Posted on 08/25/2014 1:10:35 PM PDT by EBH
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.
That’d be good but didn’t the EPA give them a free pass?
Let me add that the animal rights agenda is profoundly evil and immoral. It is designed to separate humans from the animal kingdom. This is in direct violation to every law of God and nature.
Universal animal suffrage can’t be far behind...
Ask the Nazis. They were upset about farm practices but were confortable transporting and slaughtering humans like cattle. Hitler chose the swastika for a reason. Hinduism leads to animals having preferential treatment over humans. This is obvious in India. The infusion of hindu ideology into the western mindset has been very succesful. Hinduism is hostile to human life. The tamil hindus in Sri Lanka pioneered the suicide vest.
Groups like Peta are essentially hinduism dressed in western garb. Singer from Australia ,( I’m ashamed to say) despite Jewish background is a hindu/nazi philosophy propagandist. He gets upset about rats dying but cares nothing for murdered pre birth children. Infanticide is even kosher for him Sick sonofabitch.Don’t get me wrong. Animal husbandry should be done humanely. Of course enviro nazis dont want animal husbandry at all. Veges only. On one hand they believe we a part of the natural world but negate that with moral choices about food selection. Meat is murder slogans etc. But if we of the natural world then it follows that a human should have no more shame eating meat than a lion does. People forget the Nazis had a subset of naturists in its ranks. The Wandervogel. And vegetarianist leanings of Hitler etc
So Cops in Oregon can no longer shot dogs?
Thank you for referencing that article EBH. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
A state’s legislative body has the 10A-protected power to make laws which treats animals as victims, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens.
The problem that I have with the referenced article is the following. It looks like some activist judge is wrongly legislating animal rights from the bench just as activist judges have been doing with constitutionally unprotected gay “rights.”
LOL.
Just don't try it with your cat.
I’ll have the endangered species kabob grilled over moon rocks, please.
This is just the judiciary setting the stage for the next redefinition of “marriage”.
Right around the corner probably
Under the original Law and our U.S. Constitution, people have rights. Animals don’t. Our Constitution is fine. People in leadership positions aren’t.
YOU will pay for the lawyers and the SPCA will collect the bucks...! What else...!
These groups are arguing to give “personhood status” to non humans.
Here come the people who want to marry their lamas, etc.
Or is this the camel’s nose under the skirt?
Eww, sorry. Bad pun.
Be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law on a murder charge.
The entire world has gone crazy.
Well, Your Honor, I ate the evidence.
And then I saved it for you ... here.
There you go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.