For centuries legal concepts had been developed and applied within the English court system. These were transferred to the colonies and slowly became modified as the United States legal system developed independent of the English system.
The concepts that arise out of this tradition are generally referred to as the common law. It is doubtful whether cruelty to animals was a criminal offense in England in the early common law period before Between and in the United States there were a handful of cases which allowed criminal prosecution for harm to animals under an assortment of theories. As explained by one court:. There is a well-defined difference between the offense of malicious or mischievous injury to property, and that of cruelty to animals.
The former constituted an indictable offense at common law, while the latter did not. The former has ever been recognized as an indictable offense as a measure of protection to the owner of property liable to be maliciously or mischievously injured.
The latter has, in more recent years, been made punishable as a scheme for the protection of animals without regard to their ownership. Another early case also made the distinction clear when the court stated that an indictment for malicious mischief would lie only if it could be proved that the animal killed was the property of another. In addition to this approach, courts could fashion a cause of action under the concepts of public nuisance; that is, a breach of the public peace.
To make cruelty to animals a crime would require legislation. Statutory language expressly adopted by a legislative process usually reflects the broader societal attitudes which the legislature represents. The evolution of the statutory language concerning animals during the nineteenth century paralleled the evolution of society's attitude toward animals. Nowhere in the legislative examples set out below do we have any contemporaneous records about the debate in the legislature: We do not know the submitter of the legislation, the nature of the debate, or who supported the measures as adopted.
This analysis is limited to the actual language adopted. Indeed, there is a dearth of both legal and nonlegal writing dealing with animal issues during that century. Indirect evidence of their concerns are the best available. However, if the words chosen have the same meaning today, the rather terse legalistic language, once taken apart and examined closely, should reveal much about the attitudes of the day. Insight is available to those willing to be legal archaeologists; to those willing to dig into the dark recesses of law library basements.
An example of a statute that reflects the strict property concept of animals, which existed at the beginning of the nineteenth century, is found in Vermont legislative law. Section 2 states in part:. There was no provision prohibiting the cruel treatment of the animals, the word not being found in the statute.
The list of animals protected was limited to commercially valuable animals, not pets or wild animals. The purpose of this law was to protect commercially valuable property from the interference of others, not to protect animals from pain and suffering. A crime was committed only if the harmed animal was owned by someone else, thus the language "of another.
Nor was it a crime to harm a wild or ownerless domestic animal. Actions had to constitute wilful and malicious conduct before they were deemed illegal. Finally, since the penalty was for up to five years of jail time, a violation of this law was a felony.
The legislature sought to control humans harming valuable property of another, not to stop the unnecessary infliction of pain upon animals. The next step in the legal evolution is represented by the earliest statute yet uncovered, that established in Maine in This tentative law provides:. Be it Further enacted , That if any person shall cruelly beat any horse or cattle, and be thereof convicted,.
In this case, the operative phrase is "cruelly beat. Assuming the common sense definition of the term "cruelly," is that only a cruel beating is illegal, not killing, cutting, maiming, or one of a hundred other actions. Like the previously discussed statute, it applies only to commercially valuable animals: horses and cattle. This law represented a new, tentative step forward because, in this case, no distinction was made as to who owns the animal.
It was illegal to cruelly beat your own horse or cattle, as well as that of another. Since common law criminal law concepts did not limit what a person did with their own property, this law suggested a new societal interest; concern for the animal itself: While the motivation and purpose of this statute is not known to us, the limited nature of its coverage suggests a modest motivation.
Perhaps some member of the legislature may have observed an "unnecessary" 33 beating of horse or cow that was outrageous enough to trigger the drafting of this law. This provision did not contain the language which we will later see is reflective of the thoughtful legislative process and broad consideration of social policy. One of the best ways to gauge the seriousness with which the legislature views an issue is to examine the level of punishment provided.
Unlike the felonious horse maiming statute set out above, the penalties provided here suggest the bare threshold of criminality. While the legislature thought the cruel beating of cattle and horses was wrong, they were not so sure there should be a criminal punishment for committing the wrong.
The first known anti-cruelty law in the United States was passed the year before the first such law passed in England. However, there is no record that this law was followed by the creation of any public organization to help enforce the law or compel change in public conduct, as was the case in England at this time or in New York in the 's.
It marks the initiation of concern, but not the birth of a social movement. More representative of the first wave of anti-cruelty laws in the United States was the New York law of The criminal prohibitions consist of two distinct parts. The first part is qualified with the phrase "belonging to another" while the second is qualified "belonging to himself or another. The two parts prohibit very different actions. In the first part, the legislature has made criminal those actions which would most likely interfere with the commercial value of the animal: killing, maiming, or wounding.
In the second part, the legislature has focused upon that which might be perceived as causing pain and suffering to the animal: beatings and torture. One result of the different language is that it was not illegal to maliciously kill or maim your own animal. The legislature most likely presumed that financial self-interest would protect against this possibility.
However, if you killed your own horse by beating it to death, the beating, but not the killing, would be illegal. Both parts of this legislation attempt to stop the affirmative acts of individuals.
Under neither of the parts of the legislation would it be illegal to kill a horse by starvation. Requiring a person to care for an animal, imposing an affirmative act, has always been considered more burdensome than prohibiting an action.
The affirmative duty of care would be added later as the concern for the well-being of animals became stronger. In this statute, the level of crime is denoted as a mere misdemeanor, with jail time of no more than one year.
The New York legislature took this issue more seriously than Maine as judged by the punishment, but New York still defined violations as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Some additional insight on legislative attitude can be obtained from observing other crimes of that time period and the level of punishments that were set by the legislature.
Under a Pennsylvania statute, it was a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of two hundred dollars to cruelly beat a horse. The most serious limitation of this legislation is the limited list of protected animals.
It was not yet illegal to torture a dog or a bear. The limited list set forth in both parts was most likely utilized because this was the list with which the legislature was familiar. The legislature had not yet made the conceptual bridge that, if it is wrong to cruelly torture a cow, it should also be wrong to torture a cat or dog. The critical factor was not the value of the animal to the owner, but the ability of the animal to suffer.
Initially, the societal concern about cruelty to animals contained mixed motives. While some did not believe moral duties were owed to animals, they did accept that cruelty to animals was potentially harmful to the human actor, as it might lead to cruel acts against humans. Thus, the concern was for the moral state of the human actor, rather than the suffering of the non-human animal. This focus of concern was reflected in the early state laws by the location of the anti-cruelty provision within the criminal code.
In many states, these provisions are found in chapters of the criminal code entitled, "Of Offenses Against Chastity, Decency and Morality. Michigan's law, 45 Connecticut's law, 46 Minnesota's law, 47 and Vermont's law 48 adopted part two of the New York law. All of these laws were broader than New York's law, as they applied to acts against not only horses and oxen but to other animals, so long as the animals were owned by someone. In , New Hampshire adopted a law that used only the language from part one of the New York law.
But like Michigan, Pennsylvania expanded the scope to include "other domestic animals. One case under the Minnesota law shows the continued confusion about the purpose of the these cruelty laws. A defendant was indicted for the shooting of a dog under the criminal statue providing that "[e]very person who shall wilfully and maliciously kill, maim or disfigure any horses, cattle or other beasts of another person. The term beasts may well be intended to include asses, mules, sheep and swine, and perhaps, some other domesticated animals, but it would be going quite too far to hold that dogs were intended.
This is reflective of the continued confusion about the intended purpose of the law: to protect valuable personal property or to restrict the pain and suffering inflicted upon animals. The life of Henry Bergh is set out elsewhere and will not be repeated here. After his return from a trip to Europe, where he observed both the cruelty inflicted upon animals and the efforts of the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals on behalf of animals, he became focused on the animal cruelty issue.
Although not a lawyer, Henry Bergh was able to direct the drafting of substantially different legislation. Therefore, beside the drafting and passage of new criminal laws, he sought the charter of an organization which, like the Royal Society of London, would be dedicated to the implementation of the law.
Henry Bergh was unanimously elected as the A. Henry Bergh realized the short comings of the existing New York law and, therefore, sought strengthening amendments. His first attempt was in when the prior language of was amended to read: "Every person who shall, by his act or neglect, maliciously kill, maim, wound, injure, torture, or cruelly beat any horse, mule, ox, cattle, sheep, or other animal, belonging to himself or another, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor.
This law represented several significant steps forward for animals. First, the provisions applied regardless of the ownership of an animal. Second, the negligent act, as well as the intentional act, of an individual could lead to criminal liability.
Third, the list of illegal actions was expanded. Note that the word "cruelly" modified only the word "beat.
While this law was a step forward, it was still in the mold of the early anti-cruelty statutes and contained two significant shortcomings when enforcement was sought. First, and most obviously, the list of animals was still limited to those that were commercially valuable.
Certainly Mr. Bergh's vision would not have been limited by such categorization. The second, and even more significant from a legal perspective, is the continued use of the qualifying term "maliciously. If one were to whip the back of a horse to make it move a wagon to which it was attached, it would not normally be considered malicious.
Such an act may not be done out of feeling of ill will toward the horse, rather it is out of a desire to get on with a job. So long as some excuse could be presented to the court, it was difficult to prove malice. The New York Act included a second section which was a first attempt to address a special problem which did not fit within the words of the first section.
It stated: "Every owner, driver or possessor of an old, maimed or diseased horse or mule, turned loose or left disabled in any street, lane or place of any city in this state,. With the adoption of the A. However, he clearly wanted more because, within months, drafts for a new law were created. By the first anniversary of the A. The following paragraphs set out a summary of the key points of the law. Section 1 provided for the law to apply to "any living creature.
To address the ongoing problems of animals being forced to fight each other, often to their death, for the owners and spectators delight, section 2 of the New York Act made animal fighting illegal. While specifically identifying bull, bear, dog and cock fighting, it applied to any living creature. The ownership and keeping of fighting animals as well as the management of the fights themselves was illegal. For the first time the law imposed a duty to provide "sufficient quality of good and wholesome food and water" upon anyone who kept impounded an animal.
This was a very practical provision which allowed immediate help to the animals regardless of the criminal action which might or might not be brought later against the owner or keeper. California is at the forefront of some other statewide animal protection measures. Maryland passed its own statewide retail pet sale ban in , becoming the second state with this type of law.
Each state also has wildlife protection laws, as well as laws regarding the time and manner under which it is sanctioned to kill wildlife through hunting and fishing. Wild animal performance bans: Some states regulate the use of wild animals in performances. This is generally seen as the beginning of a more widespread trend.
Local animal protection laws: Many other companion animal protection measures are enacted and enforced at the local level. Similarly, in states without anti-tethering laws, many cities and counties pass their own such laws.
A growing number of cities are passing and enforcing their own wild animal performance bans. While state and federal laws would offer more protection to more animals, these local laws are very important.
They not only protect the animals in that area — but they can also act as a bellwether for more expansive protections to come. It is not infrequent for new animal protection measures to begin at the city or county level, and then as the public increasingly demands it, to be taken up by the state legislators.
Join the Animal Legal Defense Fund's email list to stay up to date on lawsuits, legislation, and regulations affecting animals. Since , the Animal Legal Defense Fund has led the charge to win animals the legal protection they so desperately need—and deserve. Your generous gift will assure that we can continue to take on cases that advance the interests of animals. Ways to Give Since , the Animal Legal Defense Fund has been the leader in the fight to win animals the legal protection they so desperately need—and deserve.
Companion animals: Companion animals — a category often limited to dogs and cats, but that sometimes includes birds, horses, and other animals as well — usually receive the strongest level of protection under state laws. Some states require that the abuse be intentional or malicious, while others increase the penalties when the abuse is reckless or malicious. Many statutes also explicitly outlaw poisoning an animal deliberately or placing poison where someone else's animal is likely to eat it.
Almost all states also make it illegal to neglect an animal. In many states, neglect simply means not providing necessary food, water, and shelter. Several states go further by requiring that owners also give their animals needed veterinary care, exercise, sanitary conditions, and protection from the weather.
But some laws add conditions that could make it hard to convict someone of animal neglect. In Washington State, for example, pet owners may face misdemeanor charges if they don't give their animals needed shelter, sanitation, space, rest, or medical attention—but only if the animals suffered unnecessary or unjustified pain as a result, and only if the owners acted intentionally, recklessly, or with criminal negligence.
And Washingtonians can defend themselves against neglect charges by proving that their own financial distress prevented them from caring properly for their pets. Wash Rev. More and more states have added details on conditions that amount to criminal neglect when dogs are left outside, whether chained up or in fenced yards.
For instance, Pennsylvania law says that dogs can't be tethered outdoors for than 30 minutes in freezing or very hot weather. The tether must be a certain type and length, attached to a certain kind of collar. The dog must be tethered in clean conditions with access to water and shade.
New Jersey also prohibits leaving animals outside in bad weather for more than a half hour, and its law spells out detailed requirements for shelters, including the amount and quality of the space, light, cleanliness, construction, ventilation, and protection from the elements N. In most states, it's illegal to abandon an animal, whether by dumping it in a public place or leaving it anywhere without providing for its needs.
However, it's very difficult to enforce laws against animal abandonment, since the owners are unlikely to leave a license or other identification on the abandoned pet. Just about all witnesses can do is report license plate numbers to police.
Many state laws specifically forbid leaving a dog or cat unattended in a vehicle under harmful conditions—which usually means that it's too hot or cold inside the car. A handful of states, including California and Florida, have "Good Samaritan" laws that allow bystanders to break into locked cars to rescue animals in distress, but only if it's necessary and only after they've taken steps like contacting law enforcement see Cal.
Even where animal cruelty laws don't explicitly address leaving animals in cars, it could be illegal under a catch-all provision that outlaws cruel treatment or any abuse that leads to unnecessary suffering. In reality, however, authorities are unlikely to press charges unless a pet died as a result. It is still the fashion, among those who breed and show certain kinds of dogs, to cut off part of the ears and tails of puppies.
It's outlawed in many other countries but legal in most of the United States. Massachusetts makes it a crime to show a dog with cropped ears unless a veterinarian has certified that it was necessary Mass. Violators can be punished with fines, felony charges, and up to seven years in prison. Until now, the treatment of animals has largely been regulated at the state level. Previously, the Animal Welfare Act, passed in , was the only federal law on the books regulating the treatment of animals and it only set a minimum standard.
Still, activists have said the act is a victory for animal rights because it increases the likelihood that abuse would be punished by allowing federal law enforcement to get involved. The act was introduced by two Florida members of Congress, Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch , and had cosponsors. Animal rights are increasingly coming to the fore through trends like meatless meats , activism against the use of animals in tourist attractions , and fur sales bans that even have support from the Queen of England.
While the Act shores up protection for animals, there are several exceptions baked into it.
0コメント