No Habeas For Chimps

An intermediate Michigan court unsurprisingly rejected a habeas appeal for chimpanzees. 

The claim was raised to obtain liberty for some chimpanzees allegedly being mistreated in a zoo. There are rules in place for the mistreatment of animals. Habeas protections provide a special level of protection against unjust detention. 

As part of the same framework, the common law treated animals as objects of property. Blackstone defined property as “that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” 

It is offensive that all animals, even chimpanzees, are treated as merely "property." Again, there are cruelty to animals laws that suggest they are at least a special species (ha) of property. This traditional despotic power is tempered somewhat in the modern day. 

I talked about this issue a few years ago when the highest court in New York rejected a similar claim as applied to an elephant. The Michigan Court of Appeals likewise worried about line-drawing for "intelligent" animals. 

Unlike the human species, which has the capacity to accept social responsibilities and legal duties, nonhuman animals cannot—neither individually nor collectively—be held legally accountable or required to fulfill obligations imposed by law.

And, noted non-humans are different in kind from women and slaves of all sexes (both are "persons" according to the Constitution). Such language can be pushed back upon. Babies are "persons" too, after all. But, generally speaking, yes, not the same, exactly.

[ETA: I am not sure how literally true the "legally accountable" bit is. Put aside that three-year-old human children are not held legally accountable. 

Dogs can be killed -- use the desired euphemism -- for vicious behavior. Non-human animals can be punished. They can be taught, like humans, to fulfill certain obligations and social responsibilities.

In return, we can have an obligation to treat them well. Before a dog is killed, there should be some due process. And, not just to protect an owner's "property." In medieval Europe, this was taken quite literally, with lawyers appointed and everything.]

Non-human animals, we can debate the line-drawing,* should not be treated as mere property. They have the intelligence, the ability to feel pain, and other aspects that warrant protection. Humans also have personal interests that warrant the protection of other animals. 

I don't know if a traditional habeas judicial proceeding is the best avenue to protect their interests. Yes, I would couch them in terms of "rights." But they should be protected. As with minors and others unable to adequately and independently defend their interests, special advocates can be appointed for this purpose. 

The legislature or the people, by constitutional change (some foreign nations protect animals in their organic law), would be the appropriate place to secure this protection. I hold to my earlier stance.

The current law warrants holding against the challengers. OTOH, two judges in NY did dissent. 

===

* Chimps are a somewhat easy case since higher primates are so closely related, including intellectually, to humans. Nonetheless, the earlier case involved elephants. I noted there that even birds, at least parrots, have shown special intelligence. 

Vegans and vegetarians draw their line in various places. Opponents will have a field day. One recent comment referenced jellyfish. Yeah. While you eat your veal, make a big deal about worms and such.

The line is going to be, at some point, somewhat arbitrary. Nonethless, like all "slippery slopes," some lines are reasonable. The general public does not think that cruelty to animals laws are stupid.

This remains so even if they step on bugs.