Invisible Victims, Invisible Crimes: Institutional Erasures of Animals as Victims of Cruelty

ABSTRACT To receive justice in the legal system, one must be seen by the legal system; this is as true for nonhuman animal victims of crime as it is for human victims. Situating animal cruelty within the invisible crimes framework, this paper highlights the paucity of research on prosecutions and sentencing under animal welfare law. Due in part to a lack of transparency in the public and private institutions that regulate animal welfare, our understanding of how animals are recognized within legal systems has so far relied heavily on critiques of animal welfare legislation as written. Drawing on an original database of Australian prosecutions of cruelty cases ( n = 552) involving “pet” animals, this paper offers new, empirically centered perspectives on the legal treatment of animals. It calls for an expansion of the invisible crimes framework to include “invisible victims” and supports recent calls for animals to be recognized as crime victims.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law & Policy
Published
2026-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.70013
Primary Topic
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Invisible Victims, Invisible Crimes: Institutional Erasures of Animals as Victims of Cruelty

Serrin Rutledge‐Prior
Law & Policy
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
article

Invisible Victims, Invisible Crimes: Institutional Erasures of Animals as Victims of Cruelty

Serrin Rutledge‐Prior
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT To receive justice in the legal system, one must be seen by the legal system; this is as true for nonhuman animal victims of crime as it is for human victims. Situating animal cruelty within the invisible crimes framework, this paper highlights the paucity of research on prosecutions and sentencing under animal welfare law. Due in part to a lack of transparency in the public and private institutions that regulate animal welfare, our understanding of how animals are recognized within legal systems has so far relied heavily on critiques of animal welfare legislation as written. Drawing on an original database of Australian prosecutions of cruelty cases ( n = 552) involving “pet” animals, this paper offers new, empirically centered perspectives on the legal treatment of animals. It calls for an expansion of the invisible crimes framework to include “invisible victims” and supports recent calls for animals to be recognized as crime victims.

Law & PolicyVol. 48(2)
Queen's University (CA)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.