Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLandmark Ruling: Animals Can Legally Be Considered Victims, Just Like Humans
in Oregon.
The Oregon Supreme Court this month passed a landmark ruling that will change the way animals are treated under the law in the state for the better. The ruling will ensure that any animal can be seen as a legal victim in a case, affording animals more basic rights to protect them from abuse.
The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judges decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.
The distinction might sound obvious but it wasnt legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word victim shouldnt apply to them. As of this months hearing, the word victim does apply.
...
It is not a novel idea that entities other than humans can be considered crime victims. Businesses, corporations, neighborhood associations, and government entities have been defined as crime victims in state statutes. Including protections for animals as crime victims is a natural progression in the development of the law.
The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judges decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.
The distinction might sound obvious but it wasnt legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word victim shouldnt apply to them. As of this months hearing, the word victim does apply.
...
It is not a novel idea that entities other than humans can be considered crime victims. Businesses, corporations, neighborhood associations, and government entities have been defined as crime victims in state statutes. Including protections for animals as crime victims is a natural progression in the development of the law.
https://www.thedodo.com/landmark-ruling-animals-can-le-685596943.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
19 replies, 1075 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (27)
ReplyReply to this post
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Landmark Ruling: Animals Can Legally Be Considered Victims, Just Like Humans (Original Post)
KurtNYC
Aug 2014
OP
You can judge the morality of a nation by the way the society treats its animals. -Mahatma Gandhi
lunasun
Aug 2014
#1
About time! My wife says she would kill anyone who harms the animals we take care of.
L0oniX
Aug 2014
#4
lunasun
(21,646 posts)1. You can judge the morality of a nation by the way the society treats its animals. -Mahatma Gandhi
Bravo judge & Oregon Supreme Court
Coventina
(27,121 posts)2. Hooray!!!
I hope more states will follow Oregon's example!!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)3. All life is sacred
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)9. If only more people understood that
...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)4. About time! My wife says she would kill anyone who harms the animals we take care of.
We are caretakers ...not owners of pets.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)5. Excellent. K&R
newfie11
(8,159 posts)6. Great news
It needs to go nationwide
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)7. What about cops that gun down pets?
Are they considered in this ruling?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)18. The don't even have to answer for most of the humans they gun down so
my guess would be no.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)8. Ditto
samsingh
(17,599 posts)10. i'm very glad to hear this.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)11. Oh no, now they're gonna want to spend anonymous money on superPACs
and refuse neutering based on their religious beliefs.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)12. But can they be considered Corporations?
According to Mittens, they now can...
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)13. Finally!
Rex
(65,616 posts)14. The rest of the animal kingdom rejoices!
Humans finally GET IT!
valerief
(53,235 posts)15. I don't think this is upgrading the rights of animals. It's downgrading the rights of humans.
After all, the only REAL people are corporations.
Nice to see liberal states can do more for victim rights then some states who doesn't give a crap about any victim.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)19. Wow.
So the caretaker of an animal could sue for pain and suffering in tort cases now? That's a major change.