Results

Animal “rights” is of course not the only philosophical basis for extending legal protections to animals. Another, competing, basis is based on the theory of utilitarianism – the outright rejection of rights for all species and instead advocacy for equal consideration. This is the view espoused by Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation. In this article, Professor Francione compares animal rights with utilitarianism, discussing the pros and cons of each

Animal welfare has become a recent issue in the policy of the European Union. As a positive step in recognizing the unnecessary suffering of animals, the Cosmetics Directive will be the focus in the first part of this article. The amendments to the Cosmetics Directive to prohibit the testing of animals in cosmetics culminated in the case of France v. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Similar measures were adopted in California, which will be discussed in the second half the article.

Cases involving cruelty to animals are currently handled by the traditional criminal courts. These courts, however, are not effective at punishing animal abusers or protecting animal victims. Although all states have laws criminalizing various forms of animal cruelty, the reality is that most cruelty cases are not prosecuted; even when cruelty cases are successfully prosecuted, punishments are weak. This Comment proposes the creation of an Animal Violence Court, using juvenile animal abusers and adult hoarders as ideal candidates for a pilot animal cruelty justice system. The Animal Violence Court will provide for the ongoing safety and care of animal victims, will work to rehabilitate offenders, and will require long-term monitoring of offenders by the court. Modeled after similar problemsolving courts, the Animal Violence Court will improve upon the current criminal justice system, rehabilitate offenders, and protect innocent animals, sending a clear message that animal abuse will not be tolerated.