GO!

Pros and Cons of executing a dog that has bitten someone?

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

  
(Page 1 of 4: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  
♥- Daisy- ♥

Once you get a- Jack you never- go back!
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 4:11am PST 
I have to write an essay with the topic of "Should the state execute dogs who have bitten someone?" I have a pro and a few cons, but I need a little more, what do you dogsters think?
[notify]
MIKA&KAI

Akita Pals- Always.
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 4:46am PST 
Daisy,
That sounds so harsh!! I wish I could help you but there are so many variables to bites and circumstances surrounding them that it really needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Just as jurisdictions that allow the death penalty use a case by case standard in applying the death penalty to humans there has to be a case by case system for dogs as well. As far as the word execute,I think I understand the legal use of it but euthanize sounds more humane and in most cases more fitting. People have in theory anyway a higher thinking and reasoning ability and do know right from wrong and choose to follow the law or not. Dogs for whatever reason who bite don't have the same ability of choice they are simply reacting to some trigger whatever that might be. Just my opinion and I'm sure absolutely no help. Good Luck on your assignment!!!
[notify]
Sakari

Divas can get- dirty too !
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 6:12am PST 
I'm completely against euthanasia. There is always a reason that a dog bites maybe its scared, protecting their family, maybe its hurting, there is always a reason.
We should try to help them instead of euthanize them, especially when you don't know exactly what happened. Of course you will always hear I didn't do anything he just attacked - and how often is this statement true?
It shouldn't be anyone's decision on when to take a life.
Just my honest opinion.
[notify]

Kessel

GlitterstimSpice- AndNothingNice
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 1:15pm PST 
"It shouldn't be anyone's decision on when to take a life.
Just my honest opinion."

I understand how you feel, but could you perhaps share a viable solution to the problem?

Certainly a humane society or animal shelter cannot adopt out a dog that has knowingly attacked a human or animal and caused injury. Who is going to pay to staff reputable, knowledgeable, and incredibly talented people who are able to rehabilitate dogs with a long history of aggression and serious attacks? And what happens when one of those rehabilitated dogs ends up attacking another person? Credibility is lost, the media gets involved, etc.

I hate euthanasia as much as the next person, but sometimes we have to look at the big picture in terms of public safety.
[notify]
Samson

Work? What's- that?
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 2:03pm PST 
The State should have absolutely no right to demand the killing of a dog they do not own (ie: A dog who is owned by a private citizen, not a state-funded and run animal shelter).

A private shelter or private citizen should be under no obligation whatsoever to kill their dog at the demands of the state. The state should be able to make reasonable demands to ensure public safety, but I do not consider execution to be a reasonable demand. Home confinement, muzzling in public, fencing, etc, are all something I'd consider a reasonable demand for a dog with an established bite history, or perhaps in specific cases where it was determined the dog bit without warning.

Your dog is your property and as long as they are legally considered your property, we can enjoy the few remaining rights we have left with our pets. Hopefully we won't allow them to be chipped completely away in our lifetimes.

I don't particularly agree with a private citizen euthanizing an aggressive dog but I will just leave that alone and say that is their right to choose to do so. But as far as the State demanding such a thing, no. It is a gross infringement on property rights.

As far as a stray, I would consider them under State ownership, or at least State responsibility, in terms of deciding who has legal jurisdiction.

Edited by author Tue Dec 6, '11 2:04pm PST

[notify]
Twister

wouldn't harm a- fly...XD
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 2:44pm PST 
Great point, Samson.
Definitely need to make sure to keep the Constitution in mind when writing the paper; animals are regarded as property and legally the state can not tell you what to do with them. It really does depends on the individual case; personal opinions and biases should not enter the equation; and the fact whether it is an animal owned by a private party (person), or a government-run institution plays a big part in this.
The pros and cons of EUTHANIZING an animal will differ based on those circumstances. Put a lot of research into this, cover your bases, I am sure it will be worth it. Good luck!way to go
[notify]
Chance

How You Doin'?
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 2:47pm PST 
"Of course you will always hear I didn't do anything he just attacked - and how often is this statement true?"
Sakari, in my case this was completely true. And it was completely true for every other person I saw this dog attack.

I was home alone when my roommate's large-breed dog attacked me for doing nothing more than trying to empty the dishwasher. Something he saw me do every day.

He came around the wall and jumped the open dishwasher door.
His teeth ripped through my face so he lost his grip and as soon as his feet touched, he launched for another face bite. Luckily I kept my feet or I can't imagine the damage such a large dog would have been able to do to me.
[notify]
Lenny

Lenny -The- Wrecking Ball
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 2:55pm PST 
To me, I don't really think it is fair to the dog. You have to look at why the dog decided that they needed to bite. Everybody says "he just attacked" but that never seems to be the case at all. Dogs who have bitten someone can be rehabilitated. It takes a lot of work and lot of time & patience, depending on their issues, but it can be done. And then the dog can live the life it deserves. Someone was responsible for that dog, and the dog shouldn't be punished for that. Those dogs who are rehabilitated can then become ambassadors & educators who can show the public what is possible. And those dogs are the dogs that are going to get the word out and inspire more and more people to learn facts versus myths(and acting out of fear)

However, I can understand in areas where shelters/rescues have limited resources and maybe they cannot handle the rehabilitation of one dog. In that case even though I'm against it, I understand it. Putting down that dog (as heart breaking as it may be) can save resources for other dogs, and maybe in that case it is for the greater good.

People can be put it jail for attacking another person (whether out of aggression, self defense, or whatever reason) but they will eventually be released and given a second chance...why is it life or death for a dog? Why can't we try to show them compassion and understanding?
[notify]
Mr. Pibbs- *CGC*

Snuggle up!
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 3:02pm PST 
While I agree that most bites have an underlying behavioral reason, there are the occasions that it may be medical. Brain tumors, dementia and other organic reasons are beyond our control and as sad as it is, I think sometimes euthenasia in these circumstances is the kindest thing to do.

If the bite was inflicted by a stray with no known record of rabies vaccination, that is another possible viable reason to euthenize. Personally, if the dog can be quarantined and it occured in a low risk area, I think that should also be taken into consideration.

Good luck with your paper, not a pleasant subject at all!frown
[notify]
Kessel

GlitterstimSpice- AndNothingNice
 
 
Barked: Tue Dec 6, '11 3:21pm PST 
"Home confinement, muzzling in public, fencing, etc, are all something I'd consider a reasonable demand for a dog with an established bite history, or perhaps in specific cases where it was determined the dog bit without warning."

I can say that in my jurisdiction, we do have things in place that require court-ordered containment inspections as an outcome of a "dangerous animal" charge.

In my opinion, nothing is the dog's fault. They are, usually, the victim of irresponsible ownership. I do think that many of them (not all) can be rehabilitated. Again, though, I return to my previous statement of "who is going to pay for this?" and "who is truly qualified to do so?"

A lot shelters and humane societies are NPO's, not government run, and are not rolling around in tons of cash handed over from the state/county/city. I just don't see any of them being able to offer the solution of rehabilitating a dog that severely mauled someone. And, even if they could, what average citizen is going to bang down the door to adopt a dog like that? Most of the people who would want that dog are the ones who probably aren't equipped or prepared to take on that responsibility - they are the bleeding heart types who see a dog "behind bars" and want to save it from the big, bad dogcatchers. Now you have a dog you've poured tons of money into, and he's just taking up space in your shelter because you can't find a suitable home for him.

To the OP, Daisy, I would strongly suggest you think about getting in touch with some law enforcement agencies and find out what their protocol is, and - more importantly - why that protocol is in place. It is very easy as a pet owner to feel one way, but you might want to get a feel for what it's like in "our" shoes, so to speak. It is not an easy job, and we often get blasted for things because I don't think most people are able to see the other side of the fence.
[notify]
  (Page 1 of 4: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4