While I do not always abide by it, I truly love the law. In this tumultuous, shadowy world, the law is designed to be humanity’s guiding light. At its heart, it is a projection of our intangible yet immutable moral code. The progress of our legal system reflects the development of our collective principles and ethics. It is a means for the oppressed to seek recognition and retribution. This noble system of ours is far from perfect, but its beauty lies in its ability to respond to the dynamic will of those it governs. The law transmutes the emotions of the masses — fear, sorrow, anger, indignation — into a logical formula for pursuing and achieving justice. It is a brilliant outgrowth of the fallible, but well-intentioned soul of humanity. When wielded properly, the law is capable of enlightening us and improving the ways in which we interact with one another and the world at large. But when the law is misused or abused, it can be a tool for reinforcing cruelty and tyranny.
America’s legal history is peppered with ignorantly callous policies that make us cringe when we look back on them. Some of the greatest examples of juridical injustice can be seen in antiquated acts regarding slavery in the South. Take the spirit of a 1669 South Carolina law, for instance: “The slave, being personal chattel, is at all times liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged or leased, at the will of his master.” When I reflect on this heart-wrenching perception of people as property, I am immensely grateful for the 14th amendment, which was implemented as a remedy for that sick, social sentiment.
However, the unsettling truth is that our contemporary legal code continues to deliver grave miscarriages of justice. Sadly, there are too many to mention in this single article, but a recent ruling from the New York Appellate Court is, in my mind, particularly worthy of discussion.
The Nonhuman Rights Project is an organization dedicated to securing legal rights and recognition for great apes, elephants and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). Like the Lorax, this group speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves and has argued that the aforementioned animals should be granted the legal right of “personhood.” If these creatures were recognized as legal persons, they would be entitled to the rights of bodily liberty and bodily integrity, meaning that they could not be unlawfully imprisoned or physically abused.
As of now, the law treats some of nature’s most intelligent and majestic beings as mere property to be acquired, traded and trashed. Great apes can learn to read and count. Elephants can paint beautiful pictures. Dolphins play games with each other, such as tag and catch (sometimes using a sea turtle as a ball). In addition to awe-inspiring intelligence, these animals possess an extensive emotional capacity. They experience and express a range of emotions that are strikingly similar to human emotion. They feel love and joy as well as fear and anguish. They are social creatures who become discernibly depressed when they are forced into isolation. They are fully capable and deserving of empathy. How is it that we can honestly equate these self-aware, autonomous, emotional creatures to inanimate objects? It’s obvious that animals are not people, but isn’t it just as obvious that they are more than objects?
In a ruling this week, the NY Appellate Court denied the Nonhuman Rights Project’s request for humane empathy towards chimpanzees and, by extension, all self-aware, autonomous animals. The NhRP petitioned the court to recognize chimpanzees as legal “persons” and to grant them the right of habeas corpus. The right would have enabled captive apes to be represented in court and to be potentially released from unlawful imprisonment. The NhRP argued that apes being held captive for private or public entertainment and research should be released to primate sanctuaries, where they would not be subjected to the cruelties of confinement and torture. Had the NhRP won their suit, it would have set a legal precedent to recognize and release the myriad, emotionally intelligent animals being abused and held against their will across the country.
Although the NhRP lost this particular battle, the war against animal injustice wages on. They will take their case to the higher NY Supreme Court, where they believe a favorable ruling would have more of a substantial impact. If they lose at that level, they will proceed to put forth new petitions in different states across the country. While the legal leap required to recognize animals as “persons” is unprecedented, the process of reversing the commodification and objectification of emotional, intelligent beings is not unfamiliar legal territory.
The abolition of slavery was one of the crowning accomplishments of the American legal system, but the fact that slavery existed at all is a permanent, gut-churning stain on American history. I find the enslavement of cognizant, sensitive and charismatic animals to be similarly sickening, but I have hope that our collective moral code, reflected by our legal system, will eventually prevail over the innumerable, individual instances of ignorant wickedness towards our mammalian companions.