3 ms·

> Twelve states now have laws criminalizing the misrepresentation of a pet as a service animal. That's good, but with all the confusion surrounding what a servi

by ch4s3 9y ago

> Twelve states now have laws criminalizing the misrepresentation of a pet as a service animal. That's good, but with all the confusion surrounding what a service dog actually is, there's less and less protection for their unique status. No it isn't good. Putting someone in jail for lying about their dog being a service animal is terrible. We should be educating these people and simultaneously putting fewer people in jail. Clearly the article outlines a real problem, but jail surely isn't the answer. * edited for tone * edit: I'd also be curious to know why people disagree with the proposition that prison is too extreme.

colordrops 9y ago
You can also give steep fines. It doesn't have to lead to jail time in most cases.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  This is the answer. I know people who've used their ESA "certificate" to get out of paying pet rent. If the threat was a steep fee, they'd probably just consider the pros and cons of getting caught. Luckily, most people I know just want to avoid paying pet rent, and won't ever take their dogs into a supermarket or anything like that.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  Agreed. Eventually the social norm will change.
majormajor 9y ago
I don't think jail is an appropriate response in this case, but wonder what your plan for "educating these idiots" is. How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an invitation to abuse the system? How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing to eat a fine, or whatever, and the occasional stigma, to be able to do what they want? How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the education and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to deal with in a space it legally shouldn't be in and it attacks a person, another animal, or causes massive property damage, or health risk? Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it worries me.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  > but wonder what your plan for "educating these idiots" is. The same way you do with public health campaigns or any other public concern. > How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an invitation to abuse the system? Finne them. > How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing to eat a fine Fine them more. > How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the education and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to deal with Make them leave. > and it attacks a person, another animal, or causes massive property damage, or health risk? There are already laws for that. Do people's dogs routinely attack people in airplanes? > Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it worries me. I agree, and I think jailing people for nonviolent crimes is bad policy.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Sorry, I read a too far into your original post and somehow thought it was more anti-fine too. Fining does run into a problem when they're out of money, though, where "jail because they're broke" is a still dicey proposition. As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at those? In the US, at least, there's a strong "personal liberty" ideological bent that is very resistant to education in many areas. Seems like conservationism is an example of a successful campaign in the past, but even that's been more on the losing side lately around land protection, EPA, etc.
    - ch4s3 9y ago
      No, I'm pro fine, as long as it's reasonable and has a max and no minimum so a judge can cut a poor person who just didn't know the law a break. But jail just seems crazy, especially in a place like California where the prisons are bursting at the seams. > As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at those? There's some pretty good data about education/campaigns and teen pregnancy if you care to google for it. Basically, yes, it works.
danso 9y ago
Note: it's not a prison sentence, it's a county jail sentence. This is in response to your later comment about this overcrowding California's prison system. Not that this is the kind of law for which we'd expect judges to be harsh on: From the state penal code, 365.7, having a fake service animal is seen as fraudulent behavior: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=365.7 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... > (a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Consider how difficult it is to enforce this law. Business owners are not allowed to ask for proof of a disability or for papers. Given the massive fines they face for discriminating against the disabled -- $50,000 for the first offense, under the federal law (California's penalties may be even harsher -- what do you think most business owners are going to do when dealing with a questionable service animal? It's not even that they have much of a choice to do anything except ask a couple of broad questions, the answers of which do not require proof from the animal owner. Most reasonable business owners are going to let the animal in because the business owner is more worried about a lawsuit that could destroy their business than the net overall harm done to society's treatment of disabled people. Without the possibility of jail, and given the high possibility of getting away with a fake service animal, it might be hard to dissuade people from breaking the law.

by ch4s3 9y ago

colordrops 9y ago

You can also give steep fines. It doesn't have to lead to jail time in most cases.

dguaraglia 9y ago
This is the answer. I know people who've used their ESA "certificate" to get out of paying pet rent. If the threat was a steep fee, they'd probably just consider the pros and cons of getting caught. Luckily, most people I know just want to avoid paying pet rent, and won't ever take their dogs into a supermarket or anything like that.
ch4s3 9y ago
Agreed. Eventually the social norm will change.

majormajor 9y ago

I don't think jail is an appropriate response in this case, but wonder what your plan for "educating these idiots" is. How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an invitation to abuse the system? How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing to eat a fine, or whatever, and the occasional stigma, to be able to do what they want? How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the education and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to deal with in a space it legally shouldn't be in and it attacks a person, another animal, or causes massive property damage, or health risk? Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it worries me.

ch4s3 9y ago
> but wonder what your plan for "educating these idiots" is. The same way you do with public health campaigns or any other public concern. > How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an invitation to abuse the system? Finne them. > How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing to eat a fine Fine them more. > How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the education and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to deal with Make them leave. > and it attacks a person, another animal, or causes massive property damage, or health risk? There are already laws for that. Do people's dogs routinely attack people in airplanes? > Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it worries me. I agree, and I think jailing people for nonviolent crimes is bad policy.
- majormajor 9y ago
  Sorry, I read a too far into your original post and somehow thought it was more anti-fine too. Fining does run into a problem when they're out of money, though, where "jail because they're broke" is a still dicey proposition. As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at those? In the US, at least, there's a strong "personal liberty" ideological bent that is very resistant to education in many areas. Seems like conservationism is an example of a successful campaign in the past, but even that's been more on the losing side lately around land protection, EPA, etc.
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    No, I'm pro fine, as long as it's reasonable and has a max and no minimum so a judge can cut a poor person who just didn't know the law a break. But jail just seems crazy, especially in a place like California where the prisons are bursting at the seams. > As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at those? There's some pretty good data about education/campaigns and teen pregnancy if you care to google for it. Basically, yes, it works.

danso 9y ago

Note: it's not a prison sentence, it's a county jail sentence. This is in response to your later comment about this overcrowding California's prison system. Not that this is the kind of law for which we'd expect judges to be harsh on: From the state penal code, 365.7, having a fake service animal is seen as fraudulent behavior: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=365.7 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... > (a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Consider how difficult it is to enforce this law. Business owners are not allowed to ask for proof of a disability or for papers. Given the massive fines they face for discriminating against the disabled -- $50,000 for the first offense, under the federal law (California's penalties may be even harsher -- what do you think most business owners are going to do when dealing with a questionable service animal? It's not even that they have much of a choice to do anything except ask a couple of broad questions, the answers of which do not require proof from the animal owner. Most reasonable business owners are going to let the animal in because the business owner is more worried about a lawsuit that could destroy their business than the net overall harm done to society's treatment of disabled people. Without the possibility of jail, and given the high possibility of getting away with a fake service animal, it might be hard to dissuade people from breaking the law.