Trending
A proposed state law that many right-thinking people in Pennsylvania might have considered to be a no-brainer or slam dunk in terms of virtually unanimous approval -- creation of a registry of animal abuse offenders -- is being greeted with a reception somewhat less enthusiastic.
It's unfortunate that the measure, which could be a significant weapon in the battle against abuse of animals, is likely to be bumped into the new legislative year beginning in January, rather than being accorded the fast-track implementation of which it is worthy and making a positive impact starting in the winter to come.
Unfinished at the end of the current legislative session, the proposed law could languish for many months in uncertainty before once again being brought up for rehashing and consideration.
Meanwhile, winter likely will have come and gone, again having delivered its challenges and life-threatening conditions that each year tragically claim so many animal lives.
What's ironic about opposition to the law that has surfaced so far is that it is based on a sense of sympathy for animal abusers while ignoring the animals destined to be victimized during the cold months ahead and even in warmer seasons.
Lawmakers' inaction will do nothing to prevent the deaths that will be forthcoming, and it is appropriate to remind legislators that, just like humans, animals feel pain and suffering.
This issue at hand, then, is not frivolous and never should be treated as such.
One of the debatable -- albeit questionable -- reasonings put forth as to why the proposed law purportedly is unacceptable is that a registry might make it more difficult for offenders who served their sentence to be rehabilitated into society.
A Delaware County lawmaker, quoted in a CapitolWire article published in the Mirror's Oct. 17-18 edition, said "evidence shows that a registry doesn't reduce recidivism and can decrease prosecution of more serious cases."
Court-issued no-contact orders provide greater protection to abused animals, the lawmaker said.
Those points can be respected, but there is more to be said. For example, there is the issue of deterrence -- discouraging individuals from engaging in animal abuse in the first place.
The existence of the database in question -- and reminding the public regularly of its existence -- could deter many individuals from engaging in the despicable conduct that the proposed law seeks to address.
Humans should be enlightened enough in this day and age to avoid what, indeed, might have been more common in less-caring generations oblivious to the issue and realities of rights of animals.
The issue of deterrence isn't perfect; it doesn't always achieve desired results.
However, the proverbial slap on the wrist for identified abusers isn't perfect either, and failure to impose a meaningful price to pay won't keep abusers from thinking twice before engaging in such abuse.
The animal-abuse problem isn't small in Pennsylvania. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has reported that there were 805 convictions in 2025 for animal abuse offenses defined in a Senate bill seeking to address the crimes problem -- a bill being forwarded to the House of Representatives for action.
The Senate bill would require the state police to list the names of animal abusers convicted of certain animal-abuse offenses, and the registry would include photos and ID.
True, life, going forward, might not be easy for abusers on the registry. However, someone who abuses or tortures animals, sometimes to the point of death, really deserves no pity.