Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The past 100 years have seen starling changes in our laws that might have once seemed revolutionary, proving the necessary adaptability of our legal system to changing needs and information. For e.g. As we learned about the threat posed to all life by chemical and sewage dumped in our air and waterways, an entire new field of law, environmental law, was created to regulate the threat and to protect lives.
Yet, the property designation puts in living feeling beings the same legal category and thing such as “chair”. While there has been an increase in legislation and the court decision that distinguish animals from inanimate property, there improvements have not gone far enough.
OUR VISION
The animal legal defense fund envisions a legal system that protects animals right to flourish in their own ecological communities and to live their own according to their emotional and physical capacities. This includes the right to be free from cruelty and exploitation. Property status is the major hurdle in fully achieving these rights. Because property status has been a barrier to obtaining greater legal protection for animals some argue that animals must be removed from the category of property altogether in order for them to be grated basic legal rights. other think the property category could be revised in such a way as to provide more meaningful legal protections for animals.
Given the realities of our current legal system the animal legal defense fund uses a multi faced approach to achieve stronger protection for animals that is both grounded in the present legal framework and seeks to help it evolve. While we work to achieve a status for animals that is beyond mere property, we also work within the property paradigm where we can to make meaningful improvements in the animals live today
WAYS ANIMALS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN PROPERTY
Our legal system still considers to be property in many ways not much different from a table or a chair. But there are some ways the law does not recognize animals as the living being who need and deserve a legal status that reflects who they are:
Animals are living, feeding beings who need and deserve a legal status that reflects who the are: creatures with the capacity for pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow, fear and contentment.
LEGAL STATUS AS CONTINUATION
While replacing animals’ property status with legal personhood represents one ideal property and personhood are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. Being defined as property and personhood can be considered points one continuation rather than binary categories.
Animals can have a hybrid status where they are recognized as both parties under the law. However as long, as they are still classified s property, they will not be full persons one end of the property personhood continuation that grants the strongest legal recognition of
interests. Because “animals” are diverse group with varied capacities and different societal uses and “legal” personhood would look different what hey need to thrive.
SOMETIMES MORE THAN PROPERTY: DISTINCTIONS AND EVALUTION IN THE LAW
Although classified as property, the legal system treats animals distinctly in some cases. For e.g. Unlike other forms of property animals are protected by criminal cruelty laws. As, of 2017 animals can be the beneficiaries of legally enforceable trusts in all so states and a majority of states allow them to be included in domestic violence protection orders.
Similarly, some courts have held that non-economic damages are available when people suffer emotional harm as a result to tortious misconduct aimed at their companion. And federal and state laws have evolved over the past decade to address the need of those with companion. And federal and state laws have evolved over the past decade to address the need of those with companion animal during natural disasters and emergency evacuations.
Recently, some states have enacted legislation requiring courts to consider the interest of companion animals in divorce and devolution proceedings in contrast o the strict property analysis that has long been the standard in determining ownership of an animal. The traditional property analysis treats companion animals like furniture or other material assets to be equitably divided, but these new laws mention the “wellbeing” or “care” of the animal, thereby recognizing that animal have interests of their own that should be considered.
Additionally, some state legislatures have addressed animals’ sentience. For e.g. As a result of legislation that the animal legal defense fund helped draft and pass in 2013, Oregon law recognizes that “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear”.
Importantly, it also states that “animals should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress fear and suffering”. Another promising development is that animals are increasingly achieving crime victim status particularly as it relates to which victim” count at sentencing. Both the federal and state courts have recognized that each individual animal who suffered as a result of a crime victim for sentencing purpose. in one state, connectivity, special advocates can speak directly on behalf of animal victims through the entirety of criminal animal cruelty case, and more states are currently considering enacting this courtroom animal advocate program model.
However, most animals do not yet enjoy the additional protection, which thus far are mostly reserved for those animals whom we define as companies i.e. pets.
ANIMALS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM TODAY
There are four types of legal systems around the world –
There are countries that combine elements from different systems the most widespread legal systems are those based in civil law and common law in them there is clear distinction made between entities that can sue and entities that cannot sue and only be the property of others. The entities that belong to the first category are legal persons. Those that belong to the second category are objects. Significant legal protection can only be granted to entities having legal rights and rights can only be held by legal persons. The law may grant some protection to some non-person but aa long it doesn’t recognize those entities as right holders they will be regarded as things. And as e.g. of this that legal protection the works of art have. We may not legally be allowed to destroy an important artwork even if its our property. However, that doesn’t mean that the work of art has rights. It doesn’t mean that the work of art has rights. It doesn’t because it doesn’t a legal person.
Legal personhood entails that one can’t be used by others as mere object, but rather that one has interests that the law must respect. The protection that work for the art receive is not granted to them based on the idea that works for the arts are subjects with interests but rather for other purposes such as protecting the interest of legal person or communities of legal person in the continued existence that works of art.
Currently, in every country non-human animal are considered in law to be non-response. This is direct consequence of the widespread prevalence of specialist attitudes. And this has very important implications since it means that they cannot have any significant protection, and they can be owned as property. This is what makes it legally possible for non-human animals to be treated as resources in almost any way that humans want, with some regulations limiting that use but rarely prohibiting it altogether it many people support it.
Animal rights
There is much disagreements as to whether non- human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights. There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.
The consequences of animal rights
Animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there
are some things that it is morally wrong to do animals.
Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them. Human being must not do those things, even if they d it in the human way.
For eg. F animals have a right not to bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food. It makes no difference if the animals are given 5 star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain its just plain wrong in principle and nothing can make it right.
Accepting the doctrine of animals right means:
The case of animals’ rights
Philosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non human animals have rights because:
the second problem is dealt with by not arguing that all animals have rights but only that higher animals have rights.
One leading author restricts right to mentally normal mammals at least one year old.
The case for animal rights is usually derived from the case for human rights.
The argument goes like this:
Human beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both subjects of a life.
Human beings and other mammals have right because they are both subjects of life- this means that:
86540
103860
630
114
59824