Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffy71
But the rules and punishments in place do not force anybody to consider consequences.
What choices would people make if the dog you purchase, your name is listed officially as the owner, and when it kills somebody, you are convicted of manslaughter or murder and you go to jail?
That is not how our legal system treats dog owners, but it should. Then we don't have to worry about breed bans, or trying for force people to go to training classes, or this regulation or that regulation. No, you do what you want, buy whatever you want, train, don't train, but if your dog bites, maims or kills, that is how the law will treat you. Things would change overnight.
"what are you in for?"
"my dog bit a kid at the park and put her in the hospital for a week" I got 8 years for aggravated assault."
Sounds about right.
|
You won’t see that because it’s unreasonable and would basically require intent to be removed from consideration when charging. It’s would also mean ignoring all the factors that can be behind a bite and the fact that there is no one size fits all approach when it comes to dogs. If you say that if you don’t train your dog you’ll be liable for damage, then you need a standard to measure against. How do you define that standard?
Breed bans are stupid because they don’t address the issues, they don’t result in less bites and they are incredibly subjective. Not to mention when breed is determined when a bite happens, it’s based on appearance and judgement by the officer, not on actual medical evidence. So you introduce bias right off the bat and skew stats