quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
They aren't, they are sued civilly because it is a civil matter.
What crime took place? What criminal intent or criminal negligence are the owners guilty of?
Owning a dog - legal
fencing a dog - legal
having dog escape from fence - nuisance law (not criminal)
dog chews face - not an act of the owner
If a dog shows a propensity to violence and then the owner fails to take additional steps to prevent injury, it could be criminal.
Basic premise of criminal law is that things are made crimes to discourage the activity. What activity is discourage by filing felony charges when a dog bites someone? It discourages dog ownership and/or socializing of ones animal. If I am in fear of going to prison, losing my bar license, my job, my house and everything else for walking my damn dog... I'm not likely to do so. Which would result in a less social animal and a higher risk of a bite should it ever encounter people.
What good will this accomplish again?
What it would do is hopefully discourage people from breeding and owning known vicious dogs, and properly training and keeping their animals leashed.
What about the basic freedoms of the victims of these dog attacks? Why should I have to worry about walking around my neighborhood and being the victim of a dog attack? When are the dog owners rights to personal freedom more important than mine?
Owning a dog is a priveledge and a huge responsibility- if you can't control or train your dog properly then you have no right to own it. Also, if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences of the actions of your animal (which you have complete responsibility for) then you have no business owning it.
BTW, this legislation applies to serious injury attacks outside the owner's property. This means the dog is either unproperly trained, unleashed, is prone to attacking people or (most likely) all of the above. The owner should be charged with a felony IMO.
