Why Bangladesh Must Take Animal Cruelty Seriously

Animal cruelty is often dismissed as a minor offence. Criminological research, however, tells a very different story, increasingly identifying it as a warning sign of violent and antisocial behaviour. Bangladesh’s legal framework has yet to catch up with that reality. Although the Animal Welfare Act 2019 criminalizes the killing, poisoning, and mistreatment of stray animals under section 7, the law remains weak in practice. Penalties are light, offences are bailable, and section 18 requires a written complaint from a designated authority before prosecution can begin. As a result, enforcement is rare, public awareness is low, and the law offers little meaningful deterrence.

Animal cruelty rarely ends with animals

Decades of criminological research have consistently shown that it is often linked to broader patterns of violence. Felthous and Kellert (1987) first identified the connection between childhood animal abuse and later violent offending, while Ascione (1993, 2001) extended that link to domestic violence, child abuse, and elder maltreatment. Arluke and Luke (1997) found that animal abusers were disproportionately represented among offenders involved in drug, property, and violent crimes. Likewise, Tallichet and Hensley (2002) associated repeated, remorseless childhood cruelty with later interpersonal violence, and Henry (2004) argued that such behaviour fosters desensitization to suffering. Gullone (2012) and Hoffer et al. (2018) further warned that weak institutional responses to animal cruelty send a broader message that violence is tolerated. Although research from South Asia remains limited, existing studies point in the same direction. Chowdhury (2021) highlighted institutional cruelty in urban stray-animal management, while Islam and Uddin (2020) found that poverty, weak community cohesion, and enforcement gaps in Dhaka contribute to animal abuse more than individual pathology alone.

Evidence from South Asia remains limited, but the research that does exist points to similar conclusions. Chowdhury (2021) highlighted institutional cruelty in the management of urban stray animals, while Islam and Uddin (2020) showed how poverty, weak community cohesion, and gaps in law enforcement contribute to animal abuse in Dhaka. At the same time, animal cruelty is by no means confined to disadvantaged communities. Cases involving individuals from affluent and socially influential backgrounds demonstrate that cruelty also stems from attitudes of entitlement, disregard for animal welfare, and a sense of impunity. Together, these findings suggest that animal cruelty is shaped not only by socioeconomic conditions but also by broader social attitudes and institutional failures.

Several overlapping factors explain why the cruelty persists

Socioeconomic deprivation and daily contact with strays under conditions of scarcity generate frustration that gets displaced onto animals. Early exposure to family or community violence, combined with limited outlets for aggression, produces psychological adversity that later surfaces as cruelty. Cultural attitudes are equally complex. Religious teaching often emphasises compassion toward animals, yet this is frequently misread or ignored in practice. Cruelty toward strays, particularly dogs, is commonly normalised in childhood through unsupervised play or imitation of adults. Underneath all of this sits weak legal enforcement: light penalties, procedural barriers to prosecution, and negligible public awareness of the 2019 Act combine to remove any credible deterrent.

The divide is also geographical. Urban residents are more likely to frame cruelty as a legal wrong, while rural communities often treat it as an unregulated private matter. Gender shapes responses as well. Conscientious individuals and animal-welfare volunteers are disproportionately active in rescue and advocacy, yet they frequently face ridicule and, at times, threats for intervening. Civil society groups have become more vocal, but awareness of the Act remains limited, and courts have shown little appetite for taking cruelty cases seriously without sustained advocacy pressure, as reflected in reporting on dismissed or scoffed-at complaints (Prothom Alo, 2022).

The consequences extend well beyond the animal victim

At the individual level, repeated cruelty without consequence entrenches desensitization and can escalate into interpersonal aggression. Within families, children who witness or are made to participate in cruelty show an elevated risk of later violence, echoing findings from domestic-violence contexts abroad (Ascione, 1998; Currie, 2006). At the community level, tolerated cruelty normalises a broader culture of impunity that erodes trust in law enforcement, consistent with Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) broken-windows logic, in which visible neglect signals that disorder is acceptable. There are public health dimensions too, including mismanaged stray populations and associated disease risk. Left unaddressed, these dynamics compound over time: a society that tolerates cruelty toward animals conditions itself, gradually, to tolerate cruelty more broadly.

Criminology helps explain why this cycle persists. Classical theory highlights the absence of credible deterrence given light penalties and bailable offences. Positivist approaches point to the biological, psychological, and environmental drivers of individual offending. Shaw and McKay’s (1942) social disorganization theory explains why cruelty clusters in communities with weak cohesion and thin institutional presence, a pattern visible in rapidly urbanizing Bangladeshi neighbourhoods.

The policy response is neither complicated nor radical

A criminological informed approach requires amending the 2019 Act to raise penalties, remove the section 18 bar on private prosecution, and make offences cognizable. Enforcement capacity should be strengthened through trained animal-cruelty units within existing police structures rather than reliance on a single designated authority. Humane education in schools, community outreach in high-incidence neighbourhoods, and formal collaboration between animal-welfare organisations, lawyers, and law enforcement would address both the cultural and institutional roots of the problem. Investment in Bangladesh-specific empirical research, particularly on the link between animal abuse and human violence, is also needed to move these recommendations beyond extrapolation from North American and European data.

Animal cruelty in Bangladesh is far more than an animal welfare issue. It reflects deeper problems of social deprivation, psychological adversity, cultural acceptance of violence, and weak institutional enforcement. Its impact reaches beyond the suffering of animals by contributing to a wider culture of violence and impunity. Although this discussion is based on secondary literature and documented cases rather than original empirical data from Bangladesh, the evidence points to the need for stronger legal protections, more effective enforcement, and greater public awareness. Addressing animal cruelty should therefore be seen not only as a matter of protecting animals, but also as an important step toward preventing violence and building a more humane, lawful, and peaceful society.

The views, opinions, and arguments expressed in published articles are solely those of the respective authors.
Jus Civitas does not necessarily endorse or assume responsibility for the accuracy or viewpoints presented.