Convictions and Penalties among Rescue and Non-rescue Nonhuman-Animal Hoarders

Abstract

Abstract The overarching purpose of this pilot study was to compare the likelihood of conviction and the imposition of penalties in nonhuman-animal hoarding cases among those affiliated with established animal rescues and those not affiliated. A secondary purpose was to examine what additional characteristics of hoarders and hoarding cases are associated with conviction and penalties. Manifest content coding was conducted on the media reports and court dockets of a convenience sample of 84 animal hoarding cases. The affiliated did not significantly differ from the nonaffiliated with regard to the likelihood of conviction or the imposition of legal penalties upon conviction. A prior history of hoarding and the number of animals involved in a case influenced case outcomes in limited and inconsistent respects; however, a preponderance of nonsignificant findings suggests that much judicial discretion operates in the prosecution of animal hoarding cases.