Can Threat Of Life In Prison Help Stop Dog Attacks?

[Panto]

http://www.care2.com/causes/can-threat-of-life-in-prison-help-stop-dog-attacks.html

Can Threat of Life in Prison Help Stop Dog Attacks?

• by Alicia Graef
• August 14, 2013
• 9:30 pm

New proposals in England and Wales could mean a life sentence in prison for someone whose dog fatally attacks a person.

Under the controversial Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), which was introduced following attacks in 1991, an owner whose dog attacks someone in public currently faces two years in jail or fines, or both, but government officials are considering changes in an effort to stop attacks and encourage responsible dog ownership.

One of the major changes being considered is increasing the penalties for owners of dogs who attack, which some believe aren’t severe enough currently, especially in cases where people have died. Officials have released a questionnaire that will be open until September 1 to ask the public what they believe the maximum sentence for owners of dogs who kill should be, which could be 7, 10 or 14 years in jail or even life imprisonment.

A 10 year sentence for owners of dogs who injure a person or kill a guide dog are also being recommended.

“Dog attacks are terrifying and we need harsh penalties to punish those who allow their dog to injure people while out of control. We’re already toughening up laws to ensure that anyone who owns a dangerous dog can be brought to justice, regardless of where a dog attack takes place. It’s crucial that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to stop such horrific incidents,” said animal welfare minister Lord de Mauley.

The proposals follow numerous incidents, including the high-profile case of Jade Anderson who was killed at a friend’s residence this spring. No charges will be brought against the owner of the dogs in that case because it happened on private property, which is another aspect of the DDA that officials hope to change.

According to the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), the government acknowledged that a life sentence was severe and disproportionate to the offense, comparing it to sentences for causing a death by careless and dangerous driving, which are 5 and 14 years, respectively.

However, some are welcoming tougher sentences. According to the Guardian, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) that represents postal, utility and delivery workers, whose members suffer an estimated 5,000 attacks every year, and charity Guide Dogs, whose assistance dogs are currently suffering an average of ten attacks a month, both support such changes.

Whether or not they’re fatal, the issue of dog attacks is unquestionably serious, but some are concerned about whether increasing sentences after the fact will actually do anything to reduce the number of attacks, which have increased significantly since the DDA was passed.

“Unless you solve this problem of people not being able to control their dogs properly then I still think you’re going to see a rise in dog attacks and dog biting,” David Bowles, head of public affairs for the RSPCA, told the BBC.

Others are supporting Dog Control Notices, which would give authorities the ability to force owners of dogs with questionable behavior to go through a training program, use leashes and muzzles in public, or alter their property to decrease the likelihood of an attack, among other things, which animal advocates believe is key to helping prevent attacks from happening in the first place.

Anderson’s parents are welcoming changes to the law, but are also pushing for more preventative measures, including community education.

With children being the most common victims of bites, educating communities about basic dog behavior and teaching children how to interact with dogs could go so much farther in dealing with this issue than targeting breeds or throwing people in jail after it’s too late.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/can-threat-of-life-in-prison-help-stop-dog-attacks.html#ixzz2c6UaNPBN

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Well one thing's for sure, in the UK there are far too many dog related deaths and far too many attacks happening. Probably many aren't even reported.

I think they should make penalties much harsher and increase the education. Far too many fwits with no knowledge of dog behaviour owning powerful and out of control dogs, hence all the problems.

[sandgrubber]

I can't form an opinion. It would be useful to know how many people have actually been given jail time before advocating longer sentences. Lock em up and throw away the key hasn't done a great job of resolving drug abuse problems in the USA. Seems likely that the problems are in poor enforcement of existing laws, not in weak penalties.

[tdierikx]

I would like to see harsher penalties handed down to owners in the courts when a dog does serious damage to another animal or human - especially if the dog in question has a history of menacing or the like.

T.

[melzawelza]

Yet again we have legislators continuing with failed BSL, and simply adding more punitive measures which on it's own will NEVER decrease dog attacks in a significant way.

Why do they continue to ignore the failed models that have worked around the world? Enforcement is incredibly important but only after extensive education campaigns, and an animal control model that sets people up to succeed (i.e rewards good behaviour heavily). You give people every opportunity to be responsible pet owners and most will be. The heavy enforcement is saved for that minority who continue to do the wrong thing despite being given every opportunity to be responsible.

None of this is useful without a well-funded animal control department either, which AC departments never are, unless you're talking about the proven models of success that sees the department funded entirely by pet licencing, not the taxpayer.

[raineth]

Again I just think it would be better to actually fine people who have their dogs loose.

People so rarely get fined for having their dogs loose where they shouldn't and so they just do it.

They also need to actually police their registration and micro-chipping laws.

Loose dogs often have a much greater opportunity and propensity to attack other people or dogs than dogs in the home. So leash laws need to be enforced and not just some vague memory in people's minds.

[Dame Aussie]

The way I see it being in charge of a dog that kills someone is the same as being in charge of any weapon that kills somebody. I do think owners of dogs that seriously hurt or kill someone should get jail time.

Having said that, if only the councils would enforce what laws they already have, it would reduce the number of attacks we see.

[german_shep_fan]

The way I see it being in charge of a dog that kills someone is the same as being in charge of any weapon that kills somebody. I do think owners of dogs that seriously hurt or kill someone should get jail time.

Having said that, if only the councils would enforce what laws they already have, it would reduce the number of attacks we see.

Agreed

[sandgrubber]

According to the article, they can already give a 2 yr sentence for owners of attacking dogs. Do they use it? I'm sure they don't.

I'd say a 10 yr -- or life -- sentence is too high. The cost of incarceration is high, $30k to $70k / yr are the sorts of figures I've seen. Indirect costs are also high. Someone taken out of the workforce. Kids left without a parent. The incarcerated person often changed into a more hardened criminal, and left with dim employment prospects. So a social cost of half a million or so for a 10 yr sentence. Spending at that level would go a long way toward enforcement of laws and education. And judges, who understand the consequences of incarceration, will tend to duck implementation.

If you want a punishment that will really scare them, I'd suggest castration and a lifetime ban on owning dogs. Not that the suggestion will fly.

Edited August 17, 2013 by sandgrubber

[korbin13]

Why wouldn't they try and prevent it coming to an attack? Why not heavily fine people for letting their dogs continually roam?

[Christina]

The proposal is ludicrous.

There should be a difference in penalty for someone who deliberately sets their dog on a person or whose dog has a known history of attack than for a person who owns a dog with no history or past indications where the dog has attacked out of the blue.

Even murder & manslaughter have this difference considered.

The law has penalties it can impose along with banned from owning a dog for life. Many charges can be laid to increase sentencing too. Life sentence rarely means serving 14 years anyway for many cases.

This seems to be a popularity/look we are doing something response. Some people would bring back flogging in the public square or a university degree & 10 licences to own a dog depending on their experiences with dogs, culture, upbringing & personality.

Not minimising the seriousness of dog attacks but people are the biggest attackers, killers & risks to other people.

In proportion of all deaths dog attack comes low on the list in ratio to dogs owned.

Locking up people for life who are a risk to public safety is one thing but for an idiot with a dog its best to remove the dog & not let them ever have another.

[Diva]

I agree with those who say to actually pollice the leash laws, and substantially reduce the risk of attack on the street or from a strange dog entering from the street.

I don't think increased penalties will reduce serious attacks on children on private property by resident dogs, I often see an element of negligent parenting in those attacks (flame suit on), they need to be part of the whole approach to child safety.

Edited because I quoted the wrong quote.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Diva

[BlackJaq]

It has obviously not crossed the minds of the powers that be in the UK that DESPITE their archaic BSL laws, attacks still happen, and quite regularly... Time for a different approach? Probably. Will they actually take the approach proven to work? Nope.

[Podengo]

I support longer prison sentences for the owners of dogs that kill people, but I don't know how much of a difference it would make. I don't know how to make things better, but I don't think larger fines will help... Doesn't stop people doing a lot of dumb things, and people just keep dodging fines anyway.

[Panto]

I think there is a general agreement from all responders here regardless of whether we agree with the new laws or increase in incarceration - none of this can be effective or measured for effectiveness when there is such a loose enforcement of existing laws.

Money better spent on enforcing existing laws rather than paying policy / lawmakers.

[Nekhbet]

One of the major changes being considered is increasing the penalties for owners of dogs who attack, which some believe aren’t severe enough currently, especially in cases where people have died. Officials have released a questionnaire that will be open until September 1 to ask the public what they believe the maximum sentence for owners of dogs who kill should be, which could be 7, 10 or 14 years in jail or even life imprisonment.

A 10 year sentence for owners of dogs who injure a person or kill a guide dog are also being recommended.

This is ridiculous. People who kill other people themselves get less then this.

[mita]

The way I see it being in charge of a dog that kills someone is the same as being in charge of any weapon that kills somebody. I do think owners of dogs that seriously hurt or kill someone should get jail time.

...or being in charge of a motor vehicle that kills someone.

If there's evidence of serious disregard for public safety. So same should be for owners of dogs.

But emphasis should be on prevention, by applying current laws (your other point).

And repeating again & again in public education, how to train/manage dogs, especially in the home & around young children (& the elderly).... just as the road safety guidelines get repeated again & again. And the laws enforced.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mita