The Opinion Pages
OCTOBER 1, 2014
Enforcing the Legal Rights of Animals
INTRODUCTION
The uproarover a videoin which a young man violently kicked a stray cat – and theflood of responsesto an article written about it – shows how passionately people care about animal rights.
Animal cruelty can be charged as a felony in all 50 states, and stiffer penalties have grown more common. But what factors should lead to vigorous prosecution of animal abusers and how extensive should animals’ legal rights be?
- You will first read/C-Note 6 opinions published in the NYT, and then your group will come to a consensus on your opinion:
- Animals’ legal rights should include:
- These specific factors should lead to this specific prosecution:
Offense / Consequence/Punishment
Animals’ Legal Rights Come From an Evolving Relationship With OurPets
David Grimm is a deputy news editor at Science and the author of "Citizen Canine: Our Evolving Relationship with Cats and Dogs."
UPDATEDOCTOBER 1, 2014, 6:56 PM
Cats and dogs are becoming fellow citizens. Or at least it seems that way. In the past century, our pets have evolved from legally worthless beings into the most protected animals in the country. They caninherit money, be the subject ofcustody battles, and arerescued along with people in natural disasters. Dogs have even beenassignedlawyersin a few recent court cases. Our pets are becoming as much of a part of our society as we are. So it’s no surprise that Andre Robinson, a young man from Brooklyn, was arrested for kicking a cat. The surprise is that such arrests don’t happen more often.
Until the early 1900s, cats and dogs were considered so useless they didn’t even qualify as property. They could be stolen and killed without repercussion. But as pets have become members of our family — more than90 percent of Americansconsider them so, celebrating their birthdays, risking their lives for them, and shelling out an estimated$60 billionthis year on food, toys and veterinary care — their legal status has skyrocketed.
Today, cats and dogs aren’t just property — they have more rights and protections than any creature in the country. Felony anti-cruelty laws in all 50 states impose up to$125,000 in finesand10 years in prisonfor those who abuse them; the New York and Los Angeles police departments have formed units dedicated to cracking down on animal crimes; and several counties have createdanimal abuser registries, akin to those for sex offenders.
No animal in human history has transcended its status as property, but some scholars believe cats and dogs may be the first. Sure, chimpanzees and dolphins are more cognitively complex, but how many judges have a dolphin at home?
We are entering a brave new world of pets, in which they are ever more valued and ever more protected. Some are calling the charges against Mr. Robinson extreme. But he may be lucky that he was arrested in 2014 — not ten years from now.
Animal Cruelty Laws Don’t Depend on AnimalRights
Richard L. Cupp Jr. is the John W. Wade professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law. He is onTwitter.
UPDATEDOCTOBER 2, 2014, 2:19 PM
Vigorous prosecution of animal cruelty is appropriate, but not based on animal rights. All members of nonhuman animal species are incapable of significant moral responsibilities, and thus affording them "rights" just doesn't fit. Rather than focusing on rights for cats and dogs, we should focus on human moral responsibility.
Our enhancement of animal cruelty laws in recent years is encouraging; it reflects increasing repulsion regarding abuse of helpless, innocent creatures. But our increasingly tough animal cruelty laws are not based on a rights paradigm. Animal cruelty laws focus on punishing and deterring sadistic human misconduct. Making needed enhancements to these laws shows that we can improve our behavior without wading into the prospect of legal rights for animals.
Arguing that animals should be considered legal persons because nonhuman corporations are legal persons does not work, either. Regardless of the merits of corporate personhood, courts have made clear that it is merely a proxy for representing the rights and responsibilities of human stakeholders. Words and concepts matter, and assigning personhood to animal species (where no members can take meaningful accountability like most humans can) would be harmful to our legal system and society.
For example, even if legal personhood were limited to the most intelligent animal species, the most cognitively limited humans could, over time, lose ground to animals with stronger cognitive ability (but still not significant moral accountability) in direct or indirect competition for societal protections. Thus, thinking in terms of animal rights may not simply elevate animals; it may also unintentionally lower human rights.
Whatever vocabulary we use, decisions regarding how we treat animals ultimately reside with us, and we need to focus on human behavior and morality if we want to improve animals’ welfare and our own. Animal abusers should face meaningful punishment not because animals have rights, but because humans have responsibilities.
Expand the Reach of Animal CrueltyStatutes
Jessica Rubinis an assistant clinical professor of law at the University of Connecticut and a member of theAnimal Legal Defense Fund.
UPDATEDOCTOBER 2, 2014, 2:53 PM
Prosecutions of animal cruelty cases rely on state statutes, which only prohibit the most extreme acts, inflicted on only those animals most familiar to us. They leave the majority of animals without legal protection from cruel treatment.
Anticruelty statutes are based upon important principles: animals are sentient beings; they experience pain, fear and suffering. Animal cruelty is also often related to acts of violence against humans. Pet abuse is a strong predictor of domestic violence,accordingto the Humane Society of the United States.
While all 50 states have anticruelty statutes, the laws are of limited effectiveness even for the small number of animals they cover for two reasons. First, statutes prohibit intentional acts that cause unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering. A prosecutor in a cruelty case must therefore prove the defendant’s subjective intent, the animal’s suffering and that the suffering was unnecessary or unjustified – standards that are subject to judicial interpretation.
Second, statutes commonly exempt animals used for food, research and entertainment as well as wildlife. Most cruelty occurs in the context of food production and scientific research. Therefore, the qualifications and exemptions in anticruelty statutes swallow up almost all protections the laws purport to offer.
There are many ways to improve cruelty prosecutions: appoint animal victim advocates, expand the investigative powers of law enforcement, require cross-reporting between child abuse and animal abuse cases, require perpetrators to undergo counseling and increase penalties. The most important improvement, though, is revision of anticruelty statutes to remove their broad exemptions and subjective standards.
If our statutes aim to raise public morality, deter future violence and recognize animal sentience, then we must include all practices and all animals, not just the cute ones with whom we share our lives.
Sadistic Cruelty to Animals Should BePunished
Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University, is the author of "Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals."
OCTOBER 1, 2014
The three acts of animal cruelty described in thisarticle– kicking a cat 20 feet, dragging a donkey from the back of a truck and lighting a cat on fire – should be severely punished. These acts are sadistic.
In my livestock work, I have observed people who enjoyed being cruel. Often it was a young man in his early 20s. Recently, I went to a veterinary seminar on animal torture crush videos. In these videos, a small animal is stomped on by a high heeled shoe. Young men were the main viewers of these revolting acts.
Human beings can be noble and benevolent, but they can also do the most evil things. Andre Robinson, the accused cat kicker, does not seem to understand why he's received so much negative attention. Maybe he does not understand that animals feel pain and fear.
I have worked with meat plants for years trying to reduce animal stress and make death painless. Plant managers must be vigilant in preventing cruel behavior. Most plant workers are mindful of their treatment of animals, but some can be cruel. Sadism, however, is different than a tired employee getting rough with an animal. Sadists enjoy inflicting pain on the animal, and they must be stopped.
The cat kicker, donkey dragger and cat burner are disturbed individuals. In a civilized society, sadistic behavior toward either people or animals must never be tolerated.
Eating Meat Is Also AnimalAbuse
Gary L. Francioneis the Board of Governors distinguished professor of law and Nichols deB. Katzenbach Scholar of law and philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law — Newark. He blogs at "Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach."
UPDATEDOCTOBER 2, 2014, 12:08 PM
The reaction to what the accused cat kicker did is understandable and laudable. It is nothing short of terrible that anyone would harm a defenseless animal. But how different is it from slaughtering animals for food?
We kill and eat more than 58 billion animals a year worldwide, not counting fish. Indeed, the animals we use for food suffer as much — if not more — than the cat that was callously kicked. We eat animals because they taste good. We do not need to eat animal foods to be healthy; even mainstream professional organizations and governmental regulatory bodies recognize that.
So, how are we any different from Andre Robinson? We aren’t. There is no morally coherent difference between the cat who was kicked and the chicken, pig, cow or fish that most people will eat today. Robinson will be prosecuted for violating a statute that prohibits "unjustifiably" harming animals. What he is accused of doing was not justifiable. The problem is what the rest of us do is not any more justifiable.
We are a society that abuses billions of animals for no good reason. We excuse ourselves by pretending that people like Robinson are “abusers” and the rest of us are really “humane” and care about animals. We do this repeatedly.
Remember football player Michael Vick? People hate him to this day forengaging in dog fighting. Or how aboutKisha Curtis, who gained international condemnation for throwing her emaciated dog, Patrick, down a trash chute in Newark? Patrick is still used as a symbol by those who claim that we must pursue “animal abuse” more aggressively. All of these cases have resulted in an overwhelming online response, just as stories about the eating of dogs and cats in China or Korea, or the killing of dolphins in Japan, result in comments that “those people” are barbaric — made by people who have no problem exploiting pigs, cows, chicken and fish.
The Robinson case presents an opportunity for us to examine our fundamental views about animal ethics. Otherwise, this is just about fetishizing dogs and cats, or demonizing those whom we arbitrarily designate as “barbaric.”
Don’t Let Animal Rights Restrict BiomedicalResearch
Frankie Trull is the president of the National Association for Biomedical Research.
UPDATEDOCTOBER 2, 2014, 12:08 PM
Animal abuse is contemptible and pets must be protected from wanton cruelty.
But some animal rights groups are calling for fundamental changes to the legal status of animals, including giving them standing in court, a prospect that could have severe consequences for science and medicine.
Biomedical researchers must study laboratory animals to discover new medicines and therapies, and deem them safe and effective. Should courts begin to assign personhood to animals, ceaseless litigation could bring lifesaving and life-improving research benefiting both animals and humans to a grinding halt. Carefully and respectfully conducted research with animals has and will continue to yield treatments and cures for many of the world’s worst illnesses.
As a case in point, mice and non-human primates are playing an essential role in the development of a vaccine against the Ebola virus. Animal research, closely monitored at the institutional level and regulated by the federal government, not only benefits people, but is often translated from human medicine to veterinary medicine where it helps our pets live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives.
Scientists have and continue to strive to reduce the number of animals in research, but the assistance of animals today remains essential. So while we must protect pets from cruelty, we must also ensure research is not mistakenly handcuffed in the process.