Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons

originally posted by: butcherguy
I guess you missed that post of mine, or you would not have mentioned habeas corpus as if I was unaware of it in this thread, but at any rate, I would be interested in seeing any past law regarding habeas corpus for animals if you know of any.

There is no past law. That's not what my point is about.

My point is you said this:

I think it is an error by the judge to look at animal as an artificial person.

This is not what happened.

a reply to: JUhrman
So is there a previous case of habeas corpus applying to a non-human?
Habeas corpus is used for persons, is it not?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I agree - just one thing...

There is an elephant which can paint...

Something I loved to think about for a while that I'm now not sure is exactly true. But this doesn't mean I disagree - with anything you've just said

I believe in the rights of animals - as we are all animals. Our first attempts at getting people to look at the other animals differently is obviously going to be tied to demonstrating that they're intelligent and self aware. It's all a matter of degree. All animals can feel pain and misery, boredom, fear - whether they're more like us or less like us

It's interesting to me that at the same time people are fighting for animal rights we still have to fight for the rights of fellow humans - what does that tell us?

There's a movie I saw that I loved very much (I unfortunately haven't read the book) - Never Let Me Go

I won't spoil it for anyone that might want to see it, but there is a scene where two of the characters in it believe that by demonstrating that they can create art they might prove that they're human after all - and maybe their lives might be spared

Those elephant sanctuaries that feature the painting elephants are trying to raise funds - to help keep the elephants safe and sound (I hope). I'm still not sure which side I believe - the side that says they're abusing the elephants, or the side that says they're trying to protect them

The one thing I know for sure is they're appealing to humans that want to believe that the elephants are in some way like them - and it works

This is going to be a long hard road, but I believe (sadly) that it will be a very long time before humans recognize that animals don't deserve to be abused - even if they aren't like us

originally posted by: butcherguy
Habeas corpus is used for persons, is it not?

Can you show me a law saying so?

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: butcherguy
Habeas corpus is used for persons, is it not?

Can you show me a law saying so?

I am asking you to show me where it has ever been used for a non-person.
That would set a precedent... which is important in matters of law.

originally posted by: butcherguy
That would set a precedent... which is important in matters of law.

That's basically the topic of the thread, dude.


Doesn't change that your claim is not true

I think it is an error by the judge to look at animal as an artificial person.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: butcherguy
Habeas corpus is used for persons, is it not?

Can you show me a law saying so?

I am asking you to show me where it has ever been used for a non-person.
That would set a precedent... which is important in matters of law.

I found case law where it was denied ...
‘Tommy the Chimp’ Loses Bid for Habeas Corpus which, ironically, was by the NY Supreme Court. The chimps in the story were part of the group with Tommy (who Kiko was also denied). See here

From BBC

The activists said the court had "implicitly determined" that the two chimpanzees are legal "persons".

However, other experts say the writ may simply be a way of the court gathering more information at a further hearing.

...

The Nonhuman Rights Project originally filed a lawsuit on behalf of the chimpanzees in 2013 with a view to having them transferred to a sanctuary in Florida, but in that instance the courts refused to issue a writ.

...

"The judge may merely want more information to make a decision on the legal personhood claim, and may have ordered a hearing simply as a vehicle for hearing out both parties in more depth," law professor Richard Cupp told Science magazine.

"It would be quite surprising if the judge intended to make a momentous substantive finding that chimpanzees are legal persons if the judge has not yet heard the other side's arguments," he went on.

...

The group 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.

a reply to: butcherguy

I am asking you to show me where it has ever been used for a non-person. That would set a precedent... which is important in matters of law.

Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons, Grants them Writ of Habeas Corpus

Did you miss the OP?

:-)

Now - why do you have a problem with this?

So when/if we meet intelligent aliens, are they persons? Or can we do whatever we want to them? If they can communicate telepathically (our speaking compared to apes who can't) while we can only communicate with words (sign language which apes unlike us are limited to.) would you all be cool with them considering us all non persons and doing whatever they want with us? When they look at us and see we've only managed to inhabit one planet while they've established colonies in multiple solar systems and planets, should they see us as less than persons and do with us whatever they wish? When they look at our technologies and see them as rudimentary as that toyed with by their children should we be cool with being demoted to pets and zoo attractions?

Personally I think apes aren't the only ones that deserve a greater status in our world. Fine don't want to call them people, whatever, but there should be status that's higher than fruit fly and closer to human that more intelligent animals fall into with more rights, privileges and protections.

As for the elephants that paint, big deal, elephants have done so much more to demonstrate their intelligence than paint a picture.

Elephants, Ravens, Dolphins (even if so not the peace children people paint them out to be), chimps, some other great apes, honey badgers, ect, the list goes on and on. Any animal that demonstrates the ability to problem solve and has been shown to outsmart humans on more than one occasion ect, is not just some dumb animal.

In modern times we've demonstrated many animals develop the same psychosis we do, many animals feel the same emotions we do. This is fact. Dogs for example feel the very same thing we do, when we feel romantic love for another, for us. It's why they're so happy to see us, they really truly and do love us, it's been scientifically proven. The same parts of the brain are active when they see us as we have when we see those we have butterflies for.

Yet we still have segments of society that think regulating all animals to the status of fruit flies with the rights thereof is anything less than a sociopathic practice. What will it take for another species to be considered worthy of standing beside us as more than a pet or curiosity?

I guess they evolved faster than I thought they would. First they are looking both ways crossing the street now they are being legalized.

What's next, voting rights?

a reply to: Baddogma

I know what you mean, but hell how will you feel waiting in line with the chimps to cast your vote



I am just joking.

a reply to: blackmetalmist

What's next, voting rights?

Probably do better than a lot of people!

a reply to: JUhrman

I agree, one hundred percent, but they are also, income earners and tax payers, even when they do everything they can to go around paying full taxes.

Still a chimp depend on others for their well being just like any animal under human control, hardly income earners and tax payers.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well thanks for that one, but still is a great topic for expansion.

Lets be fair these magnificent creatures deserve not to be experimented on nor are pets.
Maybe a different class of rights need to be written for them.

I can confidentally say that majority of the people calling the judge crazy or calling into question their decision or ability to be a judge must know little to nothing about chimpanzees. They are far more sentient than anyone here gives them credit for and are amazing animals. Not to mention, they are our genetic and evolutionary cousins. I know animal testing is required for some medical research but it is practically torture when you do it to animals that are more aware of their situation than most others.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


I know that chimps having a 99% match to our Dna sounds like a close match but that 1% is the difference between Mozart and two fur balls throwing poo at each other.
This judge used human laws for animals and her decision will be overturned very quickly. Apes will have to get their freedom with some other legal system.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

It's more than just our DNA. Because we share a common ancestor, we share common traits and behaviours. For the first 2 years of their lives, chimpanzees develop at the exact same rate as human babies. They start sitting up at the same time, and crawling, though baby chimps will recognize themselves in a mirror sooner than a human baby.

Like I said, they are truly incredible.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

So chimps are people, but people who haven't been through birth aren't people.

This is why throat-punching idiots should be made legal.

Yeah, a fetus has no rights but a chimp does.
Makes me want to go full chuck norris.

NEVER GO FULL CHUCK NORRIS!!! You will destroy the universe with too much awesome.

a reply to: JUhrman

If a chimp is going to fit the legal definition of some type of person, I should think it would be an 'artificial person' before 'legal person'.
Just my opinion. I am not a lawyer.
According to a post above, the judge says a chimp is a legal person.