Should animals have "personhood?"

 


Elephants denied ‘personhood’ must sue to leave zoo: Colorado Supreme Court

The high court rejected arguments that elephants qualify as “persons” under state law and suggested animal advocates turn to the legislative branch to expand legal rights.

Five elderly African elephants will be staying put in a Colorado zoo after the state Supreme Court denied an animal advocacy group’s effort to expand the definition of “persons” to include elephants under the state’s unlawful imprisonment review process on Tuesday.

In a 21-page opinion, the full Colorado Supreme Court determined that the state’s habeas corpus statute, which grants relief to civil detainees, applies only to humans and not other creatures, “no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be.”

Acknowledging that its decision is narrowly tailored to a question of law, and not the court’s “regard for these majestic animals generally or these five elephants specifically,” Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote for the court that “because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim.”

The Nonhuman Rights Project, a nonprofit seeking legal rights for intelligent animals, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2023 on behalf of five elephants — Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo — living at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs in an attempt to move the elephants to a sanctuary.

The animal advocacy group argued that the elephants were illegally confined at the zoo and that the animals have a right to bodily liberty because they are autonomous and highly intelligent.

The justices found that while habeas corpus petitions are typically filed by those in criminal custody of the state, the statute allows for anyone being unlawfully detained to file a petition and turned to the language used within the text.

“Colorado’s habeas corpus statute does not define the term ‘person"

Justin Marceau, animal law professor and director of the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project, said in a statement that the court neglected a key chance to raise the law in line with scientific understanding about animals. The Animal Activist Legal Defense Project provided an amicus brief in support of the petition.

“In affirming a ruling that all non-human animals are categorically excluded from habeas corpus, the court has arbitrarily prohibited them from exercising their rights to be free of unlawful captivity, simply because of who they are,” Marceau said. “History will look upon this ruling as a grave injustice.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/elephants-denied-personhood-must-sue-to-leave-zoo-colorado-supreme-court/






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ P...
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This...
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of...
Read more