Mixing
Trial: If an animal has human or near-human intellect, how might a western legal system determine its personhood?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Suppose humans are living in conjunction with several intelligent and communicative species of animals, dogs and cats for example. These animals might be legally considered people; being held accountable for their crimes, paying taxes, etc. Suppose then, that a new animal, whose intelligence and potential for communication is unknown, commits a crime, or interacts with the legal system in some other way.
How might the legal system of this hypothetical multi-species society determine whether or not the new animal was, legally, a person?
culture fauna law
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Suppose humans are living in conjunction with several intelligent and communicative species of animals, dogs and cats for example. These animals might be legally considered people; being held accountable for their crimes, paying taxes, etc. Suppose then, that a new animal, whose intelligence and potential for communication is unknown, commits a crime, or interacts with the legal system in some other way.
How might the legal system of this hypothetical multi-species society determine whether or not the new animal was, legally, a person?
culture fauna law
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Suppose humans are living in conjunction with several intelligent and communicative species of animals, dogs and cats for example. These animals might be legally considered people; being held accountable for their crimes, paying taxes, etc. Suppose then, that a new animal, whose intelligence and potential for communication is unknown, commits a crime, or interacts with the legal system in some other way.
How might the legal system of this hypothetical multi-species society determine whether or not the new animal was, legally, a person?
culture fauna law
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Suppose humans are living in conjunction with several intelligent and communicative species of animals, dogs and cats for example. These animals might be legally considered people; being held accountable for their crimes, paying taxes, etc. Suppose then, that a new animal, whose intelligence and potential for communication is unknown, commits a crime, or interacts with the legal system in some other way.
How might the legal system of this hypothetical multi-species society determine whether or not the new animal was, legally, a person?
culture fauna law
culture fauna law
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 11 mins ago
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
asked 3 hours ago
Irving Washington
826
826
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Irving Washington is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The main issue here is not if this new animal should be considered a person, but if it is capable of knowing what they did was a crime.
If they are able to understand what crime is, then they should be punished and treated like any other person and (by default) be considered a person. If they are not able to understand, then they should still be contained in some way so that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
In the US at least, there are laws governing cases where the defendant may not be able to understand what they did was a crime, such as the defendant being insane, very young, or otherwise mentally unfit to stand trial or be considered responsible for their actions.
This new animal would likely have sessions with forensic psychologists in order to judge how mentally fit they are. The psychologists' medical report would be used by the judge to determine if the defendant is intelligent/sane enough to even stand trial, and by the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of the crime or not.
If considered fit enough to stand trial, a guilty verdict would mean the new animal receives a full punishment, but also shows that they deserve to be considered a person. A not-guilty verdict could still mean that they deserve to be a person, but are simply insane and should go to your world's equivalent of a psychiatric hospital.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They would not. Such a declaration of personhood would occur long before this individual committed a crime.
The judicial system is an internal system, managed inside a group such as a nation. It does not come alone. With this concept of finding people guilty and punishing them comes the concept that you can't do whatever you want to your neighbor. You can't kill them just because they played their stereo loudly. Well, you may have the physical capacity to do so, but the group says "No. You don't go around killing people that way." Instead, you say "We have a system of justice that will take care of this vile loud stereo player for you."
So the idea of some alternate intelligent creature getting held responsible for their actions comes hand in hand with said alternate intelligent creature binding themselves to not take justice into their own hands (or claws, or whatever). It's two halves of the same contract.
That process happens more slowly, and should be rather cemented in place long before a trial has to question whether they are a person or not.
The exception to this would be a monumentally extravagant situation, such as if this alternate intelligence wiped out a city block or two. In such cases, people may not accept the "the law will take care of this" if the law says the creature gets off scott free because they weren't a person. In such cases, there would be a large number of emergency meetings to deducde what to do with this creature.
The content of these meetings would be incredibly event-specific, so its hard to expand on what they would look like. Emotions, forensics, politics. Everything would play a part.
For an example of what the slow methodical process might look like, I highly recommend Bicentennial Man (a.k.a. The Positronic Man). Book or movie, both do a good job of demonstrating what the bureaucracy might look like.
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can look to the history of racial personhood for some insights
Throughout history, some groups were given lesser statuses in society as a result of perceived shortcomings. They were even sometimes referred to as animals because of the belief that they were less intelligent. Such an occurrence could definitely take place in your world.
For example, whichever society is more advanced at a given time may see the less advanced society (whether it be animal or human) as inferior and draw the incorrect conclusion that the lack of comparable progress is a consequence of intelligence difference even if intelligence is comparable. This may lead to poor treatment of the less advanced society.
As members of that less advanced are incorporated into the more advanced one, it will become apparent that the intelligence is not different on aggregate and people may advocate for equality for those persons. Perhaps it is a slow process with multiple steps (like in the case of the American 3/5 compromise) or one large movement brings the group to person status. Even then, there will likely be some people (or even institutions) who don't see the other species as a person (or at least an equal person) for whatever reason. This could be something worth exploring to add depth to the world.
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Western legal tradition has no method of determining personhood, except by legislative fiat. A law is passed, or an amendment is added to a constitution.
Thus, one would need some political movement that advocated for the legal personhood of a non-human animal. Hopefully the animal's not too tasty, because this could easily require decades of activism.
Recently PETA tried something like this in the United States, and their arguments were thoroughly rejected. Presumably your animal might be sapient, and could make its own arguments, which whatever their merits were might be enough to sway... I imagine judges and senators might be impressed with a talking wallaby or whatever.
In fiction, you might have some metaphysical gobbledygook device that just gives you an oracular answer. If western science has come to agree with that machine, it might itself be sufficient (assuming legislation has caught up). There exists no sound scientific basis for such a machine. There exists no sound theoretical basis for what constitutes sapience/personhood/sentience.
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The main issue here is not if this new animal should be considered a person, but if it is capable of knowing what they did was a crime.
If they are able to understand what crime is, then they should be punished and treated like any other person and (by default) be considered a person. If they are not able to understand, then they should still be contained in some way so that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
In the US at least, there are laws governing cases where the defendant may not be able to understand what they did was a crime, such as the defendant being insane, very young, or otherwise mentally unfit to stand trial or be considered responsible for their actions.
This new animal would likely have sessions with forensic psychologists in order to judge how mentally fit they are. The psychologists' medical report would be used by the judge to determine if the defendant is intelligent/sane enough to even stand trial, and by the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of the crime or not.
If considered fit enough to stand trial, a guilty verdict would mean the new animal receives a full punishment, but also shows that they deserve to be considered a person. A not-guilty verdict could still mean that they deserve to be a person, but are simply insane and should go to your world's equivalent of a psychiatric hospital.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
The main issue here is not if this new animal should be considered a person, but if it is capable of knowing what they did was a crime.
If they are able to understand what crime is, then they should be punished and treated like any other person and (by default) be considered a person. If they are not able to understand, then they should still be contained in some way so that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
In the US at least, there are laws governing cases where the defendant may not be able to understand what they did was a crime, such as the defendant being insane, very young, or otherwise mentally unfit to stand trial or be considered responsible for their actions.
This new animal would likely have sessions with forensic psychologists in order to judge how mentally fit they are. The psychologists' medical report would be used by the judge to determine if the defendant is intelligent/sane enough to even stand trial, and by the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of the crime or not.
If considered fit enough to stand trial, a guilty verdict would mean the new animal receives a full punishment, but also shows that they deserve to be considered a person. A not-guilty verdict could still mean that they deserve to be a person, but are simply insane and should go to your world's equivalent of a psychiatric hospital.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The main issue here is not if this new animal should be considered a person, but if it is capable of knowing what they did was a crime.
If they are able to understand what crime is, then they should be punished and treated like any other person and (by default) be considered a person. If they are not able to understand, then they should still be contained in some way so that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
In the US at least, there are laws governing cases where the defendant may not be able to understand what they did was a crime, such as the defendant being insane, very young, or otherwise mentally unfit to stand trial or be considered responsible for their actions.
This new animal would likely have sessions with forensic psychologists in order to judge how mentally fit they are. The psychologists' medical report would be used by the judge to determine if the defendant is intelligent/sane enough to even stand trial, and by the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of the crime or not.
If considered fit enough to stand trial, a guilty verdict would mean the new animal receives a full punishment, but also shows that they deserve to be considered a person. A not-guilty verdict could still mean that they deserve to be a person, but are simply insane and should go to your world's equivalent of a psychiatric hospital.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
The main issue here is not if this new animal should be considered a person, but if it is capable of knowing what they did was a crime.
If they are able to understand what crime is, then they should be punished and treated like any other person and (by default) be considered a person. If they are not able to understand, then they should still be contained in some way so that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
In the US at least, there are laws governing cases where the defendant may not be able to understand what they did was a crime, such as the defendant being insane, very young, or otherwise mentally unfit to stand trial or be considered responsible for their actions.
This new animal would likely have sessions with forensic psychologists in order to judge how mentally fit they are. The psychologists' medical report would be used by the judge to determine if the defendant is intelligent/sane enough to even stand trial, and by the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of the crime or not.
If considered fit enough to stand trial, a guilty verdict would mean the new animal receives a full punishment, but also shows that they deserve to be considered a person. A not-guilty verdict could still mean that they deserve to be a person, but are simply insane and should go to your world's equivalent of a psychiatric hospital.
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
answered 2 hours ago
Giter
9,41842030
9,41842030
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
great answer. Different species are essentially treated as different races in real world. Emergence of new species is like discovery (or branching) of a new race.
– Bald Bear
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They would not. Such a declaration of personhood would occur long before this individual committed a crime.
The judicial system is an internal system, managed inside a group such as a nation. It does not come alone. With this concept of finding people guilty and punishing them comes the concept that you can't do whatever you want to your neighbor. You can't kill them just because they played their stereo loudly. Well, you may have the physical capacity to do so, but the group says "No. You don't go around killing people that way." Instead, you say "We have a system of justice that will take care of this vile loud stereo player for you."
So the idea of some alternate intelligent creature getting held responsible for their actions comes hand in hand with said alternate intelligent creature binding themselves to not take justice into their own hands (or claws, or whatever). It's two halves of the same contract.
That process happens more slowly, and should be rather cemented in place long before a trial has to question whether they are a person or not.
The exception to this would be a monumentally extravagant situation, such as if this alternate intelligence wiped out a city block or two. In such cases, people may not accept the "the law will take care of this" if the law says the creature gets off scott free because they weren't a person. In such cases, there would be a large number of emergency meetings to deducde what to do with this creature.
The content of these meetings would be incredibly event-specific, so its hard to expand on what they would look like. Emotions, forensics, politics. Everything would play a part.
For an example of what the slow methodical process might look like, I highly recommend Bicentennial Man (a.k.a. The Positronic Man). Book or movie, both do a good job of demonstrating what the bureaucracy might look like.
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
They would not. Such a declaration of personhood would occur long before this individual committed a crime.
The judicial system is an internal system, managed inside a group such as a nation. It does not come alone. With this concept of finding people guilty and punishing them comes the concept that you can't do whatever you want to your neighbor. You can't kill them just because they played their stereo loudly. Well, you may have the physical capacity to do so, but the group says "No. You don't go around killing people that way." Instead, you say "We have a system of justice that will take care of this vile loud stereo player for you."
So the idea of some alternate intelligent creature getting held responsible for their actions comes hand in hand with said alternate intelligent creature binding themselves to not take justice into their own hands (or claws, or whatever). It's two halves of the same contract.
That process happens more slowly, and should be rather cemented in place long before a trial has to question whether they are a person or not.
The exception to this would be a monumentally extravagant situation, such as if this alternate intelligence wiped out a city block or two. In such cases, people may not accept the "the law will take care of this" if the law says the creature gets off scott free because they weren't a person. In such cases, there would be a large number of emergency meetings to deducde what to do with this creature.
The content of these meetings would be incredibly event-specific, so its hard to expand on what they would look like. Emotions, forensics, politics. Everything would play a part.
For an example of what the slow methodical process might look like, I highly recommend Bicentennial Man (a.k.a. The Positronic Man). Book or movie, both do a good job of demonstrating what the bureaucracy might look like.
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
They would not. Such a declaration of personhood would occur long before this individual committed a crime.
The judicial system is an internal system, managed inside a group such as a nation. It does not come alone. With this concept of finding people guilty and punishing them comes the concept that you can't do whatever you want to your neighbor. You can't kill them just because they played their stereo loudly. Well, you may have the physical capacity to do so, but the group says "No. You don't go around killing people that way." Instead, you say "We have a system of justice that will take care of this vile loud stereo player for you."
So the idea of some alternate intelligent creature getting held responsible for their actions comes hand in hand with said alternate intelligent creature binding themselves to not take justice into their own hands (or claws, or whatever). It's two halves of the same contract.
That process happens more slowly, and should be rather cemented in place long before a trial has to question whether they are a person or not.
The exception to this would be a monumentally extravagant situation, such as if this alternate intelligence wiped out a city block or two. In such cases, people may not accept the "the law will take care of this" if the law says the creature gets off scott free because they weren't a person. In such cases, there would be a large number of emergency meetings to deducde what to do with this creature.
The content of these meetings would be incredibly event-specific, so its hard to expand on what they would look like. Emotions, forensics, politics. Everything would play a part.
For an example of what the slow methodical process might look like, I highly recommend Bicentennial Man (a.k.a. The Positronic Man). Book or movie, both do a good job of demonstrating what the bureaucracy might look like.
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
They would not. Such a declaration of personhood would occur long before this individual committed a crime.
The judicial system is an internal system, managed inside a group such as a nation. It does not come alone. With this concept of finding people guilty and punishing them comes the concept that you can't do whatever you want to your neighbor. You can't kill them just because they played their stereo loudly. Well, you may have the physical capacity to do so, but the group says "No. You don't go around killing people that way." Instead, you say "We have a system of justice that will take care of this vile loud stereo player for you."
So the idea of some alternate intelligent creature getting held responsible for their actions comes hand in hand with said alternate intelligent creature binding themselves to not take justice into their own hands (or claws, or whatever). It's two halves of the same contract.
That process happens more slowly, and should be rather cemented in place long before a trial has to question whether they are a person or not.
The exception to this would be a monumentally extravagant situation, such as if this alternate intelligence wiped out a city block or two. In such cases, people may not accept the "the law will take care of this" if the law says the creature gets off scott free because they weren't a person. In such cases, there would be a large number of emergency meetings to deducde what to do with this creature.
The content of these meetings would be incredibly event-specific, so its hard to expand on what they would look like. Emotions, forensics, politics. Everything would play a part.
For an example of what the slow methodical process might look like, I highly recommend Bicentennial Man (a.k.a. The Positronic Man). Book or movie, both do a good job of demonstrating what the bureaucracy might look like.
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
answered 2 hours ago
Cort Ammon
100k15177358
100k15177358
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can look to the history of racial personhood for some insights
Throughout history, some groups were given lesser statuses in society as a result of perceived shortcomings. They were even sometimes referred to as animals because of the belief that they were less intelligent. Such an occurrence could definitely take place in your world.
For example, whichever society is more advanced at a given time may see the less advanced society (whether it be animal or human) as inferior and draw the incorrect conclusion that the lack of comparable progress is a consequence of intelligence difference even if intelligence is comparable. This may lead to poor treatment of the less advanced society.
As members of that less advanced are incorporated into the more advanced one, it will become apparent that the intelligence is not different on aggregate and people may advocate for equality for those persons. Perhaps it is a slow process with multiple steps (like in the case of the American 3/5 compromise) or one large movement brings the group to person status. Even then, there will likely be some people (or even institutions) who don't see the other species as a person (or at least an equal person) for whatever reason. This could be something worth exploring to add depth to the world.
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can look to the history of racial personhood for some insights
Throughout history, some groups were given lesser statuses in society as a result of perceived shortcomings. They were even sometimes referred to as animals because of the belief that they were less intelligent. Such an occurrence could definitely take place in your world.
For example, whichever society is more advanced at a given time may see the less advanced society (whether it be animal or human) as inferior and draw the incorrect conclusion that the lack of comparable progress is a consequence of intelligence difference even if intelligence is comparable. This may lead to poor treatment of the less advanced society.
As members of that less advanced are incorporated into the more advanced one, it will become apparent that the intelligence is not different on aggregate and people may advocate for equality for those persons. Perhaps it is a slow process with multiple steps (like in the case of the American 3/5 compromise) or one large movement brings the group to person status. Even then, there will likely be some people (or even institutions) who don't see the other species as a person (or at least an equal person) for whatever reason. This could be something worth exploring to add depth to the world.
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You can look to the history of racial personhood for some insights
Throughout history, some groups were given lesser statuses in society as a result of perceived shortcomings. They were even sometimes referred to as animals because of the belief that they were less intelligent. Such an occurrence could definitely take place in your world.
For example, whichever society is more advanced at a given time may see the less advanced society (whether it be animal or human) as inferior and draw the incorrect conclusion that the lack of comparable progress is a consequence of intelligence difference even if intelligence is comparable. This may lead to poor treatment of the less advanced society.
As members of that less advanced are incorporated into the more advanced one, it will become apparent that the intelligence is not different on aggregate and people may advocate for equality for those persons. Perhaps it is a slow process with multiple steps (like in the case of the American 3/5 compromise) or one large movement brings the group to person status. Even then, there will likely be some people (or even institutions) who don't see the other species as a person (or at least an equal person) for whatever reason. This could be something worth exploring to add depth to the world.
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
You can look to the history of racial personhood for some insights
Throughout history, some groups were given lesser statuses in society as a result of perceived shortcomings. They were even sometimes referred to as animals because of the belief that they were less intelligent. Such an occurrence could definitely take place in your world.
For example, whichever society is more advanced at a given time may see the less advanced society (whether it be animal or human) as inferior and draw the incorrect conclusion that the lack of comparable progress is a consequence of intelligence difference even if intelligence is comparable. This may lead to poor treatment of the less advanced society.
As members of that less advanced are incorporated into the more advanced one, it will become apparent that the intelligence is not different on aggregate and people may advocate for equality for those persons. Perhaps it is a slow process with multiple steps (like in the case of the American 3/5 compromise) or one large movement brings the group to person status. Even then, there will likely be some people (or even institutions) who don't see the other species as a person (or at least an equal person) for whatever reason. This could be something worth exploring to add depth to the world.
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
answered 3 hours ago
David Coffron
1276
1276
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Western legal tradition has no method of determining personhood, except by legislative fiat. A law is passed, or an amendment is added to a constitution.
Thus, one would need some political movement that advocated for the legal personhood of a non-human animal. Hopefully the animal's not too tasty, because this could easily require decades of activism.
Recently PETA tried something like this in the United States, and their arguments were thoroughly rejected. Presumably your animal might be sapient, and could make its own arguments, which whatever their merits were might be enough to sway... I imagine judges and senators might be impressed with a talking wallaby or whatever.
In fiction, you might have some metaphysical gobbledygook device that just gives you an oracular answer. If western science has come to agree with that machine, it might itself be sufficient (assuming legislation has caught up). There exists no sound scientific basis for such a machine. There exists no sound theoretical basis for what constitutes sapience/personhood/sentience.
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Western legal tradition has no method of determining personhood, except by legislative fiat. A law is passed, or an amendment is added to a constitution.
Thus, one would need some political movement that advocated for the legal personhood of a non-human animal. Hopefully the animal's not too tasty, because this could easily require decades of activism.
Recently PETA tried something like this in the United States, and their arguments were thoroughly rejected. Presumably your animal might be sapient, and could make its own arguments, which whatever their merits were might be enough to sway... I imagine judges and senators might be impressed with a talking wallaby or whatever.
In fiction, you might have some metaphysical gobbledygook device that just gives you an oracular answer. If western science has come to agree with that machine, it might itself be sufficient (assuming legislation has caught up). There exists no sound scientific basis for such a machine. There exists no sound theoretical basis for what constitutes sapience/personhood/sentience.
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Western legal tradition has no method of determining personhood, except by legislative fiat. A law is passed, or an amendment is added to a constitution.
Thus, one would need some political movement that advocated for the legal personhood of a non-human animal. Hopefully the animal's not too tasty, because this could easily require decades of activism.
Recently PETA tried something like this in the United States, and their arguments were thoroughly rejected. Presumably your animal might be sapient, and could make its own arguments, which whatever their merits were might be enough to sway... I imagine judges and senators might be impressed with a talking wallaby or whatever.
In fiction, you might have some metaphysical gobbledygook device that just gives you an oracular answer. If western science has come to agree with that machine, it might itself be sufficient (assuming legislation has caught up). There exists no sound scientific basis for such a machine. There exists no sound theoretical basis for what constitutes sapience/personhood/sentience.
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
Western legal tradition has no method of determining personhood, except by legislative fiat. A law is passed, or an amendment is added to a constitution.
Thus, one would need some political movement that advocated for the legal personhood of a non-human animal. Hopefully the animal's not too tasty, because this could easily require decades of activism.
Recently PETA tried something like this in the United States, and their arguments were thoroughly rejected. Presumably your animal might be sapient, and could make its own arguments, which whatever their merits were might be enough to sway... I imagine judges and senators might be impressed with a talking wallaby or whatever.
In fiction, you might have some metaphysical gobbledygook device that just gives you an oracular answer. If western science has come to agree with that machine, it might itself be sufficient (assuming legislation has caught up). There exists no sound scientific basis for such a machine. There exists no sound theoretical basis for what constitutes sapience/personhood/sentience.
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
answered 26 mins ago
John O
20415
20415
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Irving Washington is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Irving Washington is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Irving Washington is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Irving Washington is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126029%2ftrial-if-an-animal-has-human-or-near-human-intellect-how-might-a-western-legal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
That's a difficult question, because what is known as "western legal system" would not likely be formed in this world.
– Alexander
3 hours ago