It has commonly been stated that the English Puritans were opposed to exhibitions such as cock fighting and bear baiting, not because they were concerned about animal welfare, but because they were frightened the working classes may be enjoying themselves too much.

In fact, this is a misrepresentation of the Puritan position, which, according to historian Keith Thomas, has a far sounder theological basis. The puritans considered that animal viciousness to other animals was a result of sin; before sin entered the world, animals and humans alike were peaceful creatures who were only provided with plant food by the Almighty (Gen.1). Glorifying in spectacles such as dogs attacking bears or cockerels fighting each other was therefore glorifying in sin.

Whatever the truth about the actual Puritans, the current animal welfare laws are certainly Puritan in the negative sense commonly associated with the term. A recent article by law lecturer Peter Sankoff highlights the inconsistencies in the way offences under the Animal Welfare Act are prosecuted, and the penalties handed down.

The courts for example take a dim view of anyone torturing animals for the sheer fun of it. Sadism and delight in power for its own sake are frowned upon in this society. Likewise farmers and pet owners who neglect their animals are considered fair game for prosecution. Sloth is after all one of the seven deadly sins. The problem with this approach is its emphasis is on the feelings of the perpetrator, not the victim of the crime. It makes no difference to a sow in a crate, a hen in a battery cage, a roped cow being dragged along the ground, a lame, twisted broiler chicken or a seasick sheep whether they are being mistreated by sadists wanting a buzz, consumers wanting cheap animal flesh or farmers wanting extra profit.

Cruelty is often defined as being abuse of animals for its own sake, and the law abhors unnecessary suffering. But logically there is no difference between a sadist or a psychopath torturing a puppy for the pleasures of domination, a well fed guest at a morning tea helping themselves to a ham sandwich for the pleasures of the palate, or a farmer knowingly keeping animals in conditions that cause suffering for the pleasures of the pocket. Gluttony and avarice are no less sins than sloth and anger.

The suffering of animals in factory farms, slaughterhouses and laboratories, in numbers and severity are far worse than any torture even the sickest psychopath could dream up. It is time we made sensible animal welfare laws that take into account the feelings of the victim, and that we take a less puritanical approach to animal cruelty.