Nah, I don’t think so. The problem is that despite all the chatter about it not being the dog’s fault, but rather the owner’s fault, you really can’t convince a jury of that.
And any smart lawyer is just going to point out that yorkies and labs don’t often kill, so that it must be the breed’s fault. And it’s not illegal to own the breed, so if that is the only thing the owner did wrong, how can he be convicted?
You might not think so, but they're rarely charged. The one exception around here that I remember happened last year when a pair of pit bulls attacked a child. The woman who owned the dogs wasn't doing anything until a neighbor ran into his house and got a gun and shot the dogs. She then attacked him screaming "don't hurt my dogs - don't hurt my dogs" he shot her too. She was charged with attacking him.
>Nah, I don’t think so. The problem is that despite all the chatter about it not being the dog’s fault, but rather the owner’s fault, you really can’t convince a jury of that.
And any smart lawyer is just going to point out that yorkies and labs don’t often kill, so that it must be the breed’s fault. And it’s not illegal to own the breed, so if that is the only thing the owner did wrong, how can he be convicted?<
I’m not sure of your motive. Do you want to see people who keep dogs so irresponsibly they cause the death of another, walk free? Do you think if you ban one breed, then such a person will not move on to a different potentially dangerous breed or mix?
There is a segment of the population that doesn’t look upon dogs simply as pets. They prize a dog that can injure their neighbor’s dog, or which can injure a human opponent. Like it or not, this segment of society has grown in the past few decades. Do you not want society to have effective laws with which to punish these people?
Of course an individual can be convicted and sentenced to jail if his dog kills a human being. For example, in Hawaii:
““ Sec. 7-7.2 Prohibited acts— Conditions on owner— Penalties.
(a) A dog owner commits the offense of negligent failure to control a dangerous dog, if the [person] owner negligently fails to take reasonable measures to prevent the dog from attacking, without provocation, a person or animal and such attack results in: (1) the maiming or causing of serious injury to or the destruction of an animal or (2) bodily injury to a person other than the owner. A person convicted under this subsection shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and sentenced in accordance with subsections (c), (d), and (e).
(b) For the purposes of this section, “reasonable measures to prevent the dog from attacking” shall include but not be limited to: (1) measures required to be taken under Article 4 of this chapter to prevent the dog from becoming a stray; and (2) any conditions imposed by the court for the training of the dog or owner or for the supervision, confinement or restraint of the dog for a previous conviction under this section.
(c) A dog owner convicted under subsection (a) shall be sentenced to [one or more of] the following:
(1) A fine of not less than [$50] $500 nor more than $2,000;
(2) A period of imprisonment of up to 30 days, or in lieu of imprisonment, a period of probation of not more than six months in accordance with the procedures, terms and conditions provided in HRS Chapter 706, Part II; and
(3) Restitution to any individual who has suffered bodily injury or property damage as a result of an attack by the dog[;] where the individual suffers financial losses or medical expenses due to the attack. For the purposes of this subsection, medical expenses may include the costs of necessary counseling services.”
The infamous San Francisco case saw Marjorie Knoller convicted and sent to prison:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/31/BAGU4Q4L3U6.DTL
“Knoller, 51, who now lives in Florida, was paroled in 2004 after serving most of a four-year sentence for manslaughter. If her murder conviction is reinstated, she must return to prison for a term of 15 years to life.”