Animals Can Legally Be Considered Victims, Just Like Humans

[PamIsMe]

Landmark Ruling: Animals Can Legally Be Considered Victims, Just Like Humans
By Melissa Cronin
22 August 2014

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 judge’s 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 wasn’t 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” shouldn’t apply to them. As of this month’s hearing, the word “victim” does apply.

“To acknowledge that animals are victims of crime, that’s really common sense to us,” said Lora Dunn, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland. And the ruling could lead to longer prison sentences for those convicted of animal abuse in the state.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been addressed in law. According to a Michigan State University report:
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.


It’s not the first time animal advocates have sought greater legal protections. Recently, an organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project has waged a campaign seeking “legal personhood” to be extended to a chimpanzee. In a blog post for The Dodo, the group says:

Traditionally, Lady Justice is portrayed as wearing a blindfold as she holds the scales of justice. The idea is that justice should be blind -- impartial and dispensed without regard to the classes of persons who appear before her. Ironically, however, justice has been blind in another way, too: blind to all living beings except humans. To this day they remain invisible to the legal system.


Read more: www.disclose.tv/forum/oregon-supreme-court-animals-can-be-considered-victims-too-t98771.html#ixzz3BjNvEfFv

[trappincoyotes39]

I am betting the US Supreme Court would,over turn such, all athe other examples they listed where in the form of human beings and really sets a scary precedence for many things, but again another state I have zero cause to visit Why? Those people are crazy. If a horse can be a "victim" then so should a deer, a bear, a squirrel, etc domestic or wild animals are all victims correct? So I will sue for damages and get the plate number of anyone who runs down a squirrel with a car when I am present. I will seek damages for me watching such take place and for the horrifying death of said squirrel. man I see a,or more cases in Oregon court coming from such a ruling and people making some money,heck get the right jury and who knows what I could walk away with in the name of many species of animals.

Plain stupid really. I wonder about some Americans. Comparing home owners assc with a horse good grief.

[PamIsMe]

Seems like it could certainly be a foot in the door to another way of banning trapping.


Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam not just trapping all methods of take hunting,fishing, dog trials etc. Not to mention horses are livestock so there goes cattle,hog and poultry feeding and slaughter as well. Again Oregon has lost their minds Some states this just wouldn't fly, yet this May end up in front of SCOTUS due to this crack pot judge making such a ruling. Wondering if there was a back room payoff of some sort?

[FWS]

Animals Can Be “Victims” But Are Not Persons

By Wesley J. Smith
National Review Online
August 26, 2014

Some animal rights activists are engaging in pronounced wishful thinking about an Oregon Supreme Court ruling. The case found that individual animals can be ”victims” under the animal neglect statutes. Some animal rights types have construed the case as somehow ”landmark” and advancing the animals-are-people-too cause.

So, I read the case. Nope. Nyet. Nein. Didn’t happen.

Context: The defendant was convicted of 20 counts of animal neglect. He tried to weasel out (get it?) of the charge by claiming only humans as “persons” can be “victims.” The Supreme Court disagreed. From Oregon v. Nix:

The ordinary meaning of the word “victim” reflected in a dictionary of common usage is: “1 : a living being sacrificed to some deity or in the performance of a religious rite…

In that light, it can be seen that defendant’s contention that the “plain meaning” of the word “victim” refers only to persons, and not to animals, is predicated on a selective reading of the dictionary definitions. The first sense listed in the definition, for example, refers broadly to “a living being,” not solely to human beings.

The question, then, is simply one of legislative intent:

In concluding that animals are “victims” for the purposes of ORS 167.325 (2), we emphasize that our decision is not one of policy about whether animals are deserving of such treatment under the law. That is a matter for the legislature…

ORS 167.325, protects individual animals from suffering from neglect. In adopting that statute, the legislature regarded those animals as the “victims” of the offense.

So, contrary to activists’ spin, this was not a “landmark” advance for ”animal rights.” Rather, it was a simple case of statutory interpretation that assumes animals are not persons.

We owe a duty to animals not to abuse or neglect them. Hence, this decision is absolutely and fully consistent with human exceptionalism. I approve.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the opinion,

Oregon Supreme Court Opinion; State vs Nix

[trappincoyotes39]

The word victim tries to put animals on the same plain as a human.

Not need for such a word when we have charges against animal cruelty already on the books.

Just another means for AR people to associate or try to link animals as being the same worth as a human life. Which any rational person knows is not the case..........

[trappnman]

I think a far more dangerous precedent was set when CORPORATIONS were given the rights of persons

I also think, that those that abuse animals, are pieces of shite, and I'd give them the same treatment they bestowed on their animals. anyone that mistreats anything that is unable to defend themselves, is nothing but a bully and a bully is something I despise the most.

I don't see this as a landmark animals are people case, but as the article and decision stated, just a clarification of current law

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman would YOU consider a coon ran over by a car a victim? Or a deer hit by a car the same? Or a cow slaughtered for steak and ground chuck?

The AR people do and that is where they are trying to go with this IMO of course. To throw out the word victim outside of things dealing with humans well is something I do not want to see take place anywhere in our country.

Tman you and I trapping coyotes they are victims in the eyes of the AR people and we are the ones that are taking place in animal cruelty in their minds and trying to portray to the masses that yes animals can be victims , the word association game can be dangerous as time goes on.

[musher]

Aug 28, 2014 23:27:48 GMT -6 PamIsMe said:

Seems like it could certainly be a foot in the door to another way of banning trapping.


Pam

Trapping? How about food?

[trappnman]

were any crimes committed in your questions?

You really should read the court case-

including intent of law, definitions, and historical facts.

[trappnman]

musher- the court decided that in this limited use- violating state statues and merging of offensives, that EACH case, was a separate "victum"

the definition isn't as broads as TC or the article are making it out to be

[FWS]

the definition isn't as broads as TC or the article are making it out to be

No, and it can be clarified further with legislation designed to do so and eliminate any potential misuse.

[trappincoyotes39]

Common sense would save time and money.........

[trappnman]

common sense tells us horses need food and water