View Full Version : Should Animals Have Legal Representation?
Do animals need their own lawyers? Today/tomorrow the Swiss will vote in a referendum, to decide whether cantons should appoint lawyers to protect the rights of animals. What do you think about this?
Should animals have legal rights? And, if you believe so, should they also face legal sanction if they do something wrong? Why should animals gain legal rights, and have lawyers appointed to protect them, if they can't also be prosecuted if they transgress?
Incidently, I'm not asking whether animals deserve humane treatment. I think everyone on this forum would believe that (at least, I hope so). I just want to know how people feel about this idea of animals having legal rights.
Tell me your thoughts.
By the way, my country once executed a circus elephant, named Topsy, by electrocution (Thomas Edison was eager to try electrocuting something, before introducing Old Sparky to a human subject). And poor Topsy, once the delight of summer crowds at Coney Island, had been condemned to die (without the benefit of a trial) because she had become a three time man killer (in fairness to the elephant, one of her victims had found it amusing to feed her lit cigarettes). On January 5, 1905, 6600 volts dispatched Topsy to the pachyderm afterlife, if there is one. A large crowd attended this gruesome spectacle.
If only poor Topsy had been given a lawyer!
Meatwad
03-07-2010, 12:54 AM
Yes but first we must learn the ways of the Rabbit tribe, then we can only understand their concerns.
Hilbert
03-07-2010, 12:54 AM
Someone PLEASE tell me this is some kind of joke.
Lawyers for animals? Legal Rights?
A collective good night out on the booze? or maybe some illicit substances in the water supply in large doses? because if they haven't, and they really think animals should have lawyers, they are absolutely totally barking mad.
Meatwad
03-07-2010, 12:56 AM
Lawyers for animals? Legal Rights?
A collective good night out on the booze? or maybe some illicit substances in the water supply in large doses? because if they haven't, and they really think animals should have lawyers, they are absolutely totally barking mad.
If people from Saskatchewan have rights then animals should have them.
Should animals have legal representation?
http://i48.tinypic.com/2hs3qle.jpg
If people from Saskatchewan have rights then animals should have them.
You calling Native Indigenous peoples animals? .. .. .. ..
Meatwad
03-07-2010, 01:07 AM
You calling Native Indigenous peoples animals? .. .. .. ..
No not at all my quick witted friend.
gaijinsamurai
03-07-2010, 01:07 AM
Of course, there should be laws to protect animals from cruelty, but as far as them having the same rights as people? Lol!
hskywalker
03-07-2010, 01:21 AM
Animals have no rights. But animal rights advocating liberals should be able to give up their rights for their animal. One person for one animal.
sgt_G
03-07-2010, 02:05 AM
sure why not? hell we give criminals more right than victims...we give terrorists rights...why not give animals rights
jeeezous! what's nect lawyers representing trees???
FlintHillBilly
03-07-2010, 02:59 AM
When animals have become as civlized as people. Yes. Until then, we shall continue to eat them.
Actually some Swiss kantons have such peoples that work for animals, I think of Geneva and Bern, a waste of money. Peoples are becoming crazy.
When animals have become as civlized as people. Yes. Until then, we shall continue to eat them.
The idea of legal representation for animals is stupid, because as you said they are not as we are. But I think we should more respect them as a part of the world we live in, when I see how we take care of them I'm scared on our "civilized peoples" title. But nothing new just take a look on how "civilized peoples" kill similiars...and this is more important than taking care of animals.
FlintHillBilly
03-07-2010, 03:40 AM
The idea of legal representation for animals is stupid, because as you said they are not as we are. But I think we should more respect them as a part of the world we live in, when I see how we take care of them I'm scared on our "civilized peoples" title. But nothing new just take a look on how "civilized peoples" kill similiars...and this is more important than taking care of animals.
Very true. I do tend to agree here. I do not wish to see a horse on judge judy or in the district courts, but i think people should respect animals more. The only time they should get legal representation "i guess" is when they have been abused or what not. Usually thats taken care of out of court, they dont need a lawyer for that.
Lol lawyer is becoming a difficult job, esspecialy the linguitic part...
Pandemonium
03-07-2010, 04:46 AM
There is absolutly no need for animals to have rights as there are laws that PROHIBIT people to hurt animals, it has the same effect and it works just fine.
tercio67
03-07-2010, 04:52 AM
In the Netherland the "Party For The Animals" got elected into parliament, I realy hope they get unelected in the upcoming elections.
gustav
03-07-2010, 05:01 AM
Animals used to have the right for a fair trial in the Middle Ages....Good times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial
Fallap
03-07-2010, 05:03 AM
I remember a story from ~ 1900 when an elephant was hung with a giant crane, because it had killed some guy.
On January 5, 1905, 6600 volts dispatched Topsy to the pachyderm afterlife, if there is one. A large crowd attended this gruesome spectacle.
Sick ****s..
Steelersfan413
03-07-2010, 05:08 AM
I think, though not capable of the same thought process of many humans, (and the obvious language barrier), legal representation in many cases is stupid. I do accept all animals as part of the world, and think a lot of times animals are not only treated unfairly at home or in their natural habitat, but they can't defend themselves in court.
About a year ago my sister had a friend who got a Chihuahua, and the entire family treated this dog like ****. The dog would go days without food sometimes, the girl and her little brother would toss the dog around as if it were a toy, and treat it like an animal, (in its connotative meaning). Finally, one day the dog turned around on the girl and bit her on the nose. She was bleeding for a little while, (I'll give to dog credit on that), but the entire family saw it as if a rabid wolf just mauled their defenseless daughter and left her face permanently disfigured. The family had the dog put down. I was angry beyond recognition. I was infuriated when I found out they had put it down. For a nick on the nose.
In a case like that, had the dog had fair representation, (I think I could be a lawyer for a few days), the dog would be taken out of the house into more capable and caring hands. And this is just one example that I know of. Thousands of animals are being put down across the country, and many others are just being left to die because of human neglect, ignorance, and arrogance. I think these are useful examples of when representation for animals would come in handy.
But on the other hand, I think animals should, not necessarily be tried, but if it is quite apparent that a specific animal is lashing out towards people or other animals for reasons other than food, (I'm not exactly an animal psychologist), then I think there should be some sort of rehabilitation program, before even considering killing it.
I'm also against the term, "destroying" in regards to killing an animal. It's a way of people feeling more comfortable with putting down an animal. It desensitizes people to the situation, and I don't like it.
*EDIT*
There is absolutly no need for animals to have rights as there are laws that PROHIBIT people to hurt animals, it has the same effect and it works just fine.
Are you serious?!!!??!
On every level, (not just animal rights), is your argument a weak one. Just because there's a law saying you can't do something, (especially something like animal rights which is not enforced as much as you may think it is), doesn't mean people won't do it.
In the Netherland the "Party For The Animals" got elected into parliament, I realy hope they get unelected in the upcoming elections.
By the way, what has that got to do with this thread? Expressing some kind of antipathy towards animals and people who watch over them?
In a case like that, had the dog had fair representation, (I think I could be a lawyer for a few days), the dog would be taken out of the house into more capable and caring hands. And this is just one example that I know of. Thousands of animals are being put down across the country, and many others are just being left to die because of human neglect, ignorance, and arrogance. I think these are useful examples of when representation for animals would come in handy.
Good point.
AroundTheCorner
03-07-2010, 05:25 AM
It's good to see that some effort is put in to this subject.
Mordoror
03-07-2010, 06:19 AM
There is absolutly no need for animals to have rights as there are laws that PROHIBIT people to hurt animals, it has the same effect and it works just fine.
in fact that were lies the problem
the law is human directed
if a human is hurting or making bad treatment to an animal, it can be fined and in some case go in jail. But the victim (animal) doesn't have any right to get some money from the trial. Sometimes some animal firendly groups or people take care of these animals on a volunteer basis and that ends well
but often nobody knows what to do with the animals and there is no solution than killing them to stop their physical or psychological suffering
if with a lawyer a part of the fine is "given" to the animal to pay veterinary care and a pension in a nice mansion, where is the wrong ?
Ment0s
03-07-2010, 07:48 AM
I believe that it's a good idea.
Sure, if you think of it in a human context and imagine, for example a dog sitting in a court it' s ridiculous, but i think that it can have it' s uses.
What if some sick **** decides to kill a cat or a dog just for fun, but is stopped before being able to kill the animal, but leaving the animal severely injured. The perpetrator could be taken to court, fined and hopefully sent to jail, but it would be up to the owner to pay for any surgery and medication needed by the animal. Often, the animal's owner will not be able to pay for it and the animal will be killed, while it would be logic to force the perpetrator to pay anything required to heal the animal back to good health.
Yes, there are laws protecting the animals but how often are they put to use? Not enough i believe.
gaijinsamurai
03-07-2010, 08:05 AM
One thing I do believe is that in many places, the punishment for animal cruelty is far too lenient. Perhaps there are too many people who think that suffering by a cat, dog, or even a wild animal is no big deal, but there is overwhelming evidence to show that animal cruelty is usually the first step towards violent behavior against humans.
Flecktarn92
03-07-2010, 10:42 AM
if we give rights to animals then what next? rights for trees or for rocks? Its a slippery slope
deagle
03-07-2010, 03:40 PM
i dont mind
if they're the plaintiff, they're always gonna lose b/c you have a right to question your accuser. you ask them, they don't respond, you win.
so if i rob a dog for its wallet, what they gonna do ? call the cops ? (don't ask me why i would rob a dog, or why a dog would have a wallet). animals and legal representation is a bit absurd
RICHICOQUI
03-07-2010, 08:04 PM
Didn't spain did this for monkeys a few years ago??
subotax
03-07-2010, 08:13 PM
It sounds more like they want to know if the state should devote more resources to enforce laws protecting animals by appointing lawyers solely devoted to those situations.
It seems doubtful they are asking if animals should have legal personality.When an individual mandates a lawyer to represent you is not the same thing.
California Joe
03-07-2010, 08:16 PM
I'm pretty sure that if I was an Aussie I'd be making Kiwi statutory sheep rape jokes...
It's bad enough that they let women vote.
IraGlacialis
03-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Sick ****s..
If I remember correctly what the demonstration was really about was Edison's tiff against Tesla during the war of currents. The idea being that if AC was deadly enough to kill an elephant, it would be too dangerous for human use.
The fact that Edison pretty much lost that battle makes that method of putting Topsy down seem even more petty.
T3ngu
03-07-2010, 09:19 PM
I'm pretty sure that if I was an Aussie I'd be making Kiwi statutory sheep rape jokes...
.
Kiwis have *** with sheep on the edge of cliffs so the sheep push back. True.
They have the right to push back. True.
In some states of Australia, pigs in pig farms must be kept cooler (as legislated) than the temperatures often measured in kids school rooms. True
click
03-08-2010, 12:51 PM
No........
Death.
03-08-2010, 01:09 PM
No. They're animals.
James
03-08-2010, 03:22 PM
I eat animals. I don't want them to gain the right to eat me. I have sharp teeth and eyes that look forward. If nature intended this, animals would have larger brains and opposable thumbs.
I eat animals. I don't want them to gain the right to eat me. I have sharp teeth and eyes that look forward. If nature intended this, animals would have larger brains and opposable thumbs.
But animals have the right to eat you. There's no law against it.
On a serious note: Animals have legal representation. There are laws against animal cruelty. If there's a case, the prosecutor represents the animal. Simple as that.
Animals are almost only inhabitants of huge areas like Amazon, oceans and part of Norway, but they have not created any political organisation yet. Maybe they just don't need anything like that?
I eat animals. I don't want them to gain the right to eat me. I have sharp teeth and eyes that look forward. If nature intended this, animals would have larger brains and opposable thumbs.
I think it depends on whose turf you're on.
Out in the woods the grizzly bear already has a right to eat you. He's not stopping to consult his attorney first.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.