Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Should Animals Be Able To Sue Their Owners?

24 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Tommy, a chimpanzee in upstate New York has become the first non-human primate to sue its captor, in an effort to become free. But it's not like the chimp actually walked into a courtroom and filed papers himself. Rather, a group of lawyers, led by Steven Wise, filed a suit on behalf of the animal on Dec. 10, as the plaintiff.

http://www.popsci.co...ue-their-owners

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/magazine/the-rights-of-man-and-beast.html?hp&_r=0

Edited by Still Waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if this enforces a "more humane" treatment, I'm all for it. It appears that the chimp is being kept in a small enclosure by a private individual (and not in a zoo) and is not given the kind of environment found in better zoos and animal parks.

While I eat meat and have no problem with it, at the same time I would prefer that the animals we slaughter for food are treated well and are killed quickly and humanely. Likewise, companion and captive animals should not be kept under conditions that would be considered inhumane.

IMHO, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Times article offers hope;

"The justice sat back in his chair. “Your impassioned representations to the court are quite impressive,” he said. “The court will not entertain the application, will not recognize a chimpanzee as a human or as a person . . . who can seek a writ of habeas corpus under Article 70. I will be available as the judge for any other lawsuit to right any wrongs that are done to this chimpanzee, because I understand what you’re saying. You make a very strong argument. However, I do not agree with the argument only insofar as Article 70 applies to chimpanzees. Good luck with your venture. I’m sorry I can’t sign the order, but I hope you continue. As an animal lover, I appreciate your work.”"

The judge was sympathetic, but obviously was not about to make an earth-shattering decision on the person-hood of a chimp. Some day .......

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

did the chimp walked up to a police station and I said "I want to sue someone"

In this similar way?

[media=]

[/media] Edited by SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You mean should lawyers be able to get rich by putting words into an animal's mouth?

Edited by Sundew
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this to work. a "humane standard" is going to be needed. This won't be easy or simple. It's needed IMHO, but all that will happen is lawyers will get rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who paid the attorney fees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro bono. I do that occasionally; not for monkeys, of course. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a suit for injunctive relief or for taking away licenses or animals, but money suits sounds like an invitation to bad law and more lawyers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pray that mankind realizes that animals are sentient and should be treated with respect and compassion.

The ASPCA once stated: "If you think their dumb, then you aren't thinking."

I wish people would spay and neuter so that we can at least strive to have a home for every animal.

I'd love to see (which I won't) a day where people need to apply for a dog, cat, etc and be qualified to be their guardian. That's my dream. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pray that mankind realizes that animals are sentient and should be treated with respect and compassion.

The ASPCA once stated: "If you think their dumb, then you aren't thinking."

I wish people would spay and neuter so that we can at least strive to have a home for every animal.

I'd love to see (which I won't) a day where people need to apply for a dog, cat, etc and be qualified to be their guardian. That's my dream. :)

First of all I totally agree with you MJNYC,

"Like humans, chimpanzees have a concept of their personal past and future," the team wrote. "They suffer the pain of not being able to fulfill their needs or move around as they wish; they suffer the pain of anticipating never-ending confinement."

We just want to give special rights to species that are "Like humans", that's just to pamper our self esteem as a species.

Now that's speciesism (maybe that's the legal term that will be just by lawyers in future defending against animals),

If you want to give rights to animals then give rights to all of them, not just cherry picking ones that are similar to us, as they are born on earth as we are, maybe they will call it "Earth Citizenship" or "Earth Right" or something like that,

But then again this is not a black and white issue, I mean then the whole topic of food chain comes into play, which could be resolved by lab grown meat which anyways will be our last resort due to increasing population and demand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

While I'm 100% for the better treatment of animals, I think this is just opening a new can of worms. Our legal system is already choked because anyone is allowed to sue anyone for anything anymore. It's become the job of our courts to regulate morals and ethics. How long can a society thrive if every aspect of right and wrong are determined by lawyers?

Edited by Calibeliever
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody celebrates with a round of bananas. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see (which I won't) a day where people need to apply for a dog, cat, etc and be qualified to be their guardian. That's my dream. :)

You mean like in Turkey ?

“Any person, who adopts, owns, sells or cares for an animal needs to have an accommodation suitable for the welfare of the animal, meet its ethological needs and care for its health. People who sell or adopt pets are obliged to take precautionary measures to prevent environmental pollution and damage and discomforts stemming from the animals; they need to compensate any damage stemming from not having taken adequate measures on time. Those who sell and own pets are obliged to participate in training programs organized by local administrations and obtain a certificate. A fine of 1,000 Turkish Liras will be imposed on those who sell pets to people who have not received animal care training.”

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pet-ownership-will-require-a-certificate-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=65628&NewsCatID=341

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, learn to speak first !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'd agree that pets can sue their owners, when it is also allowed for owners to sue their pets. And if they can't pay (how will they?), then they can be punished by imprisonment, just like a human. Otherwise, I propose the pro-animal rights clubs should pay the fines owners legally gain against their pets.

Or, alternately, I propose that pet owners sue the animal rights organizations for the money to support their pet in the way the organization demands. Or, if they will not, then there should be a law that the animal rights organizations then must take on the pet and care for it themselves.

I clean my fishes tank every couple weeks and give him free food. I'd like to take the lazy no good to court and get $10 a week in court ordered support, and then have some pet agency pay it to me for the fish.

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is needed is probably not something that strikes most people as ridiculous (animals suing) and instead statutes enabling public and charitable (animal welfare agencies) to bring such suits and to impose fines. This already happens in many places for some animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is needed is probably not something that strikes most people as ridiculous (animals suing) and instead statutes enabling public and charitable (animal welfare agencies) to bring such suits and to impose fines. This already happens in many places for some animals.

I'd agree that animal abuse and neglect legislation is a better idea, with the officers of the law bringing the charges, rather then civilian organizations coming and sticking their noses into peoples business. If someone sees neglect/abuse, report it and let the law take it's course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private animal welfare agencies and law enforcement don't need to be mutually exclusive. There are jurisdictions where animal rights are ignored by law enforcers so that the ability to bring private suits (with the loser of the suit paying costs so that such agencies are discouraged from bringing trivial actions) seems to me more likely to provide better protection.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't our prisons and court systems over capacity in most regions?

Last thing we need is lawyers signing to monkeys how to get rich quick.

Such an action would be saying that animals have a financial right, then said animal should have to follow all conduct as a humans; ID, Registration of living quarters, Mandetory voting in some countries.

It would be more easy to "fine" the individual that has done wrong to the animal. Instead of "sueing", the "fine" should be set at the care and needs of said animal over the duration of expected life. The trickiest thing IMO would be trying to honor and/or protect the money said animal has acumalated from other manipulative humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly abusable :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now how did I know which country this idiotic idea came from before I even read the article? Could I in fact be psychic???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it would make sense, there are ambulance chasers for everything from someone who stubbed their toe on a kerb stone to breaking a fingernail on a shop door, why shouldn't they add this one to their repertoire? lol

What's next, getting written permission from a horse before you can ride it?

Seriously though, the welfare of animals should be a high priority always, but this is just a little silly. I agree there are standards an animal owner / keeper must meet and the appropriate authorities should continue to prosecute those who do not care for the animal properly, but to say the animal can sue them!?

This just smells of (as others have posted in a round about way) a step too far for the compensation culture of this world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.