unnecessary pain & suffering

Download Unnecessary Pain & Suffering

If you can't read please download the document

Post on 31-Dec-2015

33 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Unnecessary Pain & Suffering. Prof. David Favre Michigan State Univ. College of Law 2013. www.animallaw.info. Week old Icelandic lambs. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Unnecessary Pain & Suffering

Unnecessary Pain & SufferingProf. David FavreMichigan State Univ. College of Law20131www.animallaw.info

2Week old Icelandic lambs

They (animals) are created, indeed, for our use, but not for our abuse. Their freedom and enjoyment, when they cease to be consistent with our just dominions and enjoyment, can be no part of their natures; but whilst they are consistent I say their rights, subservient as they are, ought to be as sacred as our own . . May 15, 1809, Lord Erskine addressed Parliament in support of the bill he had introduced for the protection of animals. This date may represent the first time animal protection was seriously debated by a full legislative body. In his address, Lord Erskine stated:

4Horse PowerIt was made illegal for any person to "wantonly and cruelly beat or ill-treat [] [any] horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep or other cattle . . . ." The law imposed a "fine of not more than five pounds or less than ten shillings, or imprisonment not exceeding three months."

On June 10, 1822, he succeeded in obtaining passage of a law known as "Dick Martin's Act . . . An Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle." Creation of RSPCA

The law seeks to control bad conduct by humans socially unacceptable.

Is the law for the benefit of correcting human behavior or to protect animals?5

Credit to Michigan Humane Society for horse pictures.6

Ethics into LawIf we assume there is social agreement that some limitations of human use of animals exist, how does the law state these rules?

Specific v. General prohibitions

A little legal history will show the path of social attitudes. A legal historian..No longer the ethics professor, but now the lawyer8

Tools of Legal AnalysisWhich animals are protected? Is human motivation an element?Which action or inaction as relates to the animal is covered?Is the listed language have to be judged in a social context before becoming illegal?What is the level of punishment for violations?Will the law be enforced?10Early 1800s in United StatesEvery person who [part one] shall maliciously kill, maim or wound any horse, ox or other cattle, or any sheep, belonging to another, or [part two] shall maliciously and cruelly beat or torture any such animals, whether belonging to himself or another,

11Preexisting law Illegal to destroy (kill) the property of another commercial animals not dogs not property

Who is covered?

Which animals are protected?

Role of ownership/

Role of qualifier malicious -- control back human actions v. protection of animals from human actions Moral character v. animal interests to be free from pain.

11Transition to Law

12Henry Bergh12

Every person who [part one] shall maliciously kill, maim or wound any horse, ox or other cattle, or any sheep, belonging to another, or [part two] shall maliciously and cruelly beat or torture any such animals, whether belonging to himself or another,

[1867 New York]torture, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, or unnecessarily or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate or kill any living creature, [no ownership statement]

Who? Which animals?Notice that the law does not prohibit the infliction of pain and suffering, let alone create a standard that individuals must treat animals respectfully. Digging deeper into the language exposes the reality that two categories of actions are prohibited. Some actions are prejudged by the legislature as unacceptable: overdrive, overload, torture, and torment. These are disrespectful under any definition of the terms used. However, the other categories of action are not judged by the legislature, instead the legislature created a standard to be implemented by a jury: unnecessarily or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate or kill. This language suggests that in some circumstances it is acceptable to the law if a human beats an animal, but if it is a cruel beating, then that is illegal. Likewise, it is illegal to kill an animal only if it is needless. In deciding if a beating or killing is illegal, the concept of respectful does not seem helpful, instead the focus is upon the word unnecessary.

15Federal Act on the Protection of Animals - Austria 5. (1) It is prohibited to inflict unjustified pain, suffering or injury on an animal or expose it to heavy fear.1616(510 ILCS 70/3.02) 3.02. Aggravated cruelty.

(a) No person may intentionally commit an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or death. Apparent strict liability for intentional acts. No justification analysis.17Unlawful conductAcceptableUnacceptableLawfulUnlawfulWho decides where to draw the line?When is animal /human conduct: Set dog on fire

Kill and eat the dog

Put dog on chain outside during the day

Kick the dog.

{Note we are not focused upon the positive statements of the law about owners duty of care}18Who will do the balancing?Legislature

Administrative/Executive

Judiciary / Jury19Endangered species

-Legislative mandates

-Administrative Decisions

Judicial Review

How is it to be balanced within the cultural context and values of society no absolute rights or positions (same for humans).

What we need are advocates for wildlife within all arena's the legal system is neutral on the issue not inherently protective or destructive, will determine public policy and execute the policy. Without advocates their interests will not be recognized.

No chimpanzee can be imported / No chimpanzee will be houses except in approved facilities / Get me out of here19 Balancing Interests Illegal Actions

20Respectful use, which does not allow unnecessary use or pain requires humans to engage in balancing human interests verse that of the animals involved.

How different:Individual ethical decisions personal life experiences and beliefs are the context for the decision.Social legal decision complex social/political context20Dog Fighting

21

Pain and suffering is obvious to see in the act of fighting inherent in the actBut much pain and suffering is unseen.

Total prohibition21Section 2. FOR KEEPING A PLACE FOR COCK FIGHTING, BULL BAITING, DOG FIGHTING, ETC.Any person who shall keep or use, or in any way be connected with, or interested in the management of, or shall receive money for the admission of any person to any place kept or used for the purpose of fighting or baiting any bull, bear, dog, cock, or other creature, and every person who shall encourage, aid or assist therein, or who shall permit or suffer any place to be so kept or used, shall, upon conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor.

Use by the middle class

23Balancing the cost and benefits no racing

Act of racing not like dog fighting no appearance of cruelty unnecessary pain and suffering.

Quality of life for animals v. benefits to humans.

Prohibition v. Regulation

Pain and suffering is not obvious in the act of racing23Use by the rich

24Rich humans use animals different ways. Interests and quality of life for animals

Prohibition v. regulation24 Ethical Use? Lawful Use? 25

Concept of respect includes the idea of other is a chicken an other ? Industrial Agriculture and confinement of animals is per se not respectful use of animals. Cage v. Free Range25To live as natural a life as possible in order that an animal can experience life as fully as possible, given its inherent interests and capabilities. The opportunity to be themselves.

A good animal life: freedom from negatives v. experience the positives.

- food, water & shelter- to be in a social group- to hunt, to seek food- to reproduce

Ethical GoalPublic and Private Zoos

Individual Ethics Group Ethics

Adopted LawMoving from Ethics to LawFirst to eliminate the negative and then to promote the positive.28Science & Chimpanzees

What will the future judge as the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering upon animals by humans?Role of Science in discovering:

How do animals feel pain? What is pain to an animal?

What does suffering mean in the context of various animal species is suffering a matter of science or ethics.