Dissertation of Laws against Animal Cruelty and for
protecting Animal Feeders in Different Countries
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Executive Summary
The
possible conditions about laws to stand against animal cruelty and for
protecting animal feeders have the potentials of widespread changes, as well as
some similarities among different countries. This effectively gives enough
reason for launching a research, which would present effective outcomes and
results, which would present some important answers to the existing unfulfilled
questions. Through careful contextual factors and conditions about, the
research showcase the centrality and umbrella-like influence of animal cruelty
laws to actual manifestations like used for protecting animal feeders.
Additionally, other considerations were central in portraying the circumstances
and conditions as well.
Table
of Contents
1. Introduction
5. Conclusion
1. Introduction
When tackling the topic about laws concerning animals,
there is a legitimate challenge since this covers a wide area of many topics
comprising entire countries’ numerous legal codes and statutes. It is why this
dissertation is generally focused upon two distinct yet interrelated topics.
Animal cruelty, by normative view of the law, is the infliction by humans the
commission or omission of suffering and/or harm toward non-humans (Sauder, 2000).
Providing to protection for animal feeders generally relate to individuals or parties
who take to providing necessary food for consumption to non-humans. Such people
are generally threatened by a number of external forces actions like verbal
abuse, physical violence as well as constructed or derived legal action like
threats for eviction (Li & Davey, 2013). Nevertheless to properly
understand these would require getting into the umbrella concepts like animal
rights and animal welfare respectively.
1.1 Animal Rights and
Welfare in terms of preventing cruelty and protecting feeders
The
point about including the ideas, concepts, questions etc. regarding the
treatment and behaviors against animals included some questions being presented
throughout human history. For instance, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebooks displayed
the emotion of anger he felt towards humanity raising animals for slaughter.
However, French philosopher Rene Descartes believed that non-humans or animals
are ‘functioning automata’, basically meaning that they are complex machines
with no soul, reason or mind to actually compare with humans (Srinivasan, 2013).
Nevertheless, it was Charles Darwin’s seminal theory of evolution, which fully
painted the picture of the relationship that humans had with other species.
Despite what Descartes had claimed before, there was noted sign usage in
complex forms, use of tools and a certain extent of self-consciousness, which
were evident within some animals (Sauder, 2000). Social, moral and mental orientation is
evident under the theory of evolution for animals; however, as noted by contemporary
philosopher Nigel Warburton, humans have sought to use animals as they see fit
with the dominance of justifying their underlying differences from human
beings.
Animal
rights and welfare is mostly based upon the following terms, and often end up point
to the fact that capacity of suffering constitutes the main focus of
discussion. This is the current point of basis that laws against animal cruelty
and for protecting animal feeders have become so prominent under judicial
conditions and statements in so many places and nations (Srinivasan, 2013).
The notion of life-hood, and the conditions of suffering that animals have to
experience has immense magnitude in terms of occurrence. Taking, for example,
the questions about animal cruelty could constitute legitimate concerns about
the conditions, policies and functions of factory farms in general (Sauder, 2000).
Or, they could potentially involve a random act of inflicting physical violence
in the hopes of gaining something, such as entertainment in circus or video.
Additionally, the point about inflicting cruelty could be seen as an act or
behavior to be attained as an end by one, which also constitutes a legitimate
case of animal cruelty.
The
need for protecting animal feeders generally originate from wider social
concerns about recognizing the concepts of animal rights and welfare. It
applies to people specifically in terms of protecting those who satisfy the
needs of animals from a specific perspectives. There are certain animal species
who have been first domesticated by humans, and then eventually remain within
the human society (Srinivasan, 2013). It could be seen as people owning
pets, or stray dogs and cats that remain localized in an area, depending
directly upon humans for their survival. Generally speaking, laws are aimed to
those who actually help in surviving with the term animal feeders generally
meaning those who provide food. However, in such a case of concerns, there have
been many instances of other humans looking for ways to prevent humans in terms
of actually see through their motivations and their resultant actions.
So,
both these topic areas are covered in the law in many countries across the
world, but the main question of this research focuses if there actually has
been proper coverage of legal policies and codes in such fashion. From the
previous paragraphs, it is quite evident that the occurrences of challenges and
cases under law (Srinivasan, 2013). The main point of question would be to seek
out and understand whether laws from different countries actually recognize the
scenario (Srinivasan,
2013), and is able to convey judgment with proper orientation and
recognition of animal rights and welfare respectively.
1.2 How Different Countries present the Laws that
prevent Animal and Protect the Animal Feeders
The
variations under the laws about the potential provision of recognizing legal
constructions under both these conditions and circumstances are highly relevant
and consequential. India, for example, launched the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (PCA) Act in 1960, and it has become the primary legal basis of seeking
proper animal rights and welfare in the country (Sorenson, 2003). Section 11
specifically provides the grounds for animal cruelty making it illegal to
inflict unnecessary pain or suffering or other causes, which could be
experienced by the animals (Srinivasan, 2013). For a long time, the details of
this Act was tantamount to a number of contradicting positions and
circumstances. These were, however, changed with the Indian Animal Welfare Act,
2011, which sought to classify animal cruelty as an offence and actually
increased the fine to a minimum of 10,000 INR on first time offences (Srinivasan, 2013).
However, the still active Act is still operable under the indication of opening
up possible exceptions like the killing of animals for food and for different
religious purposes of tradition and/ceremony (World Wildlife Fund, 2020).
These perspectives leave a great deal of opportunities for egregious actions of
animal cruelty to actually not receive a great deal of prosecution and the
achievement of justice.
Sections
428 and 429 of the PCA, 1960 mentions that it is illegal to cause any injury or
maiming to animals, even those that are stray and live close to human proximity
(Li &
Davey, 2013). Moreover, Section 11 ensures that it is illegal to poison
any animal regardless of their state. However, as one can note that there is no
specific provision in the law for protecting animal feeders in the country in
what is their lawful right to explicitly do so (Sorenson, 2003). Only the
point of the Animal Welfare Board of India issuing recognizable Identification
Documents have possible notion of preventing harassment from other people (World Wildlife
Fund, 2020). But, one can evidently view the apparent gaps under this
legal provision, as it leaves a great deal of options open for the many actors
in attacking and preventing animal feeders.
In
the United States of America, there is most definitely a different set of
conditions operating in terms of what the proposed legal conditions and
arrangements bring forward. The Animal Welfare Act, 1966 is the most prominent
law operating in the country, which potentially provides the legal instrument
in preventing animal cruelty, specifically in the federal level of governance (Sorenson, 2003).
However, this act only seeks to prosecute animal cruelty only under specific
conditions, including research, exhibition, transport and those who indirectly
profit as a business. Among other criteria, there are also Endangered Species
Act, 1973, which actually makes it illegal to kill an animal belonging to a
recognized endangered species (World Wildlife Fund, 2020), and Preventing Animal Cruelty
and Torture (PACT) Act, 2019, which makes egregious forms of animal cruelty
like crushing, burning, drowning etc. of all animals a federal criminal offense
(Sorenson, 2003).
However, the most important responsibilities in these legal codes within the
jurisdiction of states, which tend to offer laws that differ significantly. As
a balancing case, local governments of counties and cities also provide
necessary statutes of directing and presenting possible equitability in the law
of recognizing animal cruelty even if their respective states should not
recognize many of the required clauses and sections.
In
terms of protecting animal feeders, the question associates directly with most
state and local laws instituting legal statutes, policies and conditions,
mainly on the basis of companion animals and protecting wildlife (Srinivasan, 2013).
Feeders could specify their attention in any specific direction, but it
certainly poses a problem wherein the possible distinctions could not be made (World Wildlife
Fund, 2020). These laws have lately started associating with some
notable directions of presenting ‘hands on’ scenario to effectively require
reduction of harmful conditions and circumstances (Kelch, 2012). All these
points are all significantly associative of presenting and constituting
important factors (Kelch, 2012), which show the apparent failure to recognize such
occurrences and the problems that could be faced.
As
one can effectively witness, the apparent distinctions and differences between
animal cruelty laws and those protecting animal feeders are notable in India
and the United States (Kelch, 2012). However, there is certainly consistent
trends, which need to be address in terms of the contexts, conditions and
specificity covered under these grounds at large. (World Wildlife Fund, 2020)
These would comprise the overall conditions, which would provide the necessary
grounds of performing the exact research depending greatly upon the applying
details.
1.3 Research Problem
The
general specific conditions that apply to animal cruelty laws generally supply
with the observations that they essentially fail at achieving their ultimate
results. A number of possible reasons could apply to them, such as lack in
proper enforcing, a wide extent of possible exemptions and other incidental
factors (Kelch,
2012). The lack of proper, direct and actually effective composition of
legal statutes addressing the topic need to be explored in terms of what
different laws present under different jurisdictions. The matter with laws
protecting animal feeders offers a different scenario at large, which evidently
applies specifically to India in terms of instituting the conditions for
cruelty animals may happen or take place (Kelch, 2012). However, the case of United
States does not even go as effectively as it probably should (World Wildlife
Fund, 2020). This opens up the question whether occurrences against
animal feeders is as notable in many countries as they are in India, and what
exactly constituted the proper definition of the term ‘animal feeder’ (World Wildlife
Fund, 2020). These important questions all require helpful answers with
the help of the constituting circumstance of research questions mentioned
below.
1.4 Research Objectives
The
conditions associated with presenting the necessary of objectives of this
research are as follows:
·
To properly understand the ideas behind animal
rights and welfare, which went in to establishing these laws.
·
To find proper explanation of the lack in context
and background exactly why certain areas, small or big, of topic focus or area
are not actually covered.
·
To establish the relations between laws about
animal cruelty and laws that protect animal feeders.
·
Explain the significance behind the possible
conditions with respect to the challenges over the outcome of justice.
·
To underscore improvements in these laws in
certain directions and why exactly such things need to take place.
1.5
Research Questions
The effective conditions
that lie beneath specifying the exact answers, and what they actually mean or
be defined by could be distilled into a research question to be answered fully
and acceptably at the end of research. This may be shown as per the following:
What are the
commonalities in laws against animal cruelty and those for protecting animal
feeders in different countries, and what exact relations do they offer between
each other?
By that specific notion,
there are several research questions, which could be placed in terms of the
following:
·
What are the commonalities in laws against animal
cruelty in different countries?
·
What are the commonalities in laws for protecting
animal feeders in different countries?
·
Are there any relations between these two specific
legal coverage points?
·
What are the contexts and backgrounds under any
observation in law in any area in any country?
·
Do the current conditions and specifics regarding
both these areas acquiring legal attention require improvements, and if so,
what are they?
These sub-questions
distill and shall guide the necessary steps central to the research. They will
carry out the important points about gathering important information and data
at different points laying the groundwork either primarily or secondarily.
2. Literature Review
This chapter of the
dissertation shall specifically handle the secondary research, which is
necessary to the lay the informational basis against which research could take
place. A noticeable extent of this highlighting of secondary information of
research has been indirectly established in the first chapter. However, in this
specific case, the conditions relating to the research topic would see careful
breaking down as per the requirements of research questions. The most important
part involves all the different literature sources. As the name of the chapter
implies, the point is to take individual literature sources and review them in
terms of their information contribution and important to this particular
research. Sauder (2000), for instance, presents animal cruelty laws are
important in terms of legislature, law enforcement and society in terms of
linking animal cruelty and its manifestations with cruelty and violence with
those that occur between humans. This positions some points about thinking
about the entire state of affairs, and would consequently guide the necessary
information applied to this very research.
2.1
Overview of the laws against Animal Cruelty in Different Countries
Sauder (2000) does
provide some exceptional groundwork in exactly specifying the need for laws
punishing and classifying animal cruelty as an act of a felony crime. It states
how observable linkages within empirical data have been noted when tying up
data of animal cruelty, and other forms of interpersonal crimes. Nevertheless,
in the suggestions to prevent animal cruelty, Sauder (2000) also offers
important and distinctive relating
to enforcing and early intervention as necessary to prevent such a crime.
Sorenson (2003) addresses the addressing and changes to such laws in the
country of Canada, and reports on their opposition. The changes within the
country’s Constitution recognized only some specific financial punishments in
factory farms, as well as applying to the entire farm animals industry.
Nevertheless, on the slight observation of the smallest of legal threats, the
constitutive powers in such an industry acted out of bad faith in order to
propose the changes’ ultimate rejection. In a developed nation like Canada, it
argues for a recurrence of the possibilities that even the slightest concern
about animal rights and welfare could potentially bring forward an outraged and
damaging response.
Sorenson’s (2003) point
is certainly reflective of the failure to extend the power and effectiveness of
animal cruelty laws across countries for such a long time. Motivated by myopic
human purposes, they represent important distinctions highlighted with high
order inconsideration as to what extent animals experience suffering,
exploitation and other far worse results. Cassuto & Eckhardt (2016) present
the overview of the legal regimes under this particular focus of the law in the
countries of Brazil and the United States. Both these countries recognize the
philosophical and ideals based needs of protecting animals from cruelty.
However, they are also consistently notable in protecting the case for farm
animals as well as the farming industry to a significant extent. In that case,
Mitchell (2011) showcases how the inhumane treatment persists in farming, and
especially industrialized farming setting, which is also something that Cassuto
& Eckhardt (2016) do not fail to note or present as a notable factor when
all things are duly considered. Generally speaking, the political and economic
pressures that both these regimes face directly result in highlighting and
specifying the conditions related to overall ineffectiveness persisting with
these laws in terms of getting the results.
In understanding as to
how it exactly happens, one would only need to observe the discoveries
presented by Mitchell (2011) who states the conditions of moral disengagement.
Generally speaking, the author places these occurrences mainly because of the
technological transformations or machine based industrialization of factory
farming. As a result, the reported over 70% account of the extent of animal
abuses that realistically take place generally happen in a highly impersonal
and disengaged fashion. The economical relevance, according to Mitchell (2011),
is something that also cannot be considered separate as it also shapes the
public opinion and outlooks toward what exactly one is trying to attain or
achieve. Favre (2016) offers the existence of a treaty to extend and manifest
the possible results of animal cruelty. It is the author’s argument that
without a proper international and holistic agreement between nations, laws
that address this very topic cannot effectively provide with the desired
results altogether.
In light of all the
weaknesses and vulnerabilities that American laws present and uphold, it would
become innately helpful to consolidate a conjunction with attaining specific
ingredients from a separate culture and region, according to Chandola (2002).
The author includes the concern with Eastern philosophical tenets of preventing
animal cruelty and nonviolence. However, Chandola (2002) admits that it has not
produced exactly positive countries in India where most of these philosophies
and the school of thought emerges from. It all focuses upon how the upgradation
of these ideas and perspectives would take place, and how one can disseminate
in order to produce the most positive results. However, this same philosophical
outlooks share some important realizations about cow protectionism and
speciesism in India as shown by Narayanan (2018). The application is supposed
to have some notable consequences upon the entire ecological balance and
biodiversity.
Srinivasan (2013)
highlights important delineations about the case of the impact of bio-politics
in India and compares it with UK. By highlighting the understanding of dog
control and care, it highlights how more-than-human geographies play functions
in displaying animal rights and welfare. According to Srinivasan (2013), the
relevant points about Indian case is that dogs share the same physical and
ethical space, and legal, spatial and more-than-human geography result in some
form of co-constitution. Although it does not necessarily cover any
consequential aspects of welfare, rights in terms of letting those animals
exercise their being constitutes some empathy and concerns as opposed to the
masked and invisible euthanasia, neutering and breeding. The author argues that
Western legal systems often favor the ‘agential subjectification’ of what makes
these animals’ lives seem worthy to people. Narayanan’s (2018) case of cow
protectionism seems absolutely relevant and applicable in this case
wholeheartedly. It depicts how such developments could take place, and the
species based costs could prove to be highly damaging to the circumstances.
This is the overview of
laws that evidently present support and consolidate the necessary viewpoints on
animal cruelty laws. The complex underlying teachings and concepts provide
important sources of reflection moving forward.
2.2
Overview of Laws for protecting Animal Feeders in Different Countries
Unlike animal cruelty
laws, it is important to recall that the concept of legally protecting animal
feeders came from India. In the previous chapter, there was very less
occurrence in terms of transposing that law in the United States specifically.
Kelch (2012) provides with enough backgrounds and conditions into explaining
why the literal absence of legal codes provisioning for protecting animal
feeders. This is primarily based upon the conditions of what relationship
animals in the public space have with the humans existing in the public space.
In Western countries, the relationship is based upon executing public works and
agencies to generally remove prominent proximity between animals and humans
wherein both exist freely (Kelch, 2012). As a result, feeders in their general
sense is not always found in these specific jurisdictions. Donham et al. (2007)
provides necessary reasons in order to indicate what exactly constitutes the
non-inclusion of human feeders. In general, animals who are ‘strays’ in public
human spaces also become a prominent source of disease and other forms of harm,
such as going feral or violent. In Srinivasan (2013), this point has already
been very prominently portrayed and presented, as humans attacking and harming
stray animals tend to have an exchange basis in relationship. This point is
quite specifically relevant in order to properly understand why Donham et al.
(2007) argues is important for maintaining physical separation between human
society and animals.
Radford (2001) also
supports this viewpoint while noting the general sources of disease as a very
harmful consequence of having stray animals exist by themselves in human public
spaces. Often, these tend to become sources of some strain of disease sources,
which tend to be critical and challenging in the form of outbreaks. However,
Radford (2001) argues in presenting with the delineations that important
consequences of such laws preventing exist in jurisdictions where such animals
actually exist, and some people take the initiative to feed them. However, the
general conditions of social acceptance often implies some damaging scenarios,
for which the short end of suffering, pain and death almost always end up being
those animals. Kolbe (2013) generally idealizes the potential connections
between the circumstances, and the determining of fact that ‘concentrated
animal feeding operations’ in the United States farm factories generally imply
results that seem to share with normative public feeding as well. The author
specifically ties the reason in terms of the state of conditions, which persist
in those factories, and as time goes on, the conditions only worsen with time
(Kolbe, 2013). The conditions of laws not actually intervening and enforcing the
conditions as highlighted in light of the umbrella of animal cruelty legal
formula.
As pointed with Kolbe
(2013), the conditions associated feeding animals often correlates with
concerns and instances that almost always imply collective undertakings and
circumstances. Centner (2006) points to the fact about ‘nuisances’ to
neighbors, which ultimately motivates taking damaging measures affecting the
animals. It is primarily because the existence of such concerns are often
associated and directed with the aim of provisioning food implies the
persistence of such animals in neighborhood public places. Associations with
affective negative implications could mean probable retaliation against both
the animals and the people feeding them (Centner, 2006). In the case of the
former, familiar conditions of ways to hurt animals constituting as criminal
offenses have been put into statues and penal codes. However, the latter aspect
is something that has no direct precedents in terms of directly provisioning
necessary legal recourses in almost all of country jurisdictions, including
United States. India only addresses this condition separately with the help of
animal welfare agencies issued identification, which do not actually deter
measures for harm directly.
2.3
The Relations offered in between Laws against Animal Cruelty and Those that
protect Animal Feeders
Li & Davey (2013)
offers some helpful outlooks in order to establish what exact viewpoint must
persist in terms of delivering the relations between these two law areas
covered. The point specifically remains of close association with considering
those that stand against animal cruelty as constitutive in a basic actionable
composition of statutes. Primarily speaking, Li & Davey (2013) identifies
that laws standing against animal cruelty first generally makes the act of such
‘cruelty’ illegal. This associates with important philosophical and scientific
concepts as humans in modern society are better able to define and consolidate
pain, suffering and other important feelings, which such organisms could
potentially experience. These generally set that showing cruelty against animals
is punishable under the ‘normative’ conditions of ethics and morality; however,
some notable exceptions notwithstanding (Li & Davey, 2013). Satz (2009)
seemingly consolidates and idealizes the viewpoints with the help of which
animals in general appear as vulnerable subjects. Their treatment from humans
require exceptional consideration that goes beyond what would be considered as
normal behavior. Satz (2009) highlights how exactly the position with respect
to treating animals like property, arranging them under impersonal hierarchy
result in some specific interest-convergences on the whole.
It is why the notion of
animal feeding and laws to actually protect such people is legally
exclusionary. The points provided almost always end up providing reflections
about the state of affairs and the possible conditions being represented and
delivered. Satz (2009) highlighted the conditions wherein possible aspects of
protecting animal feeding ultimately presents a state of contradiction from
which proper solution is hard to come by. The outcome of feeding animals
generally relate to harms caused by a lack of regulation becoming manifested
and extensive, as highlighted by both Srinivasan (2013) and Kolbe (2013). Both
these literature sources, which are starkly different from one another and yet
seemingly produce contrasting outcomes upon the larger human society if feeding
is allowed to take place without any regulation. However, Arluke (2006)
indicates that no serious practical suppression is not actually happening in
terms of legal and judicial actions against both these contrasting scenarios.
These aspects are all highly relevant and consequential in presenting with the
different scenarios, reflecting this specific point of view.
It depicts that the
inherent ways in which the case of animal feeding impacts the more expansive
focus of animal cruelty is something that is very contradictory. However, if
one goes through comprehending the indications provided by Arluke (2006), it is
evident that those outcomes reveal different occurrences in different countries
and their jurisdictions. As the author points out, the question with presenting
and comprehending appropriate outcomes are all consistently responsible due to
conditions, circumstances and forces, which result in an environment composed
of various domains. Ascione & Shapiro (2009) present that cultural and
social trends and circumstances are evidently relevant in how the approach
towards exist in the juxtaposition of a rather consistent outlook in terms of
the entire state of animal cruelty. This is extremely important in pointing out
what the overall outcomes could potentially be directly in terms of the results
of the conditions. This would result some consistencies as showcased in the
overall consolidated legal statutes and composed sections, but would differ on
a general basis.
White (2009) provides
enough indications pointing to the facts and relations as to what extent of
conditions relate to both addressing animal cruelty and protecting animal
feeders in countries like the United States. This position is highly effective
and associative in with the legal status provided with ‘companion animals’, and
the straightforward delineations of responsibilities entailing that specific
position at large. In that sense, White (2009) provides outlooks and conditions
that come straight from the possible harm or suffering that animals could
endure in such a position, and what legal functions could be made possible with
the exercise in attaining justice. Robertson (2015) presents and consolidates
important viewpoints as to how differently the conditions of sociocultural
forces extend the presence of stray animals in a country like India. In terms
of such conditions, companion animals also apply to such scenarios, however,
under far less co-dependence and manifestations of direct care. Most of these
cases find animal feeders proliferating at the social level in juxtaposition
with animals, as opposed to direct owners (Robertson, 2015). The laws against
the umbrella of animal cruelty aim to cover the gaps of possibilities, which
would harm the animals at large and not associate direct with the feeders
directly. There are other penal codes in terms of person-to-person offences,
which could evidently cover such grounds. These are the relations for laws
protecting animal feeders with the laws against animal cruelty wherein the
former directly falls under the concerns of the latter, and other external
factors highlight how they would be formed and consolidated.
2.4
Current Conditions requiring Legal Changes and Improvements in the Future
It is possible to
consolidate the fact or the outlook wherein the conditions of legal conditions
standing against animal cruelty and protecting animal feeders are not producing
desired results. It is egregiously true for those that target overall animal
populations in every form, which is perhaps best explained by World Wildlife
Fund’s (2020) Living Planet Report. It highlights that wildlife across the
world has recorded a staggering 68% loss in terms of whole populations since
the year 1970. The implications of this case is wide scale biodiversity loss
all around, and the potential enhancement of exerting more damages to the
nature compared to what could be considered at any time before. This specific
point was already introduced by Sauder (2000), and produced some evident results
in terms of presenting changes to existing legal codes. The general detail in
that sense primarily dealt with problems in terms of enforcing interventions
for evidently preventing possible occurrences of crimes in these conditions to
take actually place.
Harrop (2011) presents
with helpful viewpoints, which directly portray and relate to the needs under
animal welfare as a whole need to be constituted under widespread environmental
conservation. This is important in terms of extending and painting the scenario
facing the human society at this current point in time. Things shall require
proper consolidation and extension of viewpoints, which would point to the
exact achievement of goals, and their potential circumstances all around. Leahy
(2011) also presents and consolidates some important conditions and factors,
which portray and consolidate some important results to be present altogether. These
tend to point out in delivering how important to address large scale tolerance
of animal cruelty that is actually accepted quite widely, and as normal in
human society. This argument specifically associates with such viewpoints in
terms of animal farming. Leahy (2011) goes as far as to argue that justified
treatment in these industries and companies under the laws underscore the
existing problems that directly lead to the perpetuation of animal cruelty in
its many forms.
In terms of all the
scenarios, Gacek (2019) presents some legitimately interesting and relevant
positions with understanding the existence of animal cruelty in human society
in the first place. These points generally highlight some interesting points
related directly with its large scale conditions, in terms of certain
conditions related to Leahy (2011). In presenting the possible reasons, there
are quite some evident conditions and outcomes directly related with evolving
conditions of dissociation, which occur among most people. Mitchell’s (2011)
highlights and outlooks relating to these conditions and circumstances all
present and consolidate this viewing dissociation that people go through when
it comes to the concerns about animal rights and welfare. These constructed
factors and persistent conditions would need to improve by evidently changing
the circumstances all across the board.
As a result, the review
of literature as presented above all consolidate and presented helpful outlooks
with potential results and outcomes to be presented. However, to actually get
to the correct results, it is important to present the conditions that relate
with primary research. They would present with the outcomes in different ways,
albeit in connection to these results at large and what they say in terms of animal
cruelty laws and laws protecting animal feeders.
3. Methodology
This chapter generally
associates with the methods and processes utilized and implemented for the
purposes of presenting with the results about primary research. The end goal is
all about constructing an appropriate and advantageous research design, which
would satisfy all the necessary points and provide the necessary results
(Mohajan, 2018). However, as is the case with specific research, contextual and
topic associated relations are important to present and reflect upon at large.
The case with the differing cases of laws against animal cruelty, and those
which apparently protect animal feeders has been explored with secondary
research into literature (Jamshed, 2014). All these points are highly relevant
in terms of methodology being related to philosophical outlooks and conditions
related and presented to provide the appropriate results at large.
3.1
Research Philosophy
Philosophy in research
is mainly concerned with presenting and associating with certain factors and
conditions about the establishment of knowledge. However, speaking about
research study as a consistently occurring phenomenon, there are evidently two
distinct avenues in which philosophy could potentially apply (Fletcher, 2017).
These include epistemology, or knowing some occurrence to be true, and
doxology, or believing some phenomenon or occurrence to be true (Mohajan, 2018).
The subtle differences that exist between the actions and outlooks of knowing
against believing generate evidently four distinct philosophical points
relevant in research (Jamshed, 2014). These include the polar opposite in
positivism and interpretivism, and more combined and factual pragmatism and
realism (Fletcher, 2017). Among them, pragmatic philosophy is the one that
should apply in this research because it confirms to associate with both
interpretivist and positivist viewpoints. Given that the underlying point about
this topic relates to contradiction of the tensions and contradictions in the
treatment of animals and the role of humanity (Jamshed, 2014), there is a
legitimate case that could be made in terms of why this philosophical road is
appropriate, especially in terms of all the applicable choices.
3.2
Research Approach
Approach refers to the plans
and procedures mentioned under the possible factors and circumstances on how to
exactly realize the research. However, these generally depend upon the choice
of approach being consequential to research upon the two major areas of
allocating different interests, which are consistent for the entire research
(Fletcher, 2017). These include both the factors of data collection and
analysis respectively. This researcher has selected that for data collection,
the approach chosen is inherently qualitative in nature (Jamshed, 2014). On the
other hand, data analysis shall involve the choice of approach in terms of
inductive viewpoint (Mohajan, 2018). The pattern that this choice specifically
offers is to draw upon real life occurrences, and go to generalize them in
terms of getting the necessary results.
3.3
Research Strategy and Design
This specific point
related to the case of strategy reflects the direct answer to the question how
exactly the method of research shall take place. The strategy for conducting
research in this case shall be primarily based upon live face-to-face
interviews. Questions shall be constructed upon the viewpoints of the main
research questions (Fletcher, 2017). The researcher would, however, prepare and
conduct the interview in a largely semi-structured format. This is because of
the different variations of answers of what might come forth. Moreover,
openings must be kept intact in order to exactly extent and manifest to
possible outcomes in terms of variabilities and tangential discussions and
narration, which would only serve in making the results robust and encompassing
(Jamshed, 2014). This research design would then conduct comparisons and
contrasts between the data that is obtained in the analysis and discussion part
of the research.
3.4
Sampling and Data Collection
The sampling in proper
ways of conducting interviews for the sake of primary research evidently took
some time. This was mainly because the sampling criteria for participating in
research was associations with the legal community as well as with animal
rights and welfare, which constituted important reflections and data inputs
being put in by all participants who were involved (Mohajan, 2018). The sample
size ultimately ended up being 10 in number, and this researcher collected data
with the help of semi-structured interviews. These generally took place with
the help of video conferencing app, which also was attached with an available
feature of recording every single interviews in full (Glesne, 2016).
Transcripts from interviews formulated the major conditions related to the
concepts of the circumstances and conditions (Fletcher, 2017), which required
to be conducted or take place in terms of presenting the necessary results.
3.5
Data Analysis
Analysis of data upon
this case generally takes place in terms of an inductive approach, as already
noted before. However, this shall mainly manifest with careful discursive
comparative analyses, which shall relate with different aspects and factors
(Fletcher, 2017). Such considerations include analyzing data in terms of all
the contrasts and differences, which occur conjunctively upon points in terms
of recurring interviews conducted by this researcher (Mohajan, 2018).
Furthermore, analysis could directly associate with relating with results,
which have been covered by literature previously and quite prominently. These
factors generally translate and associate with consolidating positions in terms
of information based relevance (Glesne, 2016), which would generate the results
in terms of correctively answering the research questions.
3.6
Ethical Considerations
Regarding the ethics of
primary research, the methodology also contains very prominent claim that all
forms of proper consent with respect to actions and decisions have been taken
by this researcher. More so than that, it is quite noticeably apparent that the
results reached are all reflective of the conditions, which are relevant in
terms of how exactly they are presented (Glesne, 2016). Maximum extent of
removing bias, other conditions and factors related to overall answers and
responses are consequential in terms of factors and circumstances are also
important ethical considerations (Glesne, 2016). Furthermore, application and
enforcement of governing institution’s guidelines and statutes all have been
followed to an extensive extent in this research.
4. Analysis and Discussion
This chapter is finally
focused upon delivering the results, which would emerge and develop in terms of
all the possible analyses taking place. This would mean that the data collected
primarily from interviews with animal cruelty legal experts would be presented,
analyzed and discussed. Moreover, the questions about how exactly they would be
delivered remains a very prominent part of the entire affair. Generally, this
researcher would provide anecdotes as quotes from the participants in light of
some context, which would be explained before or after. It is done for
providing levity and highlighting how the manifestation of knowledge toward
answering the research questions would actually take place. Additionally, there
is also a very careful consideration of linking the outlooks and view from interviews
with possible knowledge bases with literature.
4.1
Commonalities in Animal Cruelty Laws
As per the literature
addressing this question, there was evidently some notable similarities in
different countries, primary which involved the centrality of animal rights and
welfare. These aspects are highly relevant and consequential in terms of
consolidating the experiences and feelings faced by animals, in the face of
what normative treatment by humans actually state them to be (Sauder, 2000).
Animal cruelty laws are inherently based upon the fact of actively
commissioning aspects of causing the suffering and pain of animals with the
legal statute appearing as this unequivocal statement in most countries. So, it
makes sense in terms of seeking the appropriate responses whether law statutes,
which prominently outlaws acts of animal cruelty (Cassuto & Eckhardt, 2016),
are actually applicable in terms of delivering the appropriate results.
My own opinion is it is exactly not the case. Even
though it may appear as unequivocal, you need to observe the fact that actively
causing the pain and suffering needs to be the central cause. So, legal battles
end up proving whether that is the case in most instances. Moreover, the
definitions of causing pain and suffering in animals, and their produced
evidence are some different things that need to be addressed by the courts.
As is evident from this
response, the laws of animal cruelty appears only to provide unequivocal nature
of formulating this legal code among countries (Sauder, 2000). Taking into
consideration the Indian law, there have been many different changes, which
have required repeated amendments to be put in since its original point
(Cassuto & Eckhardt, 2016). This was explained very helpfully by another
interview participant:
India’s animal cruelty law is certainly one of the
most vulnerable things I have witnessed in my career. It’s an issue that is
very regularly politicized, and in spite of so many changes, they end up
continuing to be ineffective in producing the results that they exactly want to
achieve.
Obviously, the
conditions of amendments are also commonalities, which are shared by other
countries as well, most prominent amongst which involve the United States
(Favre, 2016). Nevertheless, what the literature produced as better
effectiveness in the animal cruelty laws of that country rests with its
multi-level state of jurisdiction at federal, state and local levels (Sauder, 2000).
Actionable evidences produce the desired results exactly in the way as they
appear.
Moreover, there are
quite a few cases of consolidating conditions and circumstances relating with
commonalities in terms of cruelty laws mentioning specific offenses on a
scenario basis (Srinivasan, 2013). These points are all relevant in pointing
out and presenting the circumstances, which are both shared among countries, as
well as differ to a highly variable extent altogether (Favre, 2016). All such
points are very carefully manifested along the lines of this interview response
at large:
Specifically, mentioning what constitutes as
offenses falling under animal cruelty is very important. The point about
legally proving that the animal suffered and experienced great pain to it
personal self of being is a hard thing. As a result, specifically indicating
actionable offenses toward all or specific animals indicates increasing
complexities of the entire affair.
The commonalities all
reflect closer abstraction to what the concepts and ideas of animal rights or welfare
say (Srinivasan, 2013). Nevertheless, the conditions that could be applied in
getting the results of wide scale prevention of animal cruelty remains a mixed
affair.
4.2
Commonalities in Laws protecting Animal Feeders
The laws for protecting
animal feeders, however, had very infrequent occurrences among the different
countries addressed and analyzed with the help of literature. Even in India,
where this point was supposed to emerge, the conditions apply to ‘stray’
animals living within the human society, albeit in a largely human dependent
fashion (Kelch, 2012). This makes them apparently open to invite violent
attacks and other results of harm (Centner, 2006). As a result, the connections
with the umbrella laws of animal cruelty all evidently apply to this specific
scenario.
India has a lot of stray animals, and that’s one
of the reasons that some people want to help them by feeding, while some
violently antagonize them. It creates a scenario in which requiring law to
apply to such scenarios must take place.
Furthermore,
participants all agree that preventing animals, like cats and dogs, to suffer
from the danger of human proximity requires public works to ensure their safety
(Kelch, 2012). However, there are several legislative caveats, which ultimately
lay down the ineffectiveness of such processes (Centner, 2006). These points
are all inherently true for the sake of provisioning the necessary reflection
as it would be required to portray attainable results and outcomes. As one
participant noted:
Even in the US, you will find animal care
facilities have reached to points of being overcrowded. Moreover, owners do not
want pets from such places, instead opting for fancy pet shops. As a result,
specific points of blockages and pouring through persists in these
circumstances.
These circumstances
create some important problems as a result of which maximum of such animals end
up getting euthanized. The conditions in India, as a result, involves
widespread ineffectiveness of such public services, and the existence of local
animal feeders persist. It offers stark differences in comparison to a country
like the United States (Kolbe, 2013). Nevertheless, even India does not have a
specific law, which protects the person and the interests of animal feeders,
whatever they might be (Kolbe, 2013). This is true except if the feeders sought
to actually harm the animals, which is an actionable offense under the law.
Remember that India does not have some specific
law protecting those who feed animals. Only some welfare organizations offer
identification, which makes such individuals their indirect affiliates. The
extent to which they actually go into preventing negative scenarios is truly
debatable.
As a result, it is a
very legitimate state of circumstances reflecting and presenting the lack of
explicit presence as the major commonality for this kind of law among different
countries.
4.3
Relations between these two Legal Areas
The literature in this
case did offer many valuable and important conditions, which straightforwardly
offered some important reflections. One is obviously the case wherein the laws
of animal cruelty happen to specify the conditions and circumstances of actual
crime in terms of official codes directives or precedents tend to associate as
an umbrella term (Li & Davey, 2013). This evidently leaves the room open in
terms of protecting animal feeders, which evidently justifies why they are
separately considered as separate legal statutes existing (Robertson, 2015).
This is what a large section of the participants feel about their relations.
Protecting animal feeders, as you phrase it, can
be covered with existing animal cruelty laws. If there is no legal wrongdoing,
any individual could continue serving and benefitting animals.
However, in inquiring
about the possibilities associated with many ways in which other individuals
could harm animals through some illegal means like poisoning, and the feeders
by legal measures implicatively, the responses were more mixed (Li & Davey,
2013). The most common among these were associated with the fact that it was a
policing matter not exactly a legal or judicial one (Robertson, 2015). Moreover,
these responses all commonly believed that positive results would come about
through judicial processes, the true extent of such results is generally not
possible.
It’s generally not a legal matter, and depends
upon the police or any other enforcing agency or organization. But, I believe
that correct results and justice focused results would emerge and result with
proper timing.
Additionally, there are
also laws that protect human-human interactions very specifically, as well as
by covering a lot of detailed legal grounds in different countries (Li &
Davey, 2013). This point certainly provides the infallibility of the animal
cruelty results, and there are certainly contextual and background problems
exist (Robertson, 2015), which need to be presented and discussed consequently.
4.4
Contextual and Background Conditions that explain the Successes and/or Failures
of these Laws
In analyzing and
discussing any legal case, it is greatly important to explain the contexts and
background conditions, which would inform successes and failures of the laws
that exist. The general discussions upon these cases often end up portraying
and highlighting some important details about the extent of exclusions that
happen in existing animal cruelty laws in different countries (World Wildlife
Fund, 2020). This is most notably associated with animal farming, which have
escaped most of the attention in terms of the underlying conditions that exact
and influence/impact the extent to which animal cruelty is allowed to take
place.
The animal farming industry is the main reason why
animal cruelty laws have failed for the most part in most countries. It is the
major reason why the volume of animal cruelty realistically exists to such a
significant extent, and there is little to no actions against its occurrence in
actuality.
The conditions in
portraying the results lie in the existence of visible dissociation, which
public suffers in front of their needs (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). Satisfying
those needs is the main state of concern for the animal farming industry
(Harrop, 2011). This results in a state of social contract with the wider
public to exist in exchange of satisfying the high share of needs, which
animals generally provide across the board.
The fact that society depends upon inconsiderate
and innately inhumane animal farming states more about the conditions that
exist as of this point in time.
This point as detailed
by a participant certainly paints the contexts, which remain consistent in
almost all populous countries across the world (Harrop, 2011). Because of that
very point one can see how the transposing of cruelty is still normalized to an
extent (World Wildlife Fund, 2020), and the animal cruelty laws remain largely
based upon suffering from enforcing ineffectiveness as well as general
non-intervention.
4.5
Possible Improvements that could be proposed in the context of These Laws
The improvements in
literature highlight the importance of composing the laws, which would
explicitly provide greater powers and abilities to enforce and intervene
(Harrop, 2011). Along these lines, participants tend to delineate and specify
the possible conditions alongside this point:
It is evident that animal cruelty laws need to be
better implementable by the authorities. However, the conditions are often
related to regarding what public opinion is present.
The above point is
relevant because careful conditions and factors all point to the fact legal
statute consolidations largely depend upon what public opinion apply to it. This
is highly relevant in terms of provisioning necessary outlooks and
understandings, which apply to these cases and conditions across the board
(Gacek, 2019). Nevertheless, attaining public interests and favors as a
developmental improvements speak by themselves. These conditions all portray
such factors to be applied.
Turning tide of public environment about animals
must take place as widely as possible.
However, important
positions and circumstances need to take place in relation to these conditions
need to be addressed by the animal farming directly (Gacek, 2019).
Interventions through regulation must be used to produce results in a space
where the cruelty takes place most widely.
5. Conclusion
All the indications
related to the points highlighted and portrayed in relation to laws specify
consistently within the context of animal cruelty in its basic form remains
consistently among many countries. However, the details evidently show
variations quite widely as many conditional occurrences are addressed in terms
of any kind of legal addressing. The laws for protecting animal feeders,
however, remain a matter that is derived from other laws, including animal
cruelty. Such statutes seek to protect the negative outcomes and results, which
may directly result from it. In that sense, animal cruelty laws formulate the
extensive conditions, which result in possible grounds for protecting animal
feeders with legal means. However, contextual information show the apparent
failures of these laws alongside others that address animals in society and the
environment. The improvements largely relate with points about extending the
conditions of enforcing and interventions as well as enforcing, applying to
animal farming industry directly, but having public opinion is also very
important in these cases.
Future considerations
could largely address the points that concern overall factors, which would
explore other forms of animal laws, addressing other topics and/or grounds of
challenging. Additionally, other approaches to analyzing them must also be
properly explored and consolidated. These would directly contribute towards
holistic recognition and possibilities improvement about these concerns at
large.
References
Arluke, A. (2006). Just
a dog: Understanding animal cruelty and ourselves. Temple University Press.
Ascione, F. R., &
Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research
directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3),
569-587.
Cassuto, D. N., &
Eckhardt, C. (2016). Don't be cruel (anymore): a look at the animal cruelty
regimes of the United States and Brazil with a call for a new animal welfare
agency. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 43, 1.
Centner, T. J. (2006).
Nuisances from animal feeding operations: Reconciling agricultural production
and neighboring property rights. Drake J. Agric. L., 11,
5.
Chandola, M. V. (2002).
Dissecting American animal protection law: Healing the wounds with animal
rights and Eastern enlightenment. Wis. Envtl. LJ, 8, 3.
Donham, K. J., Wing, S.,
Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., & Thorne, P. S. (2007).
Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal
feeding operations. Environmental health perspectives, 115(2),
317-320.
Favre, D. (2016). An
international treaty for animal welfare. In Animal Law and
Welfare-International Perspectives (pp. 87-106). Springer, Cham.
Fletcher, A. J. (2017).
Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets
method. International journal of social research methodology, 20(2),
181-194.
Gacek, J. (2019).
Confronting Animal Cruelty: Understanding Evidence of Harm Towards
Animals. Man. LJ, 42, 315.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson. One Lake Street, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Harrop, S. (2011).
Climate change, conservation and the place for wild animal welfare in
international law. Journal of Environmental Law, 23(3),
441-462.
Jamshed, S. (2014).
Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of
basic and clinical pharmacy, 5(4), 87.
Kelch, T. G. (2012). A
short history of (mostly) Western animal law: Part II. Animal L., 19,
347.
Kolbe, E. A. (2013).
Won't You Be My Neighbor: Living with Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations. Iowa L. Rev., 99, 415.
Leahy, C. L. (2011).
Large-Scale Farmed Animal Abuse and Neglect: Law and Its Enforcement. Journal
of Animal Law & Ethics, 63(4),
1-46.
Li, P. J., & Davey,
G. (2013). Culture, reform politics, and future directions: A review of China’s
animal protection challenge. Society & Animals, 21(1),
34-53.
Mitchell, L. (2011).
Moral disengagement and support for nonhuman animal farming. Society
& Animals, 19(1), 38-58.
Mohajan, H. K. (2018).
Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal
of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48.
Narayanan, Y. (2018).
Cow Protectionism and Bovine Frozen-Semen Farms in India: Analyzing Cruelty,
Speciesism, and Climate Change. Society & Animals, 26(1),
13-33.
Radford, M.
(2001). Animal welfare law in Britain: regulation and responsibility.
Oxford University Press.
Robertson, I. A.
(2015). Animals, welfare and the law: Fundamental principles for
critical assessment. Routledge.
Satz, A. B. (2009).
Animals as vulnerable subjects: Beyond interest-convergence, hierarchy, and
property. Animal L., 16, 65.
Sauder, J. G. (2000).
Enacting and enforcing felony animal cruelty laws to prevent violence against
humans. Animal L., 6, 1-21.
Sorenson, J. (2003).
Some Strange Things Happening in Our Country': Opposing Proposed Changes in
Anti-Cruelty Laws in Canada. Social & Legal Studies, 12(3),
377-402.
Srinivasan, K. (2013).
The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and
India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1),
106-119.
White, S. (2009).
Companion animals: Members of the family or legally discarded objects. UNSWLJ, 32,
852.
World Wildlife Fund.
(2020). Living Planet Report 2020. Retrieved from https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment