Brief Note

Childhood Bestiality A Potential Precursor to Adult Interpersonal Violence

Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume 25 Number 3 March 2010 557-567 © 2010 The Author(s) 10.1177/0886260509360988 http://jiv.sagepub.com

Christopher Hensley University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Suzanne E. Tallichet Morehead State University, KY

Erik L. Dutkiewicz University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Although bestiality is an infrequent form of animal cruelty, the possibility of identifying a potential link between these acts and later interpersonal violence is an area of research that deserves further exploration. In a replication of the Hensley, Tallichet, and Singer study and based on survey data from male inmates at a medium- and maximum-security prison in a southern state, the present investigation examines whether inmates who engaged in childhood bestiality (n = 23) differ from those who did not (n = 157) in terms of race, childhood residence, education, commission of a personal crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated/simple assault), and the number of personal crimes committed. The results revealed that respondents who had engaged in childhood bestiality were more likely to commit adult interpersonal crimes on two or more occasions as compared to those who had not engaged in bestiality. These findings lend further support to the sexually polymorphous theory that childhood bestiality may be a potential precursor to adult interpersonal violence. Keywords:  bestiality; animal cruelty; interpersonal violence

A

lthough sexual acts with animals have occurred since prehistoric times, as evidenced by cave drawings, ancient Egyptian artifacts, and Greek and Roman mythology, human perceptions of these behaviors has varied drastically over time and across cultures (Peretti & Rowan, 1982). Although the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans sensationalized human–animal combinations (e.g., the Egyptian god Ammon, the Greek god Pan, and Roman fauns) Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Christopher Hensley, Department of Criminal Justice, Dept. 3203, 615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403; email: [email protected] 557

558   Journal of Interpersonal Violence

through celebrated holidays and rituals, biblical writings of the Old Testament strictly prohibited any human–animal sexual contact and offered severe penalties for these transgressions (Bailey, 1975; Lindemans, 2004). Despite these practices, the conservative opinions toward sexual behavior held by religious groups of the medieval time period eventually became strictly enforced laws as religion and law merged. One English law, drafted around 1290, required anyone convicted of engaging in bestiality be burned. Between 1400 and 1800, it was common place in England to even charge the animal in cases of bestiality (Bailey, 1975). In fact, the human abuser and animal were often sentenced to torturous deaths followed by the two being buried together (Ives, 1970). In the American colonies in the 1600s, bestiality was a severely punished crime, resulting in the 1642 hanging of a young male abuser and the branding of the forehead and whipping of a man a year earlier, who was then forced to sit at the gallows with a rope around his neck to remind him that he could have been hanged for the offense (Lauria, 1998). Today, bestiality remains a chargeable offense in most states and, although not specifically named as a criminal offense, is normally prosecuted under animal cruelty statutes (Francione & Charlton, 2002). The characterization of bestiality ranges from “interspecies sexual assault” (Beirne, 1997, p. 317) to the sexual contact of humans to animals or physical contact with an animal that results in sexual arousal for the abuser (Beetz, 2002). Beirne (1997) argued that bestiality is similar to the victimization of humans because animals cannot consent to sexual acts with humans; it involves coercion and often results in pain or death for the animal. Beirne concludes that these are acts of violence where animals, similar to humans, are reduced to the status of objects to be manipulated, exploited, and controlled by the abuser. By applying sexually polymorphous theory, MerzPerez and Heide (2004) have taken their explanation of the link a step further. As infantile sexuality can assume a variety of forms, the authors note that in certain individuals “perverse sexual activities” are violent and fall outside of acceptable behavioral norms (p. 66). They conclude that these activities, including bestiality, occur when “sexuality and aggression have become developmentally fused, and the two are mutually inclusive in the psyche of the offender” (p. 66). A sexual release is obtained by the offender through the commission of violence against animals and humans and has been most infamously found among cases of serial killers whose childhood animal cruelty escalated to homicide, the ultimate form of interpersonal violence (Wright & Hensley, 2003). Few studies (see Hensley et al., 2006, for an analysis of research prior to 1998) have examined the association between bestiality and violence toward

Hensley et al. / Childhood Bestiality   559

humans. The limited data have shown that bestiality is found most often among violent offenders, sex offenders, and the sexually abused (Beetz, 2005). A 1998 study of adult and juvenile populations by Duffield, Hassiotis, and Vizard demonstrated that bestiality may be associated with aggressive tendencies and behaviors toward humans as well as psychological disorders. Of 70 youths who had been sent to a psychiatric center for juvenile sexual offenders, Duffield et al. (1998) found that 7 had committed childhood bestiality. These 7 youths not only demonstrated a disproportionately higher rate of mental disorders than the rest of the sample but also were more likely to have suffered from neglect or abuse in the home. They noted that bestiality was almost never an isolated paraphilia and, as a result, argued the presence of bestiality in a juvenile offenders’ sexual history should be viewed as a warning sign that other sexual paraphilias may be present. They further argued that these particular sexual offenders may be at a higher risk of sexually abusing others in the future. In a similar study, Fleming, Jory, and Burton (2002) surveyed 381 youthful offenders from three midwestern juvenile institutions. Through a battery of questionnaires, they explored the offenders’ family dynamics, their level of sexual aggression, and their exposure to childhood trauma and sexual abuse. Of their sample, 24 (6.3%) reported having had sexual contact with an animal as opposed to 161 (42.3%) who reported only committing sexual offenses toward humans. Fleming et al. (2002) noted that 23 of the 24 individuals who reported prior acts of bestiality also admitted to having committed sexual offenses against humans. Studies into animal cruelty by Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) and MerzPerez, Heide, and Silverman (2001) also uncovered the occurrence of bestiality. Through structured interviews of 45 violent and 45 nonviolent incarcerated offenders, they examined specific acts of animal cruelty in an exploration of the potential relationship between childhood animal abuse and violence toward humans. Although no nonviolent offenders reported having engaged in bestialic behaviors, three violent offenders in their sample indicated bestiality. Most recently, Hensley et al. (2006), in their examination of childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence, found support for the application of sexually polymorphous theory. Hensley et al. surveyed a sample of 261 inmates housed in one maximum- and two medium-security southern correctional facilities. The authors examined demographic characteristics, including race, education level, and residence (urban or rural), and the conviction for personal crimes, the number of those convictions, and

560   Journal of Interpersonal Violence

participation in bestiality. Of the sample, 16 inmates (6.1%) indicated they had engaged in childhood bestiality. In regards to level of education, Hensley et al. (2006) found that 31% of the bestiality group had less than an eighth-grade education compared to only 9% of those that had not engaged in bestiality. An additional 31% of inmates in the bestiality group were high school graduates compared to 40% of the nonbestialics. The chi-square analysis revealed significant differences between the two groups as to education level. In addition, the authors found that 75% of the bestiality group had been convicted of a personal crime as compared to only 48% of the nonbestialic group, which also yielded significant differences during chi-square analysis. Furthermore, 31% of the bestialic offenders had been convicted of more than three personal crimes compared to only 5% of the nonbestialics, again revealing significant differences between the two groups. Despite the suggestion that there is a possible connection between bestiality and interpersonal violence, insufficient research exists that has specifically explored this particular relationship. The current study attempts to replicate Hensley et al.’s (2006) study, focusing on a sample of violent and nonviolent offenders, to further explore whether a potential link between childhood bestiality and later acts of violence toward humans exists. The purpose of the present study is to examine whether differences between inmates who did and did not engage in childhood bestiality exist in terms of demographical (race, education, and residence) and criminal characteristics (committed personal crimes and number of times committed personal crimes). One difference between the current study and the one conducted by Hensley et al. is that the latter examined whether inmates had been convicted of personal crimes and the number of those convictions, whereas we examined whether inmates had committed personal crimes and the number that they had committed. Thus, the number of personal crimes committed is likely to be higher for the current study. We also used a different sample of inmates from a different state. Finally, our sample of bestialics is larger than the previous study (12.8% as compared to 6.1%, respectively).

Method Participants In March 2007, all inmates housed in one medium- and one maximumsecurity southern correctional facilities for men were requested to participate in a study of childhood animal cruelty. Of the 1,800 inmates incarcerated in the two prisons, a total of 180 agreed to participate in the study, yielding a

Hensley et al. / Childhood Bestiality   561

Table 1 Population and Sample Characteristics

Prison Population

Characteristic

n

%

Sample n

Race   White 9,333 51.9 91   Other 8,667 48.1 89 Type of offense   Violent crime 11,283 62.7 115   Other crime 6,717 37.3 65 Median age 35 years 33.5 years

% 50.6 49.4 63.9 36.1

response rate of 10%. Although this response rate appears low, most prison studies dealing with sensitive issues attract 25% or fewer respondents (Hensley, Rutland, & Gray-Ray, 2000; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). Table 1 displays the characteristics of the state prison population and the sample. A comparison of the racial composition, type of offense committed, and age distribution of the respondents and the state prison population revealed no significant differences. Although not presented in the table, no significant differences were found in terms of race, type of offense, and age between the sample and the two correctional facilities used in the study. Thus, the sample appears to be representative of the two correctional facilities used in the study as well as the state prison population in terms of these variables.

Survey Instrument A 26-item questionnaire was constructed in part using a combination of previous researchers’ questions regarding childhood animal cruelty and its possible link to later violence toward humans (Ascione, Thompson, & Black, 1997; Boat, 1994; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004). For the purpose of the current study, demographic information including race (White vs. Other), residence (rural vs. urban), and education level (eighth grade or less, some high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, and graduate school) were collected. Respondents were also asked whether they had committed a personal crime (i.e., murder, rape, robbery, aggravated/simple assault) and the

562   Journal of Interpersonal Violence

number of times they had committed these personal crimes. These are considered criminalized acts of aggression by the Uniform Crime Report. Finally, inmates were asked how they hurt or killed the animals. Response categories included drowned, hit, shot, kicked, choked, burned, or had sex with the animal. Of the 180 respondents, 23 had engaged in childhood bestiality.

Procedures After obtaining approval from the state Department of Corrections and the university’s Institutional Review Board, the principal investigator drove to the facilities and delivered the questionnaires and informed consent forms. The informed consent stated that the questionnaires were confidential. In addition, the state Department of Corrections agreed not to open any of the surveys prior to them being mailed. Correctional counselors distributed self-administered questionnaires to each inmate. Inmates were informed that it would take approximately 20 min to complete the questionnaire. Inmates were asked to return their completed questionnaires and signed informed consent forms in a stamped, self-addressed envelope within 1 month of distribution. The researchers contacted the two prisons after the 30-day period to make sure all completed surveys had been mailed. No incentives were given for completion of the survey. Unfortunately, no efforts were made to increase the sample size.

Results According to Table 2, no significant differences between those who engaged in childhood bestiality and those who had not were found for the race, location, and educational variables. However, of the bestiality group, 87% had committed a personal crime as compared to only 63.7% of the nonbestiality group. Significant differences between the two groups emerged with regard to having committed a personal crime (c2 = 6.08, p < .05, df = 1). In other words, those who had engaged in bestiality were more likely to engage in interpersonal crime than those who had not. More than 65% of the bestiality group had committed four or more personal crimes. This compared to 39.5% for those who committed four or more personal crimes of the nonbestiality group. Again, significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the number of times the inmates had committed personal crimes (c2 = 8.47, p < .05, df = 3). In other words, those who had engaged in childhood bestiality were

Hensley et al. / Childhood Bestiality   563

Table 2 A Comparison of the Nonbestiality Group (n = 157) and the Bestiality Group (n = 23)

Nonbestiality Group %

n

Bestiality Group %

Race   White 51.0 80 69.6   Other 49.0 77 30.4 Residence   Rural 47.8 75 60.9   Urban 52.2 82 39.1 Education level   Eighth grade or less 7.6 12 13.0   Some high school 24.8 39 21.7   High school graduate 45.9 72 39.1   Some college 17.2 27 21.7   College graduate 4.5 7 4.3 Personal crimea   Yes 63.7 100 87.0   No 36.3 57 13.0 Number of personal crimesa,b   0 36.3 57 13.0   2 10.8 17 8.7   3 13.4 21 13.0   4 or more 39.5 62 65.2

n 16 7 14 9 3 5 9 5 1 20 3 3 2 3 15

a. Denotes significance at the .05 level. b. No inmate reported engaging in personal crimes only once.

more likely to engage in recurrent interpersonal crime as compared to those who had not.

Discussion The present study focused on the demographic characteristics and the frequency of commission of interpersonal crimes during adulthood among a sample of incarcerated male respondents who admitted to having sex with an animal as youths. Among these respondents, none of the demographic characteristics of race, residence, or education had a relationship with childhood bestiality, which is somewhat contradictory to previous studies.

564   Journal of Interpersonal Violence

However, similar to several other recent studies, our results revealed that those respondents who were convicted of two or more crimes against people as adults were more likely to admit having committed a sexual act with animals in their youth than other respondents in the sample (see Hensley et al., 2006). Thus, our findings lend support to the linkage between bestiality as a form of animal cruelty and interpersonal human violence. Our results also lend a measure of support to other studies showing that bestiality is most often found among violent offenders and sex offenders (Beetz, 2005). One theoretical explanation for such a link is the sexual polymorphous theory discussed earlier. According to the theory, during their development, the aggressive and sexual behaviors of certain individuals became fused, and the only means of release is to act on their violent and sexually related tendencies simultaneously. In other words, hurting animals and humans provides the same pleasurable experiences now fused with sexual excitement. It is plausible that these individuals objectify animals and humans and fail to feel any empathy with their less powerful animal and human victims. Our findings linking bestiality and later multiple acts of interpersonal violence lend support to this explanation. The present investigation adds to the previously understudied phenomenon of bestiality, examining the link between bestiality and human violence and the effects of demographic factors among a sample of inmates incarcerated at one medium- and one maximum-security prison that closely mirrored the two facilities themselves as well as the state prison population. However, our study is not without its limitations. Using a survey technique meant relying on paper and pencil self-reports and, therefore, further selecting the sample and possibly excluding illiterate inmates. This could be avoided in future studies by using direct interviews, which would yield much richer data. Moreover, our data were based on prisoners’ self-reported behavior. Using this type of methodology can often lead to veracity, social desirability, and memory issues among respondents. In addition, there were no psychometric properties included in the survey. Furthermore, bestiality was based on a single-item assessment, a highly unreliable method. Finally, although prison studies dealing with sensitive topics (in particular, animal cruelty and prison sex) generally yield relatively low response rates (see Hensley et al., 2000; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004), our 10% return rate is low for survey-based methodology. The number of respondents admitting to bestiality is lower still, and the present study does not include a control group. These conditions could affect the generalizability of the study to the larger population of inmates and presents some serious problems to interpretation.

Hensley et al. / Childhood Bestiality   565

However, despite its relative weaknesses that are rather typical of studies involving sensitive issues such as bestiality, the present study has sought to expand on the few previous investigations into the factors affecting bestiality as a form of animal cruelty. Several of these previous studies about cruelty itself suggest improved strategies for future research regarding animal sexual abuse and its link with later interpersonal violence. For example, it has been discussed in the literature that the qualitative nature of animal cruelty may vary substantially (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). Contrastingly, our single measure of sexual acts with animals failed to qualify the nature of the act. Therefore, future studies should use multiple questions that help elaborate our understanding of the sexual abuse of animals and how it could lead to violence toward humans. Future studies should also examine the effects of a wider range of factors affecting animal sexual abuse such as motives and the type of animal targeted for sexual abuse. Furthermore, we need to know more about the prevalence of animal cruelty, including sexual abuse of animals, committed by children who have been physically and sexually abused themselves and by children who have witnessed domestic violence, including acts of animal abuse. Although our study did not examine the childhood abuse status of inmates (victim or observer), future studies could investigate the effects of an individual’s abuse history and their exposure to domestic violence and animal abuse among both nonoffender populations and individuals with prior convictions who are not incarcerated (see Miller & Knutson, 1997). Although our results suggest that the sexual abuse of animals in youth may predict later interpersonal violence in adults, this association needs to be examined among a large cohort of youth who have committed bestiality to determine the predictive power of these behaviors for human violence. More studies such as these may provide new insights and inform new and improved solutions to these social problems. More specifically, the present study along with similar future investigations could eventually aid in the development of a broad range of prevention and intervention strategies regarding animal sexual abuse and, possibly, regarding interpersonal human violence, which may be associated with it.

References Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoös, 10, 170-177.

566   Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Bailey, D. S. (1975). Homosexuality and the Western Christian tradition. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. Beetz, A. M. (2002). Love, violence, and sexuality in relationships between humans and animals. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Beetz, A. M. (2005). Bestiality and zoophilia: Associations with violence and sex offending. In A. M. Beetz & A. L. Podberscek (Eds.), Bestiality and zoophilia: Sexual relations with animals (pp. 46-70). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Beirne, P. (1997). Rethinking bestiality: Towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault. Theoretical Criminology, 1, 317-340. Boat, B. (1994). Boat inventory on animal-related experiences. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. Duffield, G., Hassiotis, A., & Vizard, E. (1998). Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 294-304. Fleming, W. M., Jory, B., & Burton, D. L. (2002). Characteristics of juvenile offenders admitting to sexual activity with nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 10, 31-45. Francione, G. L., & Charlton, A. E. (2002). Animal rights law project. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/index.html Hensley, C., Rutland, S., & Gray-Ray, P. (2000). Inmate attitudes toward the conjugal visitation program in Mississippi prisons: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 137-145. Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2005). Animal cruelty motivations: Assessing demographic and situational influences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1429-1443. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Singer, S. D. (2006). Exploring the possible link between childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 910-923. Ives, G. (1970). A history of penal methods: Criminals, witches, lunatics. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. Lauria, L. M. (1998). Sexual misconduct in Plymouth colony. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/Lauria1.html Lindemans, M. (2004). Encyclopedia mythica. Available from http://www.pantheon .org/ Merz-Perez, L., & Heide, K. M. (2004). Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against people. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K. M., & Silverman, I. J. (2001). Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 556-573. Miller, K. S., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 59-82. Peretti, P. O., & Rowan, M. (1982). Variables associated with male and female chronic zoophilia. Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 83-87.

Hensley et al. / Childhood Bestiality   567

Tallichet, S. E., & Hensley, C. (2004). Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 304-316. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 72-89.

Christopher Hensley is an associate professor of criminal justice in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He received his doctorate in sociology from Mississippi State University in 1997. His most recent publications appear in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Criminal Justice Review, and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. His research interests include the link between childhood animal cruelty and later violence toward humans, prison sexuality, and attitudes toward correctional issues. Suzanne E. Tallichet is a professor of sociology in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology at Morehead State University. She received her doctorate in rural sociology from Pennsylvania State University in 1991. Her most recent publications appear in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Criminal Justice Review, and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. She is also the author of Daughters of the Mountain: Women Coal Miners in Central Appalachia (2006, Penn State Press). Her research interests include animals and society, gender and work, and regional studies. Erik L. Dutkiewicz received his masters degree in criminal justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. His recent publication appears in Criminal Justice Review. His research interests include the transformation of international policies affecting the legal status of those accused of terrorist acts.

For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE's Web site at http://www .sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav