowledge by examining the enforcement of two animal protection laws in the US that apply to nonwildlife animals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The results indicate that these laws have low enforcement rates, and that the majority of enforcement efforts involve the lowest levels of formal social control available in those statutes. Furthermore, there are relatively few fines for such violations, and when fines are meted out, they tend to be small. Quantitative and qualitative data from 3,719 cases for the years 2010–2014 were employed to assess the extent of, and how the AWA and HPA Acts were enforced in the US. The empirical evidence suggests lack of enforcement of these statutes which, as the qualitative data suggests, involves some serious harm outcomes that were accompanied by rather small penalties.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Sociological Spectrum publishes papers on theoretical, methodological, quantitative and qualitative research, and applied research in areas of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and political science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信