Give Vick the OJ Treatment

Even if Michael Vick gets the maximum sentence of five years in the Big House, many animal rights activists consider that a slap on the wrist for his role in torturing and killing dogs.

There's a solution: give Vick the OJ treatment.

As you'll remember, after OJ was acquitted of the crime of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman, the Goldman family won a judgment against him for the tort of wrongful death.

The same thing should happen here. The victims who survived Vick's cruelty, and the families of those who did not, should sue Vick for millions of dollars. Why not? He's good for it. And it may be the only real punishment he gets. The only itsy-bitsy problem in this case is that the victims are dogs. Under the legal doctrine of "standing," dogs can't bring lawsuits because they are not recognized as legal "persons."

But that rule might be due for a change. Numerous legal scholars and animal rights activists think that it's time to grant animals standing to sue. Steve Wise, a former Harvard law lecturer has argued that legal personhood should not depend on membership in a species but rather on a certain level of autonomy. Although Wise thinks that the "best" initial candidates for personhood are "great apes, particularly chimpanzees and bonobos," perhaps dogs should go the front of the line.

If it seems odd to refer to dogs as "persons," remember that the law has no problem referring to corporations and municipalities as persons. Legal language is, after all, notoriously flexible - it turns long documents into "briefs" and 18 year-olds into "infants." Some legal scholars are already yearning for the day when intelligent computers can be granted "human rights."

What's more, people have been bringing animals to court for centuries -- as defendants. Today, dogs are effectively put on trial, and often put to death, under state "vicious dog" laws. Throughout European history, animals have been put on trial for a variety of offenses; occasionally even with a court-appointed lawyer. (For more on the strange history of animal prosecutions, read this article). It's only fair to allow animals to be plaintiffs.

Efforts to establish animal standing have not been successful -- yet. In a 2004 case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant standing to the world's marine mammals who were seeking (through their attorneys, of course) to enjoin the Bush Administration from using a certain type of underwater sonar.

The whales may have lost in 2004. It's the dogs' turn in 2007.

Comments

[snaggster]

Vick is a wealthy, famous public figure and he deserves the media feeding frenzy that ensues when celebrities do things like this. I have no sympathy for him. PETA is taking advantage of his status to get noticed. That's how it works. Vick should not be treated differently under the law just because he's famous.

[KingFolderol]

I'm not a big fan of the double jeopardy that is implied by suing someone in civil court because you're dissatisfied with the outcome you got in civil court. If victims could pick what they want - incarceration or money - that would be one thing. But putting someone on trial twice for the same crime makes a mockery of our legal system. And no amount of money is going to bring Ron Brown back to life.

[Quaoar]

Maybe the OJ treatment could be extended to other cases. Would parents of deceased military personnel then be able to sue Bush for sending them to die in Iraq?

[accountability]

oh yes, I like that.