3 votes

NOT Onion: Owner of "Killer Dogs" could face LIFE in Prison! Be Glad that 'We' don't live in the UK...Yet!

Owners of killer dogs could face life in prison
Government launches online consultation to determine whether there is public support for increase in maximum penalty

Direct .mp4 Download: http://cdn.theguardian.tv/mainwebsite/2013/8/6/130806Dogs-16...

Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 5 August 2013

Owners of dogs that kill people could face life imprisonment if an online consultation run by the government demonstrates public support for more severe penalties.

The proposal for a significant jump in the current maximum jail term of two years is launched on Tuesday by the animal welfare minister, Lord de Mauley.

Public response will be one – but not necessarily the decisive – factor in shaping changes that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) plans to make to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

*** But ANY doubt, as to whether if or WHEN they could get away with it, the nanny staters won't try it here, in America, as well??

Observing the current sheeple zeitgeist trajectory?

Yup. Exactly.

P.S. Apparently, "pre-Crime" is already a reality in UK: there's something called the "Crime Prevention Minister"!!!

To wit: the man in the above video!

Crime prevention minister Jeremy Browne discusses proposals for a significant jump in the current maximum jail term of two years in prison for owners of dangerous dogs. Browne says the government wants to reduce the number of dog attacks and give councils and police the necessary powers to deal with the most severe cases

When sanity reigns supreme, in America again, may possession of ANYTHING never be a "crime" nor a punishable one.

True, this is specifically about owner of dogs that kills someone, and not a 'killer species' like how many malign specific types of dogs like PitBulls and Rottweilers.

Still, does a parent go to prison for life, when one of their children kill?

While certain species of animals are 'domesticatable' it's not as if animals don't have a mind of their own. No?

No, it doesn't come close to what we'd classify as "Free Will," that said, do they not have functional brains that allow them to act with intention or by 'instincts'??

Then, the real question becomes: does 'our' society punish mentally retarded for their actions? Currently? Yes and No. Then, can the dog-owners use "insanity" defense for dog-on-human crimes, too, now?

Egads!

But, in the land of Piers Moron's Groom of the Stool, you wonder if the Britons lost their sense of humor and are failing to see the irony in using the very British author George Orwell's 1984 as an operator's manual, than a warning.

Well...yeah, so okay...like we're doing any better here.o(

This is what happens in a democracy: more morons get to vote for more moronic policies that they delude will help or 'protect' them.

Yikes!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The dog may be put to sleep or euthanized

but, unless the dog had a history of violence and the owner did not take proper precautions, he should not be penalized for the dog's actions.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Actually they should get the death penalty.

If a person owns a known violent animal, be it a dog or any other animal, which kills another human they should in fact face the death penalty. This is Scriptural and it makes sense.

deacon's picture

the last paragraph

speaks the most to me
"This is what happens in a democracy: more morons get to vote for more moronic policies that they delude will help or 'protect' them "

Isn't it all about protecting "them"?
Every ordinance,code,statue and law they put in place is all about taking from us to protect them
Back the article, they tried here to ban the sale of pitbulls because of the name,We have one that weighs close to 120 lbs,he is the biggest bay,will sit on your lap (well tries hard) wrestles around with a 6 month old,but never bites or hurts him,and it doesn't matter how how he gets bitten
But...like anything/anyone else who feels threatened will and do protect
themselves and others who they see threatened
We did have a dog fighting ring here,that is something different
I see this happening here,they create laws that go against one breed of dog owner,then another ,and so on,the people will stop buying out of fear of jail
in time with enough of them dogs out of the way,the cops,who already know where they all live (registrations) and where they don't live (names of gun owners and where they live)
they can move about freely (in your homes) save bullets (as,the only dogs that are left them are them little loud mouths who run away)(under sized NYC rats)and they can/will be more secure
I have always wondered what would happen if everyone just stayed home for one week,if this would make a dent in their affairs.
How much money per week,do you think all the courts rake in,to fuel the war against us? (rhetorical)
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

OF COURSE! You're correct!

Isn't it all about protecting "them"?

THEM, the Ruling Class and their sycophantic turds, being the key word there.(

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

deacon's picture

I would rather

be wrong,and things be the way they were designed
what a world,when everything wrong is right,and right is wrong
I don't remember signing up for this :)
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Not sure about life sentence

But it totally makes sense that you should be held responsible for your animals.

Let's take a hypothetical in a libertarian society: what if someone owns a wolf or a bear or a lion and the animal kills somebody. It seems clear that they should be held liable.

Then how is a dog different? Is it because we have some "reasonable" expectation that a dog wouldn't kill, so that when it happens we can say "it's not our fault!" But then whose fault is it?

What about people who purposely train their dogs to be violent and aggressive, basically turning them into small wolves? Then who is at fault?

Complex issue, but not very clear solution...

yes, like I said, you maybe liable, but life in prison?

don't think so.

at best, is what we actually currently have: euthanize the animal, civil liabilities for the owner, NOT criminal prison terms: certainly not a life-sentence.

but if you truly want to get scientific, one would truly have to be able to determine that no domesticated animal would ever do anything on their own, especially an act counter to the human owner's permission or guided direction, 100% of the time, every single time!

until the world's scientific knowledge progresses that far to be able to definitively determine that, all of this falls under "reasonable doubt."

no matter how domesticated, animals are not robots, though that never stopped DARPA. LOL.

it's like do we punish the parents of the mentally ill, when they kill another human being by accident or intent? Depending on states, even civil liabilities vary.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

feed them to the lions. I say

feed them to the lions. I say an eye for an eye.

liike it!

Although that means the government needs to maintain a pack of murderous dogs that can be used to punish people. ;)

They already do. If you don't

They already do. If you don't believe me ask Randy Weaver.

I think it comes down to negligence

If you can prove that the dog owner was negligent and knew that their dog was dangerous and didn't properly restrain it, then you have a case.

So if you have a dog owner that trains his pit bull to be aggressive and violent, and then let's it run loose in the park where it attacks and kills a child, I would say you have a moral stance for criminal charges and a prison term.

On the other hand, if you have an average dog owner that has a non-aggressive, domesticated dog and that dog ends up killing someone, then civil liability is probably ok.

It comes down to whether they had a reasonable expectation that their dog was capable of violence and whether they took the right precautions accordingly.

How do you determine "reasonable" and "right precautions"? Well, that's what the court system is for...

actually, right now, I believe the current laws in

many states would treat your examples in similar manner.

it comes down to mens rea.

if the owner specifically trained his/her dogs specifically to be violent, and kills an innocent person, you may have a criminal case, but most certainly you have a civil case.

but life? absolutely not. people even in cases of 2nd degree murder can 'plea' down to manslaughter and only serve 6months for an 8yr term.

well, that is unless the dog owner specifically trained the said dog for the specific purpose of murdering someone, like someone just developing a skillset, say...like chemistry, to develop a poison. The poison just becomes the murder weapon, and the dog, if used similarly is just a tool that the assailant used to commit the murder with.

so truly, it comes down to intent. if the owner didn't specifically target a specific person, and the person was killed by the said dog 'by accident,' no matter how bad or evil it may seem, common law-fully speaking, that would clearly fall under a manslaughter, and/or a "negligent homicide" depending on the state.

Now, if you were the dog owner of a viciously trained dog and you took that dog to threaten someone else, and the dog bit and bled your victim to death, that can possibly fall under 2nd, if defended vigoriously. but in the same example, if the dogowner specifically ordered the dog to sever his target's carotid arteries specifically to end his life, then that owner is 100% guilty of 1st degree murder.

most Americans may not know this, but the average term served in America (DoJ's own numbers) for intentional homicide, as in murder, is ONLY 8yrs!

But of course, if you're a hitman for the Gambinos, like Sammy the Bull Gravano, and murder over 50 people, you can skip any prison time altogether, go into witness protection on 'our' dime, and run a multi-milion dollar Ecstasy/narc-ring! Yay!

So if Sammy the Bull used your dogs example instead of any other methods, guess, he'll still get off Scot-free!

LOL...er.. .o(

sad commentary on society, eh?

PS. Yeah, I agree, under the current, fraudulent status quo 'justice' system:

How do you determine "reasonable" and "right precautions"? Well, that's what the court system is for...

that said, I've always had problem with the arbitrary nature of what the State solely determines as "reasonable"

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I don't see a problem with this

This is part of the common law tort of ultrahazardous activity. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahazardous_activity

If your dog kills someone, you are responsible.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

tort is civil liability, NOT criminal.

death of a human is a criminal matter, under common law. Civil liabilities may incur, but no civil liability incurs a life-term, if executed lawfully.

as I've mulled above, the question then becomes are you 'guilty' enough that you're 'deserved' a life-sentence for actions of another live being, just because it's domesticated?

that, is the real question. NOT, whether you're liable or not. OF COURSE, you ARE.

but a life prison term?

Good luck trying that here. Don't think this country's so far gone, that where even the most brain-washed sheeple who is at least engaged politically, would go for that...yet. hopefully not! LOL.

what you're agreeing to, is an act of a mob-rule majority-consent democracy, not a Republic based on REAL common laws, not statutory BS parading as "laws."

that said, the definition for what constitutes an "Ultra Hazardous Activity" is arbitrary at best: owning a gun, even in an English Common Law derived UK commonwealth fits the bill, if one can 'argue' it, as by some definitions it includes 'inherently dangerous, and uncommon activity,' because by population, numbers and usage, it's certainly uncommon, say...compared to us, here in us.

Now, if a law can be solely determined by 'common usage' which is just a numerical set of a large population engaged in an activity, then it's no law at all. If enough people do it, does it become any less hazardous to swing unshielded glass jar full of plutonium in children's park?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

libertarian law only recognizes torts

Criminal law is the law of the State.

What is the proper punishment for murder? I agree that in a libertarian society, a life term sentence would probably not be meted out, even for murder. I agree that this would be excessive. Rather, the focus would be on restitution to the estate of the victim. Whether there would be a punishment component as well, I don't know. We can only guess. Would there be a jail time for battery, and how much? The market would decide.

However, I think there would be little difference in how much a person would have to pay or how much they would be punished between say, hitting a pedestrian and having your dog get loose and killing someone (especially if the breed is dangerous or if the dog has a history of attacking people).

Also, you object to "mob-rule majority-consent democracy" as a basis of law. What would you have, then? Some objective standard? Who decides on this objective standard? All values are subjective. It sees like you seem to favor a coded civil law system, such as developed by the Romans, as opposed to the Anglo common law system that evolved more based on market mechanisms. You should know that collectivist cultures tend to have civil code system, while individualist cultures tend to have a common law system.

Are you opposed to the free market? What is the free market, if not "mob-rule majority-consent democracy"?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Actually, YOU are opposed to the Free Market, IF

you think this is the proper understanding of what a free market is:

Also, you object to "mob-rule majority-consent democracy" as a basis of law. What would you have, then? Some objective standard? Who decides on this objective standard? All values are subjective. It sees like you seem to favor a coded civil law system, such as developed by the Romans, as opposed to the Anglo common law system that evolved more based on market mechanisms. You should know that collectivist cultures tend to have civil code system, while individualist cultures tend to have a common law system.

Are you opposed to the free market? What is the free market, if not "mob-rule majority-consent democracy"?

Does your envisioned 'free market' punishment employ the State, with rules made by mob-rule majority, where natural rights are constantly redefined depending on the prevailing political winds??

It should've been self-evident, in ALL of my above replies, I was strictly speaking in terms of the current, common law 'justice' system status-quo.

NOT, as how I'd see such issues resolved in a Hoppe-ian private law society, or A version of a libertarian judicial system, as a specific, preferred solution, as I'd like them to be.

Also, where the hell do you get the notion that I accept Roman Civil law?

Though, if you truly want to be historically accurate, just where the hell do you think the basis for English Common Law originated from? You think Blackstone just codified them out of thin air, or borrowed what accustomed to be after years of post-Roman/Vatican/Pheonician canon?

Which makes this line all the more hilarious:

You should know that collectivist cultures tend to have civil code system, while individualist cultures tend to have a common law system.

First, you accuse me of preferring Roman Civil law, which you proceed to define as a more of a collectivist culture derived system, yet you proceed to alchemically redefine a 'free-market' as a mob-rule (which is wholly collectivist) and 'frankly whatever humans decide, it's all subjective in nature anyway, so why does it matter'-meme making a double redundant, fictitious sophistic argument.

And you see no irony in that? LOL

I agree with almost everything you said, until this:

However, I think there would be little difference in how much a person would have to pay or how much they would be punished between say, hitting a pedestrian and having your dog get loose and killing someone (especially if the breed is dangerous or if the dog has a history of attacking people).

A 'dangerous breed?' "A history of attacking people"?

Well, suppose...arguendo: following your line of reasoning, in your libertarian law society, being one of "mob-rule" conflated as free-markets, I guess, you CAN label a particular breed as being inherently (my emphasis, not yours of course) so and so.

But when you're referring to a breed, as in biological, genetics of a species defined by certain traits and characteristics, you ARE in fact, already inferring what you consider to be in its 'inherent' nature.

So, actually, your reference to a "breed" being so and so, is inherently a dangerous basis to structure your legal systems.

Live organisms are never a synthetic constant. That's the whole basis of complexity with domesticated animals. All current laws treat them AS IF the owner CAN always have 100% control over it, like a manual mammalian robot.

They're not.

Suppose in your society, by market forces, if they determine certain breeds are inherently x, y, z, then, you can via insurance, then market forces by proxy, will determine the likelihood of its survivability.

But then who determines what said company x's cataloged history of such breed is dependable? Guess that too would eventually be sorted out by a competing company's set of logs on a particular dog's history, etc. Eh? LOL.

But by same token such 'legal' structure can equally, by 'market forces' put limits on what kind of caliber in a gun, is more inherently dangerous, no?

Which is why, to be frank, the current standard of Mens Rea, when properly carried out, in a proper understanding that HOW a thing or an item is used, as in intent, is probably one of the best evolved legal doctrines that humans have devised so far.

Now whether the State enforces it, or other mechanisms in a private law society maybe an interesting debate, from your perspective.

So I do personally like and believe is MORE important to structure such legal systems based on the intent of the assailant, than trying to determine a subjective thing, item livestock/animal to be inherently x, y, z. IMO.

Besides, it's not very libertarian to assign an arbitrary 'danger' value to anything NOT used in a crime, ie murder.

And, even IN cases where a said arbitrarily-determined-to-be-a-'dangerous breed'-of-dogs in a murder, it's should only matter to the extent of HOW that dog was used to INTENTIONALLY commit harm.

NOT, what you inherently 'think' it is, before it is ever deployed as a weapon to commit any physical harm against another individual, or property destruction.

Which is why, in my example, I cite the current standard of mens rea.

But, suppose if you asked me what I personally prefer?

Well, even under the current English Common Law derived system, if observed accurately, honestly and followed properly (You know: kinda like how the Constitution we do have is rarely if ever followed as is? Just kidding LOL): NO possession of ANYTHING should ever be considered a crime, when there is no injured party!

No victim, No crime: be it guns, drugs, pictures, or specific breed of livestock or domesticated animals/pets.

By that intended, even currently existent common law system, your example of 'dangerous breed' becomes a facetious legal argument: there is no such thing as a dangerous breed, specifically in a legal context. Sure, you maybe even able to argue it scientifically, but legally it only matters to the extent HOW it was used to commit a 'crime.'

ONLY when breed x, y, z, REGARDLESS of what may even come to be accepted as the 'typical inherent nature' of its breed, is used in a crime, directed by the assailing party, does it become a tool, used in a crime, no?

That said, I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY, with you: to the extent how ANY human systems are devised, and how such practices come to be culturally accepted affectations: ARE "subjective."

Humans are inherently subjective beings: when instituting these systems, 'we' like to pretend to speak in "objective" terms, as if it actually is "objective" as we want it to mean, when in reality, EVERYTHING humans consider "objective" really should, more accurately be described as:

"as objectively SUBJECTIVE as humanly possible."

LOL.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Out to buy some shares in Private Prisons.

Crap! the politicians and policy manipulators got there before me!