3 ms·

Acting as 'lookout' is only quasi-illigal, but it raises an interesting question: if a human trains an animal to do something illegal, does blame fall on the an

by Liquix 8y ago

Acting as 'lookout' is only quasi-illigal, but it raises an interesting question: if a human trains an animal to do something illegal, does blame fall on the animal or the human? For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death?

reallydude 8y ago
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter12-3.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/...
jbattle 8y ago
the pit bull is put down because it is dangerous to humans, not because it violates a human law. Relatedly, literal mules that carry drugs surely wouldn't be punished
LanceH 8y ago
If it is a properly trained attack dog (command words) and not just trained to attack everything, they may take on the task of retraining it. To do this they have to have a high confidence they know the commands to give the dogs to make them attack. This is something frequently not divulged by the owner who is probably claiming the dog "just went off".
matt4077 8y ago
Animals are more or less “things” as far as the law is concerned. A dangerous dog will be put down irregardless of intent, just like a dangerous boulder above a house will be removed or secured. Blame, guilt, or morality don’t come into play. Conversely, training an animal brings with itself the same culpability as using any other tool, say building a trap. In civil law, you are responsible for any damage your animal causes, training or not. There’s an interesting dissonance here with children: at least in my jurisdiction, Hilden categorically can not commit crimes before age 14, and (contrary to popular belief) their parents are not responsible, either. I’m unsure how this extends to the case where the parents actively encourage the behavior, though. There are some advocates for some sort of legal personhood for, say, elephants or apes. But this is more in the context of environmental law, not life-or-death. See also that gorilla that was killed when someone climbed into their enclosure, and the entirely uninformed internet brouhaha that ensued.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death? Yes, putting down a dangerous animal isn't a criminal punishment premised on the animal's culpability (as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability), but a protective measure equivalent to condemning and demolishing a dangerous building.
- moioci 8y ago
  "as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability" Apparently it was not always thus in European jurisprudence. This podcast episode tells more: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31-pigs-on-trial/ https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31...

by Liquix 8y ago

reallydude 8y ago

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter12-3.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/...

jbattle 8y ago

the pit bull is put down because it is dangerous to humans, not because it violates a human law. Relatedly, literal mules that carry drugs surely wouldn't be punished

LanceH 8y ago

If it is a properly trained attack dog (command words) and not just trained to attack everything, they may take on the task of retraining it. To do this they have to have a high confidence they know the commands to give the dogs to make them attack. This is something frequently not divulged by the owner who is probably claiming the dog "just went off".

matt4077 8y ago

Animals are more or less “things” as far as the law is concerned. A dangerous dog will be put down irregardless of intent, just like a dangerous boulder above a house will be removed or secured. Blame, guilt, or morality don’t come into play. Conversely, training an animal brings with itself the same culpability as using any other tool, say building a trap. In civil law, you are responsible for any damage your animal causes, training or not. There’s an interesting dissonance here with children: at least in my jurisdiction, Hilden categorically can not commit crimes before age 14, and (contrary to popular belief) their parents are not responsible, either. I’m unsure how this extends to the case where the parents actively encourage the behavior, though. There are some advocates for some sort of legal personhood for, say, elephants or apes. But this is more in the context of environmental law, not life-or-death. See also that gorilla that was killed when someone climbed into their enclosure, and the entirely uninformed internet brouhaha that ensued.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death? Yes, putting down a dangerous animal isn't a criminal punishment premised on the animal's culpability (as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability), but a protective measure equivalent to condemning and demolishing a dangerous building.

moioci 8y ago
"as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability" Apparently it was not always thus in European jurisprudence. This podcast episode tells more: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31-pigs-on-trial/ https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31...