Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How Troubling Youth Trends and a Call for Character Education are Breathing New Life into Efforts to Educate Our Youth About the Value of All Life | Lydia S. Antoncic | 9 Animal L. 183 (2003) | The purpose of education is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself, to make his own decisions, to say to himself this is black or this is white, to decide for himself whether there is a God in heaven or not. To ask questions of the universe, and then to learn to live with those questions, is the way he achieves his own identity. But no society is really anxious to have that kind of person around. What societies really, ideally want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish. The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to fight it—at no matter what risk. This is the only hope society has. This is the only way societies change. |
||
| HUMAN DRAMA, ANIMAL TRIALS: WHAT THE MEDIEVAL ANIMAL TRIALS CAN TEACH US ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS | Katie Sykes | 17 Animal L. 251 (2011) | The legal system generally does little to protect animals, and one aspect of its inadequacy is a matter of formal structure: under United States and Canadian law, animals are not legal “persons” with an independent right to the protections of the legal system. There are calls to expand the status of animals in the law by providing them with legal standing, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and other formal protections. But, in a way, some of this has happened before. There is a long history, primarily from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking humans and destroying crops. These animals were formally prosecuted in elaborate trials that included counsel to represent their interests. The history of the animal trials demonstrates how, in a human-created legal system, legal “rights” for animals can be used for human purposes that have little to do with the interests of the animals. This history shows us that formal legal rights for animals are only tools, rather than an end in themselves, and highlights the importance not just of expanding formal protections, but of putting them to work with empathy, in a way that strives (despite the inevitable limitations of a human justice system in this respect) to incorporate the animals’ own interests and own point of view. |
||
| Human Identity: The Question Presented by Human-Animal Hybridization | Joseph Vining | 1 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 50 (2008) | What makes each of us, as individuals, human to one another, or, more generally, what makes an individual creature human? We have not often had to ask the question because of the species line based on reproductive capacity and incapacity, although “degrees of humanness” were explored in the various eugenic programs of the last century. Now the biotechnological possibility of fusing human and other forms of life is presenting the question in a new and serious way. If the traditional biological means of defining species are no longer reliable, what other criteria might determine what is “human” and what is “nonhuman”? The issue is not just how to conceive of an individual hybrid presented to us, but how to act toward the creature, at the most basic level. Drawing on animal law and theory as well as the history of human eugenics in law and policy, Vining identifies criteria that may one day be used to gauge relative humanness, qualitative and quantitative. He observes that ultimately the difficulty of deciding or agreeing upon what identifies us as human will make even more problematic the current treatment of creatures deemed purely “animal.” In the end he suggests that what the human distinctively brings to the sentient world is general responsibility itself, and that wider contemplation of the real possibility of human-animal hybridization may lead to new ways of thinking about animals, in law and beyond. Human Identity was presented recently as a talk to a longstanding interdisciplinary faculty seminar at the University of Michigan. It is presented largely in its original form here, with footnotes added. | ||
| Human-Centered Environmental Values Versus Nature-Centric Environmental Values: Is This the Question? | Zygmunt J.B. Plater | 3 Mich. J. Envtl & Admin. L. 273 (2014) | (c) 2014 Zygmunt J.B. Plater. Originally published in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law; reprinted with permission. |
||
| Humane Education, Dissection, And The Law | Marcia Goodman Kramer | 13 Animal Law 281 (2007) | Students regularly encounter animal dissection in education, yet humane education receives little attention in animal law. This article analyzes the status of humane education laws in the United States. It discusses the range of statutory protections, from student choice laws to bans on vivisection. The article then analyzes the litigation options for students who do not wish to dissect, including constitutional claims and claims arising under student choice laws. The article concludes by calling for additional legislation to protect students who have ethical objections to dissection. |
||
| I Fought the Law: A Review of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, Edited By Steven Best & Anthony J. Nocella II | Matthew Liebman | 1 Journal of Animal Law 151 (2005) | This book review seeks to introduce the major issues raised by the authors of the essays in "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?" and to commend Best and Nocella for their valuable contribution to the body of animal rights theory and practice. |
||
| IF ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS COULD WRITE FEDERAL RESEARCH POLICY | Vasanth R. Shenai | 4 Animal L. 211 (1998) | Mr. Shenai examines animal rights in the context of federal animal testing. After discussing current federal research policy and the positions held by animal rights advocates, he proposes a new statute to accommodate all interests in society as well as the rights of the animals being considered for testing. | ||
| In Arkansas Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Environment? | John T. Hollerman | 6 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 21 (1992) | This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality. |
||
| In the Doghouse or in the Jailhouse?: The Possibility of Criminal Prosecution of the Owners of Vicious Dogs in Louisiana | Mary S. Bubbett | 49 Loy. L. Rev. 953 (2003) | This comment first addresses the established trend in Louisiana of holding dog owners ever more accountable for the damage their dogs cause. Second, this comment explores the emergence of criminal prosecution of dog owners around the country for their animal's actions and its impact on Louisiana jurisprudence. Third, this comment explores the possibility that the prosecution of an owner of a vicious dog might result in a conviction for either negligent homicide or negligent injuring in Louisiana. Finally, this comment proposes a legislative change that ensures those who own killer dogs and carelessly keep them will be punished. |
||
| In the Line of Fire: Brown v. Muhlenberg Township and the Reality of Police Seizures of Companion Animals | Denee A. DiLuigi | 9 Animal L. 267 (2003) | Ms. DiLuigi addresses a companion animal owners’ rights under current law to bring and maintain an action for the unreasonable seizure of their companion animal by an officer as well as an action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress in light of the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Brown v. Muhlenberg Township. Applying various legal doctrines, Ms. DiLuigi also explores potential legal arguments for future litigation stemming from an officer’s execution of a companion animal. |