Owners of potentially dangerous animals

[mishigas73]

Originally Posted by ms12345

Should owners of potentially dangerous animals be charged with a felony for not maintaining strict control of their animal?

Strictly in principle, yes, I think that the proverbial book should be thrown at people who harbor animals that they know to be dangerous and don't take proper precautions to prevent innocent people from being hurt.

Practically speaking, however, this is never going to happen.

The court and penal systems are too clogged with what they already have to accommodate an automatic felony charge (or really any criminal charge) in the case of a dog bite.

In addition, I can't see jurisdictions labelling a dog "attack" generally as a felony. I live in a place where, if I recall correctly, one needs to be charged with 4 DUIs in the span of 7 years in order for it to be a felony. If one's third DUI in 7 years doesn't amount to a felony, I can't imagine that my state legislature would consider a first offense dog bite, without severe extenuating circumstances, as a felony.

Originally Posted by ms12345

Should the owner be criminally charged for not preventing their dog from rushing and threatening someone on the street or sidewalk?

What would be the crime here?

I saw one case, several years back, where a dog who was on a leash lunged at an older lady. She fell back into some bushes and ended up breaking her wrist in the fall. There was a civil settlement (covered by the dog owner's homeowner's insurance)-- but I wonder where the crime would be here?

I don't recall the exact facts of the case I just mentioned. But let's say that the lady had a phobia of dogs. That what she perceived as a "lunge" was simply the dog pulling a little on its leash. Should the dog owner be criminally responsible for her reaction?

The way I'm seeing it, there are way too many different scenarios for there to be a blanket assault charge laid on someone whose dog "threatens" someone on public property. Realistically speaking, the courts are way too busy to try to deal with these sorts of cases, absent some REALLY extenuating circumstances.

Originally Posted by ms12345

And should those charges be even more severe if the dog bites or attacks?

Yes, I believe that charges should be laid if someone has a known dangerous animal that attacks another person.

At least where I am, the legal system is set up to deal with something like this. Criminal negligence is the first thing that comes to mind.

Originally Posted by ms12345

In other words should the owners be held responsible?

In my area, they already are. Civilly.

In my state, there's no "free bite rule". That is, the dog (or other animal) doesn't "get" to hurt someone once before the owner will be held responsible for its actions.

IMO, this part of the system works. The overwhelming majority of civil lawsuits generally end up in settlement. (And, actually, when insurance companies are involved, the VAST majority of claims are settled without even filing in court.)

If these cases were put through the criminal courts, the system would simply buckle under the pressure.

[Taluffen]

I own an Akita, one of those "its probably going to kill you" breeds, although that reputation seems to be fading, thank god. I have also worked with numerous dog breeds and let me say it nearly always comes down to socializing a dog, training and the owner (the redneck who insists their dog is an attack dog for instance). Then there is the other problem, the parents who raise their kids not to respect dogs or learn to behave around them. Newsflash, letting your lil'darlin' pester a dog while it is eating is the set up for a perfect storm.

Unfortunately the dog is going to receive the punishment in the middle of all of this, when it literally isn't the animal's fault.

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by ms12345

No charges can be filed because the dog was not previously registered as vicious. Many of these owners don't have two nickels to rub together so you can forget about civil recovery.

And, pray tell, how exactly will incarcerating and/or fining the dog's owner help the victim offset their medical expenses?

I can't tell if this is someone who is afraid of dogs wanting their fears placated by the enactment of laws, or if this is defense attorneys trying to find new ways to gin up business.

[Taluffen]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

And, pray tell, how exactly will incarcerating and/or fining the dog's owner help the victim offset their medical expenses?

Hey partner, this is the US of A. Home of the one of the world's largest prison population. We have a reputation to keep. And, what could more American than potentially putting someone and their family in financial ruin. That'll learn'em.

[Senah]

Originally Posted by ms12345

According to the CDC there are 4.5 million dog bites each year. I did not see any info on severity or actual damage. Those are just the ones reported. It is largely agreed the laws we have today are not effective.

My stat should have stated in traffic accidents that number injured rather than killed (that number is more around 35,000).

At any rate, around half of the dog bites happen in the home by one's own dog, so I don't know that changing the laws around dogs would affect those numbers. And I don't also know that "it is largely agreed the laws we have today are not effective". Who largely agrees with this? Where is the data to support that? Is there anything to take that from an anecdotal opinion to fact?

More laws don't always make things better - often they are just more money and bureaucracy to enforce. The root of the problem could lie elsewhere. Research directed at the problem would be a better way to look at why this is happening. Many of the bites I see in practice, for example, come from people's own dogs in their homes, and they are often small dogs.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally Posted by ms12345

Should owners of potentially dangerous animals be charged with a felony for not maintaining strict control of their animal?

We all know the serious harm a large dog can do to a child and even an adult. Life altering harm. We often hear dog owners say there are no bad dogs only bad owners. Should the owner be criminally charged for not preventing their dog from rushing and threatening someone on the street or sidewalk? And should those charges be even more severe if the dog bites or attacks? In other words should the owners be held responsible?

It's sad we even need to have this discussion.