Corporations are legal people, right? They can commit crimes, they can sue other people, and they can vote…at least with their checkbooks. So why aren’t animals people? They can walk and have feelings and be family members; plus, they are just so cute when dressed in people clothes.

There is a real movement among animal rights groups to make animals people in the eyes of the court. Okay, okay. They don’t actually want them to be people, but they do want them to have legal standing to sue. And since people have taken animals to court before, I think it is only fair to finally give animals the right to retaliate.

People Trying Animals (In Court, Not at the Dinner Table)

Admittedly, the concept of a person suing an animal is an archaic one not used today, as far as I know. But at one point in history, mostly in Europe, it was an actual thing. A serial murderer pig kills a loved one in their sleep? Prosecute. A trained dog robber takes out one of their targets? Put that killer on the stand and condemn him to death. If they are capable of committing the crime, then they should be made to do the time.

Courtesy of I Can Has Cheezburger.

Pretty much, if it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim, it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim itself to court. This includes insects (though that one baffles me the most. When an insect causes me harm, I practice a much quicker, more vigilante sort of justice.) And murder wasn’t even all these villainous animals could be and were charged with. A donkey once allegedly committed bestiality, but apparently she had enough character witnesses, one being the local reverend, to be acquitted (the same could not be said of her human paramour, who was sentenced to death). And sparrows were taken in for being too loud in church (I totally get this one. I have wanted to sue birds who were being too loud outside my bedroom window at ridiculously early hours of the morning on more than one occasion.)

Among other animals tried were those accused of being familiars to local witches, those suspected of being werewolves, and one particularly scary rooster – yes I said rooster, not hen – who laid a Satan-spawned egg containing a cockatrice (which, according to Wikipedia, is basically a two-legged dragon with a rooster’s head.)

Not only are the offenses serious, but so are the punishments when convicted. A pig was once “sentenced to be “mangled and maimed in the head forelegs,” and then – dressed up in a jacket and breeches – to be hung from a gallows in the market.” A sow was similarly convicted and sentenced to be hanged, though without even the dignity of a new set of clothes, which must have been extra humiliating.

On the other hand, the court was nothing if not fair. Sometimes the animals would be acquitted, such as in the case of the kindly donkey. My favorite ruling came when a group of rats failed to make it to court. Luckily, they had a good lawyer who pointed out that, as they were a wandering band, they may not have received their summons, and, even if they had, they may have been too afraid of the local cats. Since court is only a requirement when it could be gone to safely and the townspeople refused to lock up their pets, the case was dropped.

Animals Trying People (In Court, Not in the Woods Behind Your House)

In a more modern and more American context, animals and the court are becoming an issue once again. Only this time, it is the animals’ turn for revenge.

In recent years, it has become a point of question as to whether animals should have the legal standing to sue humans for animal rights violations. For example, should a cow be able to sue its potential slaughterer for not making it unconscious before turning it into dinner? Should Tommy the chimpanzee be able to sue his captor for keeping him imprisoned?

As crazy as being sued by your own pet may be, the other side of the standing is that without allowing animals to sue, there may not be another form of redress for these creatures. To have standing, you have to have an injury. When an animal is injured, a human most likely would not be able to get standing on behalf of the creature as the human was not the one injured. Thus, unless animal rights proponents can think of more creative defenses to stop the harmful actions, there is little that can be done to protect the animal.

The downside of allowing animals to become legal people is that they’d become legal people. Detractors worry that granting animals people status will only blur the line between man and beast. As if they think the right to sue is the last distinction we have to tell the difference between a fellow human and a zebra. If a cat can hire a lawyer and litigate, albeit through the help of a guardian, then what is to stop it from driving a car or applying for the position that you yourself wanted?

Courtesy of GIPHY.

The disparagers also say that this would encourage frivolous lawsuits – something that no true human would ever do. In a more reasonable stance, some animal suit critics are afraid that if animals can sue, they will sue such organizations as medical research labs and zoos, which in turn could shut down places that theoretically could help humans and the animals themselves.

If this debate interests you, I encourage you to do some research. You won’t believe the fascinating things you will find, and, at the very least, you can see some really clever titles. (My favorites are Monkey See, Monkey Sue and So Three Cows Walk Into Court….)

So far, animal suits have not been successful, but what do you think? Should the courts start allowing whales and snails and things with tails to take the stand?  

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [istolethetv via Flickr].

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Standing on Four Legs: Animals and the Judicial System appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.