Animals as Living Property

Abstract

For all recorded history domestic animals have been considered objects within the legal system, classified as personal property, the primary focus being on what an owner can do with property or how an owner can protect property from intrusions of others or the government. More recently, our society has developed a new perspective, focusing not on the owners’ rights but on the animals themselves and what level of protection and concern they should be given, regardless of the issue of ownership. To aid in the process of giving animals more visibility within the legal system, it is necessary to remove them from the category of personal property and place them in a new category of “living property.” Once this happens, the allocation of legal rights to domestic animals can begin on a clean slate allowing the issues of animal rights and legal personhood to be directly addressed.

Using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to Study Animal Cruelty: Preliminary Results (2016–2019)

“…Finally, mechanisms also need to be found to create better communication and sharing of information between law enforcement and those in the animal services sector, so that critical information is not overlooked when they receive a report of an incident involving an animal Randour 2019). Given the recent move in some states to allow animals to be considered as victims of crime in their own right (Favre 2016(Favre , 2017Bernays 2018;Eisenstein 2016), it is critically important to begin collecting information on the animal crime victims, including their relationship to the offender.…”

“…This is primarily because animal cruelty was designated by the FBI as a "crime against society" and therefore "society" is the victim and not the animal. In addition, as mentioned at the beginning of the paper, at least in the United States, animals are considered property, and they have no rights in the same way that person would (Favre 2017). As a result, no victim information is collected in the NIBRS (e.g., species, breed, gender, age, etc.)…”

“…A recent survey of women dog and cat guardians around the country found that over half (55%) shared their beds with at least one dog, and about a third (31%) share their bed with a cat (Hoffman et al 2018). Despite this, animals are still considered property under U.S. law and, therefore, they do not have rights as a "legal person" would (Favre 2017).…”

Človek, žival: poglavja o njunih soočanjih

“…bolečine itn. V te namene bi nečloveške živali zastopali pravni skrbniki (Favre 2010(Favre : 1022(Favre -1034. Visa Kurki raziskuje korelirani razvoj pojmov subjektnosti in pravic ter ugotavlja, da medtem ko so se teorije o pravicah od devetnajstega stoletja znatno razvijale, je tradicionalna binarnost prava ostala enaka (Kurki 2019: 91).…”

Moving Away from Thinghood in Law: Animals as a New Legal Category?

“…Several scholars have outlined what a special legal category for animals separate from or in between the traditional person/thing dichotomy could look like. 88 Indeed, the de-reification process has created space and a vessel for this development. 89 The role that courts and authorities play in this process cannot not be underestimated; it is within their power to exploit the potential of de-reification norms and thus to build and enlarge this vessel by consistently interpreting the existing norms in an animal-friendly way, taking their interests into account to the greatest extent possible in the current frame of reference.…”