Rational Thinkers Versus Non-rational Thinkers: The Quest For Legal Reconstruction

     Rational Thinkers Versus Non-rational Thinkers: The Quest For Legal Reconstruction

By: Kyanna Gonzalez


    The debate over last week’s New York City court ruling has sparked media attention across the nation as an elephant residing at the Bronx zoo was denied legal personhood. The Nonhuman Rights Project invoke a legal battle over the confinement of an elephant named Happy at the Bronx Zoo, NY. Using the common law of habeas corpus, the Nonhuman Rights Project deemed Happy’s detainment illegal and advocated for the elephant to be transferred to a sanctuary. The court panel deemed Happy as a non-human entity and thus does not fall under the common law of Habeas Corpus, a law that requires a court review for a person's release from detainment or confinement (Torrella 2022). Furthermore, personhood in the US legally excludes animals from being considered a person/human with rights and for Happy’s case, this is why she was legally denied the right to be removed from the Bronx zoo and transferred to an elephant sanctuary. 

    Statements made by the Wildlife Conservation Society, the managers of the Bronx Zoo, criticized the Nonhuman Rights Project for their court proceedings by highlighting that Happy could suffer from being uprooted and transferred to a new habitat. They continue on by illustrating that Happy would not technically be set free in the wild but she would be confined in another habitat regardless of the establishment (Torrella 2022). On the other hand, The Nonhuman Rights Project founder and president Steven Wise illustrates how research suggested that elephants like Happy have self-awareness and are autonomous, the ability to be self-directing and independent. Due to their ability to be self-aware and independent, in Wise’s perspective, elephants should be eligible to qualify for habeas corpus. 

Granting animals human rights could have drastic impacts on society and the legal system itself, or so Chief Judge Janet DiFlore argues (Torrella 2022). While granting Happy human rights would spark an increase in nonhuman rights court hearings, the end of domestication, and a change in the legal system to include non-rational animals as persons, the effects of animals not having rights have led animals to be exploited for human pleasure and or benefit but as well as environmental harm. 

Humans are a part of the animal kingdom but we ourselves have created a separation between ourselves and the idea of what it means to be an animal. While not all animals are rational thinkers or can communicate through written or verbal language, all animals deserve the ability to exist naturally as they are meant regardless of human interaction. Human interaction has inhibited the ability of nonhuman animals to exist without being viewed as a resource. The socially constructed idea of animals as a resource or tool for human benefit needs to be altered. Animals do not need to be given legal rights in order to be able to naturally exist. Laws that prohibit any animal captivity for pure recreation or pleasure could be implemented. This would include prohibiting further pet breeding and animal confinement in zoos and petting zoos. Although Happy will continue to reside at the Bronx Zoo in New York City, the awareness of nonhuman animal rights has increased and will continue to advocate for the societal and legal reconstruction of personhood and animal rights. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Hidden Truth About Man-Made Chemicals: Toxic Chemicals In the U.S

Image
  The Hidden Truth About Man-Made Chemicals: Toxic Chemicals In the U.S  By: Kyanna Gonzalez In Kirsten Stolle’s exhibit titled Only You Can Prevent a Forest , Stolle used multiple art pieces to highlight the horrific acts major chemical companies commit upon the environment and its people. More specifically, the language and propaganda used by major chemical production companies were showcased in artistic ways, capturing the irony of how chemical agents advertise their products to consumers in the U.S. Positive pop art and bright colors in advertisements found in magazines continue to mask how deadly and problematic these chemicals are when used on a global scale. While research has shown that these chemicals are negatively affecting the environment and human health, these chemicals are still being distributed and used within the United States. Historically, the green revolution introduced the use of pesticides and fertilizers to produce higher-yielding crops and crops in areas that h
Read more

Invasive Species: For the Better and For the Worst

     Invasive Species: For the Better and For the Worst By: Kyanna Gonzalez        Invasive species, for the most part, have a bad reputation in regard to environmentalists and biologists. Interestingly enough, some invasive species can benefit native populations who are endangered by providing an abundant source of food. In the article “ Pigs to the Rescue: An Invasive Species Helped Save Australia’s Crocodiles” Anthony Ham writes how with over twenty-million residing in Australia, feral pigs are considered an invasive species and are estimated to contribute to the major loss of mammalian life as well as habitat loss. Arriving in the late eighteenth century with European settlers, the feral pig population expanded across Australia in the 1980s when the wild buffalo populations plummeted in part due to human efforts to contain the buffalo population growth (Ham 2022). With more available resources and land to grow, feral pigs grew to become an abundant source of food for a native ape
Read more