Should dog fighting be illegal?
It’s hard to have missed all the talk about Mike Vick, dog fighting, and his plea agreement.
There are some other interesting angles to this whole affair. How much money did Mick Vick lose? Will he play in the NFL again? Should the NFL Players Association fight to ensure he is able to play? All interesting to me, but instead this post is about whether or not there should be a law against dog fighting.
I know some people love dogs – my aim is not to offend you. For the record, I like dogs – I am hoping to get one soon.
But I want to put that aside for a moment to think about the economics of this law, and other laws. Essentially this is a commentary on the law of property, or simply “property rightsâ€. The last time I checked, dogs were indeed property.
What rights are typically associated with owning property? Suppose you purchase a car – that is, you obtain the property rights to car. This gives you certain rights – you can drive around the car, you can change the oil, you can paint you car red. You can even sell the property rights to your car – transfer your rights to another person. If someone violates your property rights by, say, stealing you car, you can call the government and they will help you out. Lastly, you can take a sledgehammer to your car and destroy it if you want. You may choose to destroy your own property – it is not illegal.
Of course, even with a car, your property rights are limited. You can drive your car down Main Street, but you can’t drive you car through a crowded shopping mall. You can drive on the right side of the road, but not on the left side of the road. You cannot run over people in your car. Why not? What is the economic justification for such restrictions?
I hope that is easy – each of the activities that are restricted above would have violated someone else’s rights, caused suffering, or made it more likely this would occur. People are not allowed to run over people in their cars because running over people clearly causes harm to the person that is run over. In all cases, the law is written to ensure that other people (people that are not the driver of the car) are not adversely affected by the decision of the driver. (Bonus question – can you think of something about driving that is entirely legal that nonetheless adversely affects other drivers?)
So, if dog fighting laws are in the same spirit of other property laws, it must be the case that there is someone who is harmed by the act of dog fighting, right? Who is the injured party? Is your answer the dog? Do dogs have rights?
I bet I know what you are thinking; a dog is a living thing. Grass is living? Cockroaches? I bet I know what you are thinking now; a dog is an animal. But there are no laws protecting roosters in the state of Louisiana, or goldfish. Why?
Explain to me where and why the line is drawn? Why not a law protecting me from smashing my car?
Two things I think I might see coming…
One issue might be whether or not the animal you are talking about is personal property. For example, a dog or a goldfish is personal property. A deer is not personal property.
Secondly, if the world “moral†shows up in your answer, should it be illegal to be immoral? Is it illegal to be immoral? Can you give me an example of another activity that is illegal because it is immoral (and doesn’t harm a person other than the decision maker?)
Again, personally I don’t condone dog fighting, and I am not posing this question to be a smart aleck – I want you to help me understand, and for you to think about the economics of property law.
–CT
August 25th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’m pretty sure we all have heard the legal issues involving Mike Vick and his dog fighting “theatre”–and if anyone watched Anderson Cooper’s show last night, they would know he has reached a plea aggreement. After all of the surmonting evidence brought against him, I’m not sure there is anything else he could have done. It was reported that his sentence could be from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 5 years. Personally, I hope he gets all 5.
But, back to the issue. Yes, I think there should be a law against dog fighting. Although dogs–or any other animal–are personal property, this does not give human absoulte dominion. Why not? Because there are norms and values in this society that most people–indeed, not all–will abide by.
“If someone violates your property rights by, say, stealing your car, you can call the government and they will help you out.” Here, then, is exactly where the line must be drawn for dogs. Who can the poor dog call on to tell that its master is dragging it into horrendous dog fights? What if the dog looses the match? Then, who can the dog call on in its last dying breath to tell that it’s about to be killed–which is, in fact, exactly what Vick and friends did to dogs that lost matches. So there are “property rights” in this country, but one must then ask what happens when these “rights” become inhumane.
“Why not a law protecting me from smashing my car?” Here we could take the Constitutional Law approach. In the courts, they have what we call the “reasonalbe person”. A resonable person would know the circumstances of smashing the car into, say, a light pole. There is the possiblity of death, the possiblity of it falling down and hitting someone ele’s car. The dog, again, does not have this luxury. And this, I think, the courts take into account when considering a judgement against someone accused of dog fighting.
Society as a whole would not place the rights of a fish with that of a dog. You posed the question, “Do dogs have rights?” Well, I guess that would depend on who you are asking. If you are asking my friends’ from the Animal Liberation party, of coure they are going to say dogs have the same right as humans. But just as they would answer yes, I think most humans would also.
(Bonus question: I think one driver talking on the cell-pone could adversely affect another driver. Or, carbon monoxide, but this will affect society as a whole, not just the other driver.)
Back to economics. I think the most important thing the Falcon will have to decide is if they want to let him back or not–of course, after he serves his 5 years. If they do decide to let him back, they better be sure to consider the millions of dollars they will lose. Animal Rights advocates–men and women–, if he is reinstated, may very well never purchase a Falcon ticket again. And this, surely, will not be a marginal cost.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I ethically agree that dog fighting is immoral and should be illeaglw, but this doesn’t change the fact that the dogs are still property. Dogs might be living, breathing, and possibly even feeling creatures they are bought and sold as property and should be treated as such, they are not human and are therefore not subject to humane treatment. Now don’t think me cold hearted when I say this. I consider myself an animal person and own three dogs all of which were raised and trained with the a minium amount of violence, but they are still my dogs and if I wanted to I should be able to fight them. After all a dog can be used like an invsstment, I paid money for it, I train it and allow it to mature, and I then try to get a return out of my investment by fighting it against other dogs. But that is looking at this situation from a business point of view, but I still think that dog fighting should be against the law because it is a potential danger to society.
Dog fighting should definately be against the law, but not because of treatment issues. Dogs used in dog fighting are dangerous animals and unsafe to be around. Many of these dogs will rip the neck off of anything that moves if given the chance to and are therefore a potential menace to society. If for some reason one such dog would get loose say in a residential area or even worse near a school, well you get the point. These dogs are a menace only because of the way they are raised and trained. Many dog breeds have bad reputations because of dogfighting such as pitbulls or dobermans. These breeds are natually more agressive than most dogs but with the right training they can be as harmless as a teacup poodle.
Anyway regardless of why dog fighting is Vick broke the law and needs to pay the price. The Falcons should allow him a chance to play again after he has paid his debt to society. From a business standpoint I agree with Armond that some people will no longer watch the Falcons because of Vick’s actions, should he return to play for them. However I believe this would be a relatively small amount of Falcon fans and that the loss would be minimal.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I believe that dog fighting should be illegal. Dogs are in a sense like babies; they cannot speak for themselves so laws are established to make sure that they cannot be abused or neglected. Aren’t children considered personally property? You are required to feed them, care for them, and make sure that no one else abuses them. So dogs should have the same right as children. And if dogs don’t have rights then why are people reprehended all the time for abusing animals or neglecting them? Besides Vick took it way past dog fighting when he drown and hung dogs. This is just cruel and deserves a physcological evaluation. The other person injured in dog fighting would be the victim who would be mauled or killed if one of these vicious dogs where to get loose.
Prostitution is immoral and therefore illegal even though it doesn’t hurt anyone. And as funny as it is suicide is illegal because it is immoral.
(Bonus Question: Multi-tasking adverts the drivers attention and therefore interfers with other drivers on the road.)
August 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Just for the record, I am a dog lover myself. But looking past that, I would have to answer yes and no to the question “should dog fighting be illegal”.
What is dog fighting? The so called sport of betting on one of two dogs and then watching the two dogs attack each other to see who will dominate, and yes sometimes it is even to the death.
How is it any different from let’s say boxing? Boxing is similar in many ways. People place their bet on the boxer they think will win, the two boxers then fight it out, the winner is decided by either one of the boxers being knocked out or by pionts.
Yes, I think fighting a dog to its death should be illegal, but not the sport of dog fighting. There could be a few rules or requirements to go along with the sport such as proper medical attention following a fight. When boxers get hurt, they see a medical examiner.
Nevertheless, Vick knew that dog fighting was illegal and chose to participate anyway. Therefore, I believe he should participate in the punishment as well.
(Bonus Question: Talking on a cell phone, putting make-up on, changing out a cd, etc. are all legal, but within one second of taking your eyes off the road opens an opportunity for wrecking into someone or something.)
August 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I am not for or against dog fighting, but I don’t see how people can get mad at dogs fighting. Yet we pay hundreds and thousands of dollars to see two men or women beat each other senseless. I don’t agree with the killing of pitbulls because i have pitbulls of my own, but in the same sense we kill or boxers and fighters by encouraging them to keep on fighting continuously after years of getting there brains rattled.If dog fighting is wrong then we need to look at the whole boxing and fighting circuits that we love oh so much.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
First, I do not agree with dogfighting. I found it very interesting the arguments that you have come up with, and I have another one to add to the bunch. I know that abortion is a topic that is totally unrelated to dog fighting, but a comparison can be made here. Women in the United States have the right to an abortion because it is their body. So, why do we not have the right to kill a dog who is our property? The abortion issue is very debated, but facts have shown that fetus’s can feel pain at four weeks, and abortions can be performed after that time period. So, essentially it is proven that fetus’s can feel pain and still be killed or terminated, but it is illegal for dogs to be killed because they feel pain. Essentially, the government prohibits any action that interfers with another person’s rights. At what point did the government deem dogs as “people” but not fetuses. This is not meant as a abortion rant, but simply as a comparison as to the complexity of the laws of our government.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Although I do not necessarily condone dog fighting, in fact, I despise it, I do not believe that the government should make it illegal for the simple fact that they already have too control over how we use our “personal” property. However, I do support the government enforcing restrictions such as requiring the animals to wear protective gear, stopping the fight before the dogs become too mangled (I pity the person in charge of this act), or probiting the killing of a losing dog. As stated by Ms. McDonald, abortion is legal, and it kills a human fetus. So if the government illegalizes dog fighting, is it stating that a dog’s life is more meaningful than an unborn human? There are many things that the government has deemed illegal that, to me, are hypocritic. For example, it is legal for someone to get drunk in his house as long as he does not go out driving and kill someone. So why is it not legal for someone who wants to smoke weed in his home as long as he does not go out? Who is he hurting besides himself as long as he stays in the privacy of his own home? And why should Mike Vick not be allowed to return to the NFL? Dozens of Hollywood actors and actresses get DWIs, etc., and they return to the movies. What does his personal life have to do with his career? To me, illegalizing dog fighting comes down to the government wanting a piece of the pie. The only real reason the government is trying to make it illegal is because there is money being made with this personal property, and the government is not getting their share. Afterall, do you really believe that a bunch of wealthy men in Washington, D.C. really care about a few “mutts”? Give me a break!
September 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
First off I would like to give you a few examples of laws that we have that are there because someone thought they were immoral,therefor,they became illegal, gay marrige and sodemy. These are considered immoral acts by society but not to the people who engage in these acts. In the dog fighting discussion I do not believe it is illegal because of the animals I think it is because it is a hazard to the society. Animals get loose all the time and a dog that was trained to attack and kill could cause severe damage to an innocent person. Although I do think that it is inhuman and am glad that it is illegal.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
I cannot help but comment on this topic since it is all over the media. I am not a big football fan (except for the Super Bowl Parties: Free Beers), but I do have a conscious, and I think dog fighting is wrong.
It is important to know whether property is personal or not in casees such Vick’s case. Property dsignates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights. Because dog fighting is illegal, whether it’s your personal property or not, it is still ilegal. The dogs that were being fought were Vick’s dogs, but he was limited to certain rights regarding those animals. Dogs used for fighting have been bred for years to be aggressive and dangerous. Having dogs like that in a community can increase the risk of injury or even death to other animals or people. Young children are extremely at risk because of their size which can intice the animal to attack.
The law would probably protect dogs in dog fghting oppose to a car being smashed because an animal is a living thing with feelings, whereas a car is considered material and can be replaced. Morality in the economic system could be summarized as a justice which creates efficiency and an efficincy which creates justice. Personally I think it should be illegal to be immoral, but it isn’t illegal yet, probably because it’s a persons choice to decide on being moral or immoral.
An example of an illegal activity that would affect the decision maker would be committing suicide. That is about as immoral as you can get.
Michael Vick should be punished according to his wrong doing of illegal dog fighting, but his talent on the football field should be another issue and reconsidered. I don’t think is career should be jeopardized because of the wrong choices made in his personal life.
(Bonus Qustion: Multitasking while driving which includes cell phone use, eating, putting on makeup,etc. can interfere with a driver’s concentration while operating a vehicle, and impose serious dangers to other drivers.)