No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
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.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.