Animal Fighting: Related Articles
|Lane Azevedo Clayton||Overview of Brazil's Legal Structure for Animal Issues||
This essay contains an overview of the laws that deal with both wildlife and domestic animals in Brazil.
|Rachel Blumenfeld||Dog Baiting Abatement: Using Nuisance Abatement to Regulate Dogfighting||
This article explores the history of dogfighting and its effects on today's society. It then suggests nuisance abatement as a possible way to regulate and perhaps eliminate dogfighting. The article discusses the evolution of the public nuisance cause of action. The article then offers closing thoughts on whether, and perhaps how, dogfighting should be managed under public nuisance law.
|J. Alexandra Bruce||STEVENS, R.A.V., AND ANIMAL CRUELTY SPEECH: WHY CONGRESS'S NEW STATUTE REMAINS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROBLEMATIC||Abstract: The constitutionality of restrictions on speech depicting actual cruelty to animals is a question that continues to divide courts and commentators. In U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a 1999 ban on depictions of animal cruelty. The Court invalidated the ban on its face because, as written, the statute extended beyond acts of actual animal cruelty to other forms of unlawful animal harm, such as hunting out of season. Thus, the Court did not resolve the core question presented. Congress responded by drafting a new statute, one narrowed to “crush” videos--obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in an effort to avoid constitutional problems. This new statute, however, continues to raise constitutional and public policy concerns--despite its recent upholding in the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Richards. This article is the first to analyze the constitutional and public policy issues presented by Congress's new animal cruelty speech regulation. This article contends that the modified statute is poor public policy and remains constitutionally problematic. First, as a policy matter, the statute is ineffective because it fails to criminalize the most widespread and troubling form of animal cruelty speech: animal fighting videos. Second, the statute's overly narrow reach--limited to obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in fact increases its constitutional problems by triggering the “virulence” doctrine first articulated in R.A.V. Since courts are unlikely to view obscene depictions of animal cruelty as virulently “prurient” obscenity, as opposed to the kind of “morbidly” violent speech entitled to the protections of strict scrutiny as established in Brown, the statute will likely be invalidated. The article concludes with an exploration of possible new legislation, which could effectively prevent animal cruelty, while also preserving free speech rights.|
|Pamela D. Frasch||State Animal Anti-Cruelty Statutes: An Overview||
This article provides an introduction to the current status of state animal anti-cruelty laws throughout the United States. Extensive exploration of the similarities and differences between these statutes, combined with detailed statutory citations, enables this article to serve as a useful resource for research and statistical purposes. Additionally, the article offers an opportunity to review many of the provisions contained within these anti- cruelty statutes and to identify those in need of improvement.
|Hanna Gibson||Detailed Discussion of Dog Fighting||
An in-depth article on the insidious crime of dogfighting, including information for investigators and prosecutors. The discussion focuses on the history, sociology, and and effects on communities due to dogfighting. Further included is a discussion of the relevant legal issues raised in prosecuting dogfighting offenders.
|Hanna Gibson||Brief Summary of Dog Fighting Laws||
A brief overview of the history, scope, and legal status of dog-fighting.
|Hanna Gibson||Chart of State Dogfighting Laws||
This chart, updated in 2014, lists the state laws concerning dog fighting. To date, all states have enacted laws that make actively participating in dog fighting a felony. Several states still regard being a spectator at a fight as a misdemeanor.
|Hanna Gibson||Overview of Dog Fighting||This overview provides a description of outward signs that a dogfighting operation may be occurring. These include injuries to dogs, associated paraphernalia, and other signs. The paper also describe changes occurring in dogfighting laws to address challenges faced by communities.|
|Veronica Hirsch||Brief Summary of the Biology and Behavior of the Chicken||
A brief description of the biology and behavior of the domestic chicken.
|Veronica Hirsch||Detailed Discussion of Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe||
A detailed discussion of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand.
|Veronica Hirsch||Overview of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe||
An overview of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States and Europe.
|Veronica Hirsch||Brief Summary of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe||
A brief summary of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand.
|Rebecca J. Huss||Lessons Learned: Acting As Guardian/Special Master In The Bad Newz Kennels Case||
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Rebecca Huss as the guardian/special master of the pit bulls that were the subject of the case against Michael Vick relating to dog fighting. In April of 2007, the Surry County Sheriff’s Department seized fifty-three pit bulls from Vick’s home in Virginia. According to the facts set forth in the plea agreement, dogs on the property were killed and subjected to violent dog fights. Similar to human victims of abuse, the dogs needed someone to represent their best interests during litigation. Huss was in charge of determining whether each dog should be euthanized due to its inability to interact safely with humans or other animals or given a second chance at life in a new home. Huss explains her role as guardian/special master and how she made her determinations about each dog’s destiny.
|Gianna M. Ravenscroft||Detailed Discussion of Texas Animal Cruelty Laws||
This article provides an in-depth look at the intricacies of Texas animal cruelty laws. Both the criminal and civil statutes are discussed, as is relevant case law. Additionally, this article introduces a new Texas law governing the keeping of dangerous wild animals.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Overview of State Cruelty Laws||
This summary describes some of the basic features of state cruelty laws with links to further discussions.