Chimpanzees aren't 'persons' with rights of humans, no need to be freed, New York court rules
Chimpanzees aren't 'persons' with rights of humans, no need to be freed, New York court rules
A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is no precedent for treating animals as persons and no legal basis.
"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.
Judge Karen Peters wrote, "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus that have been afforded to human beings."
The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.
"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings."
Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery, said Thursday he was pleased and expected the ruling.
"I just couldn't picture any court granting habeas corpus for an animal," he said. "If it works for one animal, it works for all animals. It would open a can of worms."
Tommy, believed to be about 40 years old, is a former entertainment chimp who was placed with Lavery about 10 years ago. Lavery said Tommy is cared for under strict state and federal license rules and inspections.
The court noted there have been no claims that Tommy has been mistreated or any of those rules have been violated.
Lavery said Tommy lives in a seven-room enclosure in Gloversville with lots of toys and other "enrichment."
Tags
Who is online
265 visitors
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
What is wrong with these American litigious maniacs, wasting the time of the law courts with this kind of ridiculous garbage? They should be fined 10 times the court costs for even starting such a court case. Maybe that will knock some common sense into their brains.
The chimps must be smarter than they are.
The chimps must be smarter than they are. I think you're right Buzz..
I can't possibly be unbiased on this article, as I would personally move heaven and earth, to help any animal in distess. As the ultimate of hypocrits, John and I are meat eaters, in our house. Only Matthew is the truly moral one among us. I cannot purchase a whole chicken, because when I try to cut it up, it looks like Lulu's legs and that makes me nervous, and I always cut myself. I think, if it were up to me to grow my own meat, I'd end up a vegetarian in about 2 heartbeats. Then, I'd probably start imagining the lima beans screaming as I steamed them...
So, while this ruling doesn't surprise me, it kind of makes my heart sink. I think a lot of animals are sentient beings.
Pet chimpanzee attacks woman in Connecticut
A 200-pound pet chimpanzee in Stamford, Connecticut, viciously mauled a woman he had known for years, leaving her critically injured with much of her face torn away, the authorities said.
The 90-kilogram animal was shot and killed on Monday by the police after he assaulted an officer in his car.
I know. Chimpanzees are wild and should never be kept as pets. Nor should any other wild animal.
All I can say is this: placing a wild animal in a home as a pet often results in tragedy, and it is usually not the animal's fault-- it's the person who put the animal in a situation that it doesn't know how to deal with.
If these chimps are to be set free, they need to be set free in an environment where they can be themselves, and not some situation they can't handle. By that same token, having been in captivity for so long, they may never be able to be set free in the wilds, as they couldn't survive.
It's a sad situation, all around.
Chimps are so much like us that they commit murder....
Warning: Although this is an actual documentary, it is very disturbing
yep. 98.9% of them are identical to us. Even the murderous part...
Thanks for the warning, Perrie-- I have seen this before, but didn't need to see it again. I really appreciate your concern for other's feelings!
My cat is pretty much a wild animal ... but a small one . He accepts some of my limitations because I exercise them with love rather than force . A 200 lb chimp is much stronger than almost any human . There is no way to control such a critter .
If a chimp, using simple tools and simple language... and showing affection... and self-aware... is not a person... then what are the criteria that are necessary?
I sure hope that when ET comes calling, it'll be less narrow-minded than we.
My personal leanings would be towards language skills . Coco the Gorilla can speak sign language . Perhaps if chimps were taught how to sign it would be easier to deal with "disagreements" .
I agree with you... But I kinda doubt that Coco would win in court, either.
House cats have been domesticated for about 4000 years. big cats have never been domesticated. Dogs have been domesticated, I think the latest evidence says, 10,000 years. There is a difference between a domesticated animal and one that has not had a genetic history of domestication. At least, to me.
No, about the chimp, which is why I don't think they should be kept as pets. Nor can a 500 pound cat.
An animal is not a human. In my "Minds I" (a more philosophical and supernatural approach) the question is, does an animal have a "soul?" Many believe it does, for example the Hindu's as opposed to the Judeo/Christians. I am not convinced it does.
All of this aside, I agree with the courts legal definition in refusing to extend constitutional rights to an animal.
There's certainly no physical-world evidence of the existence of a soul. And yet, billions of people, across many very different religions, believe that one exists. It is theonly reason to deny personhood to a Great Ape, while conferring it on a microscopic clump of cells.
It is (IMNAAHO) today's most egregious intrusion of religion into law.
The idea of a "soul" is an abstract conceptualization but is nonetheless, a worldwide shared belief that cuts through both the Abrahamic religions and what people consider to be paganism. As such a thing called a "soul" obviously not scientific, it cannot be proven through scientific methods.
My inclusion of a "soul" into this is based on a book I read called the "Minds I" , which is a compendium of both philosophical and hypothetical musings meant to challenge the readers thinking, makes mention of the speculation of souls in animals.
I also agreed with the Appellate courts decision and their jurisprudence. While I am against cruelty to animals, I'm not given into any anthropomorphic assumptions except to use them as metaphors.
AeonPax,
Do people have souls?
Do Great Apes have souls?
In both cases, how do we know, one way or the other?
If we don't use "has a soul" as differentiator, then what criteria separate Great Apes from humans?
----------
My purpose here is to push you and anyone following this thread, to think about the criteria for personhood. I think that 99% of the population bases their (unconscious) thinking on "a soul for humans and not for any other creature"... but that very few people come right out and say it.
If "humans have souls and animals don't" is the reasoning for conferring personhood or not... then it seems to me that we must have some sort of "evidence" for the existence of the soul. If not scientific evidence, then religious (Biblical/Koranic/whatever) evidence.
The fact is that I have never seen anything convincing in the Abrahamic religions -- I don't know enough about oriental religions to have a worthwhile opinion.
Can a Killer Whale explain complex thoughts to a human? No, another language barrier - but there is evidence that these species do indeed communicate with one another in more than rudimentary ways. The same phenomena likely exists with other species as well.
The argument of the existence of a soul and it's place in the scheme of things is ancillary. As I pointed out, it's an abstraction whose existence depends upon personal belief. Its existence is also believed to be supernatural which is outside the range of existing science and tied into the concept of a supreme divinity.
For discussion purposes, pointing out the fact that many believe that a soul indicates the quintessential difference between human and beast is no more than one part of larger equation.
Now, to take this a step further, can a computer have a soul or have rights? Considering that AI technology is still in it's infancy and that the science breakthroughs behind such technology doubles every year, it has already passed the realm of science fiction into reality. Even as far back as the 1950's, Alan Turing among others, postulated a time where AI could be indistinguishable from a human.
The argument of just sentience as being a prime indicator which links humans and animals has to give way to another human trait called sapience (wisdom) or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgement, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties.
A soul, however arguable as it may be, is only part of the human equation. Quite frankly, so much is unknown about all of this, it's just easy enough for me to accept the legal definition of what a human is until such time as science can provide more empirical proof that we humans are metaphysically equal to (as you pointed out) a Great Ape.
I'm not sure that many people could do that, either.
A bonobo said (sign language) of another bonobo, "He says not true." No one had ever explained the concept of "lying". The bonobo developed and communicated an abstract idea.
Is that sufficient?
This crow is using tools, too. Maybe it's not so much how we're different, it's now much we are alike.
Dowser....That is so cool! I have seen this before, but, completely forgot about it, thanks for posting this. Animals sure know how to have fun....
Octopi are extremely intelligent! I think they're neat, too!
(Sorry, I don't know which word to use for more than one octopus.)
Crows are VERY intelligent-- they can learn to talk, and use the language correctly... They do more than just mimic.
And just think, we feel that dinosaurs were a dull lot.
What a great video! I had no idea they were so intelligent! Dear Dowser, I think you got it right.. "Octopi"
I say ALL animals, not just those "with human qualities", "deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment."
Mal's Revised Preamble:
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all creatures are created equal, that they are endowed by virtue of theirexistencewith certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.
I was trying to find a very cool video of an octopus solving puzzles and mazes.
Found this instead.
AMEN !!
M M...I know exactly what you mean!
Bob...I don't see any video..
I often imagine that a few centuries from now we will eat only synthetics. But the evolution of such an intimate and universal activity as eating will be both slow and gradual.
I see two levels, basic decency, and respect. We are seeing the beginning of basic decency, with the definition of minimum living conditions for food animals.
The attempt to obtain rights for a chimp was more than that. It was an effort to get respect for the chimp as a not-quite-person.
It's not a simple subject. Cattle and pigs only exist to be eaten. If we don't eat them... what becomes of them?
"Love" may be too anthropomorphic, but there is certainly affection. And intelligence. Both the affection and the intelligence are different from what we meet in people. Dogs are hierarchical and live in packs. Their relations with people are ordered by those characteristics.
Their primary sense, their smell, is a very secondary sense for us, so our perception of the world is very different. We see colors. Dogs smell time! A dog smells events that are past, and invisible to us.
It would not occur to us to deny personhood to a mentally challenged human who is incapable of affection, of learning, ...
It would not occur to (most of) us to confer personhood on a dog who can do more than that...
The octopus, up above.
Yes, Mal and Nona-- YES!
I know that if one of my dogs was in front of a speeding car I would give my life to save it. And I think that if it was in a situation to, it would do the same for me.
Same here!!
I'm sorry, I misread your statement...I saw the one with the coconut, I thought you had found the one with the mazes...I didn't see that you noted that you couldn't find it but posted the coconut in it's place.
I am not suggesting that killing animals to eat is inherently immoral. However, treating them cruelly while they are alive, whether it is for the purpose of raising them to eat or whatever reason the person keeps this chimpanzee caged in solitary confinement, IS immoral. Very nearly all animal life consumes other living things to survive.Special kudos to those who make a morally based choice not to eat animal flesh! I am a carnivore... still I do my best to find animal protein that has been raised humanly.
Sadly, I often imagine that a few centuries from now future humans will eat whatever they can mange to scrounge, in a world that has been plundered far beyond the point where it can sustain the current mass of humanity. And "WE", the people of this era, will be remembered as selfish,myopicgluttons.
Pork chops make me feel guilty... but they're SOooo good...
Seeing those poor maternity sows caged so they can't turn around is what make me feel guilty!
Ummm...
Different time frames?
I agree 100% !!
All of the time and money this twit is pissing away on legal foolishness could be put to far better use actually helping the animals he claims to care so much about.
It easily costs about $250,000 (+/-) to file and finance such lawsuits. The guy has now lost twice and is appealing this decision to the NY State Supreme Court.
To each their own I guess.
That's less than a dollar per Great Ape, in an attempt to gain them legal status... That doesn't sound so unreasonable.
I am of the belief that we should respect "ALL" living things!
You build one hell of a great argument... ... ...
... ... ... on total fantasy...
True. I'm a lot less confident about the rest of your tale, though. Have you read "To Serve Man" by Damon Knight? It's on this subject.
I do agree that "contact" is a useful tool when thinking about "personhood". Typically, we cite criteria like "speech", "using tools", "self-awareness", "abstract thinking",...
But it's not too hard to imagine an intelligent species descended from hive insects rather than mammals. The "individuals" might not be very intelligent at all, communicating with dance and pheromones, and "thinking" as a composite entity. Our criteria out the window!
I agree with you BF... safe habitat needs to be emphasised.
I agree Mal. Same thing with calves raised for veal. I don't eat either.
I hate to see pack animals that have social skills amongst their own kind. I hate to see dogs that spend their lives chained to a dog house or a chain or tree. They are forced to live a life with a floor of fecal matter and urine. I often see stray animals with collars with no identification or rabies tags to lead to their sick ex masters. Three animals were release down the road from where I live one was a beautiful looked to be a full or at least big part Poodle. A little brown dog was with it and was scarred to death of strangers or maybe people in general. Day later saw a young cat as well. This was just prior to our first big snow storm. Home they lived through the snow freezing rain. The young cat eats at my house but cannot get near it yet. At least its well fed and has access to dry cover but seems to be happier in my huge blue spruces up inside the huge tree limbs.
Would love to see the chimps moved to an open habitat zoo for chimps. Gorillas not sure. Why cannot people drop dogs and cats to no kill facilities that exist for both. Usually mad boy friend or ex boyfriend or ex husband and yes sometimes ex girl friend or ex wife dump their ex's animals in spite. Here they dump them at corner close to a Vets. Suspect the animal is supposed to know a vet might help. People do this kind of shit to children and people granted less often but it happens.