Do Apes have the rights of personhood?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do Apes have the rights of personhood?

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

I was reading the BBC today and came across these articles in this fascinating case. I'll quote them as a bit of a sounding-board to start off with:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29542829

quote:

A panel of five appellate judges heard Mr Wise's petition for a writ of habeas corpus - a request for a custodian to prove he or she has lawful authority to detain a prisoner. A decision is expected in the next four to six weeks.

The NhRP's petition argues that New York law does not limit legal personhood to human beings. The state has previously conferred legal personhood status on domestic animals who are the beneficiaries of trusts, the campaign says, as well as extending rights to non-human entities such as corporations.

The lawsuit does not argue that chimpanzees are human, but that they are entitled to the rights of "personhood". It cites research by great ape experts which has established they are "autonomous, self-determined, self-aware, highly intelligent, emotionally complex".

The lawsuit refers to an English case from 1772 that dealt with an American slave named James Somerset, who escaped from his owner in London. After a plea of habeas corpus was filed, the court ruled that Mr Somerset was a person rather than a thing and set him free.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30338231

quote:

A chimpanzee is not entitled to the same rights as people and does not have be freed from captivity by its owner, a US court has ruled.

The appeals court in New York state said caged chimpanzee Tommy could not be recognised as a "legal person" as it "cannot bear any legal duties".

The Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimps who had such similar characteristics to the humans deserved basic rights, including freedom.

The rights group said it would appeal.

In its ruling, the judges wrote: "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties.

"Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."

The court added that there was no precedent for treating animals as persons and no legal basis.

In October, the Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimpanzees should be recognised as "legal persons" and therefore be given the right to liberty.

Now actually the group seems to have made an interesting point -- we accept that certain things have the rights of personhood, corporations for instance. And apparently the state has ruled that in certain cases, animals have the rights of personhood as well, like when their owners have willed a trust to take care of them after their owner's death. A further point I'd make is that we already grant certain rights of personhood on people who are incapable of bearing legal duties or submitting to societal responsibilities, such as those who have severe mental handicaps, the senile, and minors. So to me, the judges' ruling seems a tad odd if it's justified on the stated basis, since, on that basis, could we not then take that as an allowance to deny rights of personhood to the certain groups I mentioned? Also, it strikes me as a bit circular: the chimp does not have legal rights as a person because it cannot bear legal duties, and it cannot bear legal duties because it isn't a person!

Well, at least it's food for thought, and at any rate, I'm not a lawyer. What are you folks' opinions on this?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 13:15

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Effectronica posted:

I think that personhood for great apes, new caledonian crows, and other highly intelligent animals is hard to justify without inventing tiered levels of personhood, which might not be such a bad thing. But we can't reliably communicate with our intelligent brethren so it's hard to make them fully people socially, let alone legally.

Yeah, it's kind of a complicated issue -- that's why I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion (and even debate)! While I feel like I'm in favor of treating highly intelligent apes like chimpanzees, or dolphins and orcas (see the film Blackfish) as a "special class of person", it probably would open the door to a huge number of legal loopholes and just nonsensical things. The idea of having "tiers of personhood", with, say a chimp being on a rung somewhere around a pre-speech toddler or a severely mentally retarded person, would introduce a big headache with trying to classify different types of animals (and possibly even people!) based on their proximity to some kind of "ideally cognizant" person.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 06:29

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

If we can eat monkeys, then why can't we eat babies??

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 15:04

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

By the way, here's the text of the full court ruling.

Here's the interesting part:

quote:

This appeal presents the novel question of whether a chimpanzee is a "person" entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus. Notably, we have not been asked to evaluate the quality of Tommy's current living conditions in an effort to improve his welfare. In fact, petitioner's counsel stated at oral argument that it does not allege that respondents are in violation of any state or federal statutes respecting the domestic possession of wild animals (see e.g. ECL 11-0512). According to petitioner, while
respondents are in compliance with state and federal statutes, the statutes themselves are inappropriate. Yet, rather than challenging any such statutes, petitioner requests that this Court enlarge the common-law definition of "person" in order to afford legal rights to an animal.

We decline to do so, and conclude that a chimpanzee is not a "person" entitled to thevrights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus.vThe common law writ of habeas corpus, as codified by CPLR article 70, provides a summary procedure by which a "person" who has been illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his or her liberty can challenge the legality of the detention (CPLR
7002 [a]). The statute does not purport to define the term "person," and for good reason. The "Legislature did not intend
to change the instances in which the writ was available," which has been determined by "the slow process of decisional accretion"
(People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257, 263 [1966]) [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, we must
look to the common law surrounding the historic writ of habeas corpus to ascertain the breadth of the writ's reach.

Not surprisingly, animals have never been considered persons for the purposes of habeas corpus relief, nor have they been explicitly considered as persons or entities capable of asserting rights for the purpose of state or federal law.

It's a really interesting move on the part of the Nonhuman Rights Project to make the argument on the basis of habeas corpus, rather than the conditions in which Tommy is kept.

quote:

While petitioner proffers various justifications for affording chimpanzees, such as Tommy, the liberty rights protected by such writ, the ascription of rights has historically been connected with the imposition of societal obligations and duties. Reciprocity between rights and responsibilities stems from principles of social contract, which inspired the ideals of freedom and democracy at the core of our system of government.

Under this view, society extends rights in exchange for an express or implied agreement from its members to submit to social responsibilities. In other words, "rights [are] connected to moral agency and the ability to accept societal responsibility in
exchange for [those] rights".

Here is the crux of it:

quote:

To be sure, some humans are less able to bear legal duties or responsibilities than others. These differences do not
alter our analysis, as it is undeniable that, collectively, human beings possess the unique ability to bear legal responsibility.
Accordingly, nothing in this decision should be read as limiting the rights of human beings in the context of habeas corpus
proceedings or otherwise.

DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 5, 2014

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 16:06

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Sharkie posted:

But the people arguing for personhood aren't arguing they should get unrestricted legal rights. Like someone said earlier, there's a confusion in this thread between the legal and philosophical definitions of personhood.

Right! Like, just because something gets the protections conferred by personhood does not necessarily mean that they automatically get the rights and duties entitled by personhood. See again -- babies and the mentally incapable. We don't allow experimentation on babies or the euthanization of the incapable, because they are considered people in the eyes of the law, and it would be illegal as such; however their being protected as people under the law does not mean that babies and the incapable are allowed to vote, sign contracts, represent themselves in court and so on.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2014 03:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 13:15

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Cockmaster posted:

Well, here's an interesting development:

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/orangutan-personhood/

There's a link to a Google Translate of a local news site. It looks like they may be offering a bit more detail on the rationale behind the ruling, but the machine translation makes it kind of challenging to understand.

And is there actually any possibility of this ruling affecting US court cases on the matter?

Huh, that's fascinating! Although I'm pretty doubtful that the outcomes of this ruling will affect US court cases, as Argentina's laws have nothing to do with the US's, it still could be used as another example by like-minded campaigners to get the word out about the cause.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2014 04:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Do Apes have the rights of personhood?