Do Animals Have Rights? An attorney's definition

[Belles]

I recently ran across this question and I found the response to be fairly straightforward when addressing whether or not animals have the same rights we enjoy as humans.

________________________________

Q. Do animals have rights similar to those which people have?


A. I''m Gloria Rowland Homolak, a lawyer in Cleveland, Ohio. I will be the panelist addressing your Animal Law questions. Anyone who is a devoted pet owner knows full well that their pet enjoys a whole range of household perks and privileges. Having just returned from being the week-long unofficial mascot for a group of 28 boys who lavished our family''s Sheltie with endless affection, walks and play, our dog Molly could certainly testify to a number of those perks.

When focusing on the legal arena, however, animals do not have the whole range of rights which people enjoy. In most jurisdictions, animals are considered the personal property of their owner. If, for example, a family pet were injured or even killed, generally its owner would have little or no recourse except for, perhaps, recovery of the fair market value of their "property". The fair market value of this type of "property" would generally not take into account such factors as having been a devoted pet, a pet who was great with children or a pet which was a long-time member of the family.

On the other hand, animals do have certain basic protections such as the "right" to be free from cruel and inhumane treatment. Most jurisdictions have laws which deal with the prevention of cruelty to animals. In addition, there are a number of federal and state laws designed to protect animals. I'm sure most people are familiar with the Endangered Species Act. It is just one example of legislation geared to protect animals. Although animals do not have "rights" similar to those which people have, there are laws and organizations designed to protect them.

[Regina Dickerson]

They should changed that to animals should have rights. They are a living being. All living animals and people should have rights.

[Darrell]

I would dance in the streets (not literally) if states would declare the family pet "family companion" instead of "property." Then deadly assaults on our pets by cruel persons could be met by lawsuits comparable to the hurt they cause.

[Lani]

Amen to that Darrell, if they would at the very least recognize our pets for what they are, family, not just property that would be a huge step forward.

[Strega]

Darrell:

Although I agree that that would be nice if the laws were changed to give animals a higher status in the judicial arena than they currently have (and I am extremely disappointed by the fact that you wouldn't really be dancing in the streets if that did come to fruition), for the most part, the people that do commit such heinous acts of which you speak are usually what we call 'judgment-proof'. (It's sort of like old, "You can't get blood from a stone." idea.) So, I'm not sure that lawsuits would be an effective avenue of recourse.

[Darrell]

strega:

1) you've never seen me dance. HE HE HE

2) true, but you can take what blood is there. better than now.

[Belles]

Darrell, are you a two-stepper or do you have two left feet. LOL

[bams481]

I totally agree Darry, but what I don't want to see is animals equal to humans....murdering an animal can get you life/death sentence like murdering a human. That's just wrong

[Regina Dickerson]

Bams, you rather let the criminal go, if he/she murdered an animal, is that it????

[Belles]

Bams, animals cannot be murdered. That's a legal term that applies to only humans and...

Regina, because bams places human life above animal life doesn't mean she doesn't want to see abusers who kill (not murder) animals "let go". They should serve whatever sentence is appropriate to the crime and what the people feel is deserved.

If we put every person in prison because they killed an animal, do you even understand how our current system could not handle such an explosion?

Also, define the type of animal that would have to die in order to have the killer of the animal go to prison?

What about a fly? What about a cat, a dog, a horse, a snake, a rabbit, etc.. surely you understand the slippery slope I mentioned.

Quite frankly, if someone goes to jail for killing an animal like a dog, shouldn't you go to jail for swatting a fly? Where do we draw that line?

[bams481]

"Bams, animals cannot be murdered. That's a legal term that applies to only humans"

Well you know what I mean....okay, instead of murdered, killed. Killing a human and killing an animal cannot and never will be (or should never be) an equal crime, ever

[Darrell]

belles:

Now that's a really interesting question! Where do we draw the line? Some would have snakes or lizzards as pets; others might have spiders. Would we exercise our mammalian bias in these cases?

Clearly for now the line is drawn at human vs non-human. But who here likes that? Not me! Perhaps what would have to be evaluated is not the love of the animal for its family, but instead the love of the family for its pet. Their remorse would have to somehow be measurable. But how does an outsider measure the hurt of losing a loved one?

[Belles]

Darrell, the only right animals have is the right to be protected from cruelty. We just need to take it from there. However, I don't see any practical good coming from giving rights to a flea.