Progressive Punitivism in the Animal Protection Movement

Juno the Dog
Image result for juno dog oregon newcomb
Juno, the dog from Oregon v. Newcomb. Image
courtesy BarkPost.
A while ago, I read and commented on Oregon v. Newcomb, a Fourth Amendment case involving animal cruelty charges. The case was very interesting both from an animal rights perspective and from a search-and-seizure perspective: A cop was called to a woman’s house following complaints of abuse and neglect of her dog. Upon arriving, the cop found the dog emaciated, seized him, and took him to the police vet. The vet took a blood test, found out there was nothing wrong with the dog except he was being starved, and charges were filed against the woman. She filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, arguing that it was a warrantless search of her property.
The Oregon Supreme Court wrote a wonderful opinion from an animal rights perspective: Even though the Fourth Amendment protects people’s “effects” from unreasonable search and seizure, some “effects” differ from others in that they are sentient. From a Fourth Amendment perspective the decision was more nebulous; it is unclear whether the court meant that the blood test was not a “search”, or a permissible search due to exigent circumstances because of Juno’s condition.
But there was one thing that caught my eye as I was reading the decision, and I highlighted it in my review:

It’s not difficult to read between the lines in Newcomb, even though the Court doesn’t really do that. Newcomb said to the police officer that she fed the dog WinCo food bought in small packages. WinCo is a low-grade kibble that sells in bulk at Costco, chock-full of grains, chemicals, and artificial fillers. It’s telling that the defendant did not buy the kibble in bulk, but rather in small packages: poor people can’t afford to spend on bulk and reap the savings, which is true for every product. As Yesim Orhun and Mike Palazzolo found in a study based on Nielsen data, frugality is hard to afford.

Hastings is located in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood, which is a window into the lives of people ravaged by extreme poverty. We frequently see folks who live in the streets with pets, which almost always seem groomed, well-fed, and very much loved. But since homeless people’s lives, by their very nature, are exposed to the eyes of strangers, the ability to detect animal welfare and neglect is heightened, to the point that the police might intervene more frequently than when it gets reports of neglect in houses. Obviously, Newcomb was not homeless. But the reason she provided for the dog’s emaciated condition is very telling, and might also explain the police’s zealousness in following up on the complaint.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the court’s decision is 100% correct. The rights of an animal that is mistreated should trump the “ownership” rights of whoever owns him or her, regardless of social class. But I think it does raise questions as to whether we enforce these laws equitably, and whether we should develop means to report and expose animal abuse and neglect in other settings.

Happily, my colleague Justin Marceau from Denver University has addressed this issue much more thoroughly in his excellent new book Beyond Cages. Marceau’s main argument is that, amidst the diverse and varying opinions and philosophies underpinning human enthusiasm for protecting nonhuman animals, the movement, such as it is, tends to coalesce around the lowest common denominator: crying out for harsher and harsher punishments for animal cruelty. And, just so that we understand, this rarely manifests in thorough investigations against corporate giants propagating animal cruelty, such as Smithfield Foods or Sunrise Farms (suppliers of the so-called ‘humane meat/eggs’ to Whole Foods and Amazon): much more common is taking out our collective ire at individuals, because, as both Marceau and Sherry Colb argue, this allows us to keep engaging in everyday complicity in cruelty to animals (via consuming animal products, visiting zoos and circuses, wearing leather, etc.,) while pretending that cruelty to animals is an aberration, a personal pathology of deranged, psychopathic individuals who abuse and neglect the animal we most care about as a society: our beloved, anthropomorphized pets (for a fascinating critique of pet ownership, see Jessica Pierce’s fantastic and thoughtful book.)

One of my students wrote a marvelous seminar paper last spring about touch deprivation in the lives of the homeless and, among her other arguments, she highlighted how we dehumanize homeless people while purporting to care for the welfare of their pets. I’m not 100% on board with her (well made) arguments, because I don’t see the animals raison d’être as providing companionship to people, but I loved that she problematized the criminalization of poverty through arguments of animal cruelty.

As an animal rights person, I am so glad people are making this point, because I think this recurrence to punitivism weakens, rather than strengthens, the animal rights movement; but it seems that Marceau sees this as an aberration of the animal rights movement compared to other civil rights movements. Marceau writes:

The animal protection movement – on an organizational and individual level – regard the fight to secure protections for animals as a civil rights issue. Analogies to women’s rights, LGBTQ legal victories, and even the abolition of slavery and the fight against racism are common tropes. But is the movement seriously interested in civil rights and broad social change? Incarceration is a most unlikely ally for a movement that might earnestly desire far-reaching social reform. Never has a social change or civil rights cause been so thoroughly immersed in the coercive, prosecutorial arm of the State. Indeed, the animal protection movement’s commitment to ever harsher criminal punishments and more aggressive enforcement of the criminal law may serve as a case study for understanding how other movements should conceive of their relationship with the carceral state.

Unfortunately, if other movements have not managed to co-opt the “coercive, prosecutorial arm of the State” for social justice ends, it’s not for lack of trying. As I explain here, here, here, here, and here (coming soon to a database near you via Vol. 68 of the Buffalo Law Review), a considerable thrust of the social justice struggle’s energy has been devoted to shaming, discrediting, obliterating, calling for prosecution and incarceration of, and taking away due process protections from the people these movements dislike. The latest example (for shame!) is the absurd and obscene persecution of Judge Persky; the scorched-earth mentality knows no bounds and has followed him off the bench as well. If anything, the animal rights movement is an example of what happens when this animus, which enjoys considerable success in destroying and ruining people’s lives via the cyber-guillotine of social media, is coupled with state cooperation.

Indeed, that we see this phenomenon operating in distinct and separate activist spaces such as the animal rights movements and, say, #metoo, is proof of what I argue in my Progressive Punitivism piece: that this is not some isolated pathology of the left, but rather part of the collective disease we all suffer from–across the entire political spectrum–as a consequence of marinating in the carceral state logic for the last fifty years. When we’ve been consistently taught, since Nixon (and perhaps even before), that all problems are criminal justice problems, and that all of them can and should be solved by locking people up, is it really any surprise that we see this logic operating in entirely different spheres of the social activism world?

Precisely because the animal rights movement regularly makes comparisons to other social justice causes (which I, for one, see as perfectly apt and insulting only if one views them through a speciest lens), it should lead the way in seeking to liberate, not to incarcerate. The true meaning of intersectionality lies in finding common ground and uniting struggles, not in hairsplitting the left apart. If this movement wants to expend energy in the direction of the criminal process, it must do so by providing strong support to open rescuers arguing for a necessity defense; for people who are facing the carceral state, not propping it up.

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part V: The Meaning of Doing Time for the Animals

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

There are lots of interesting cases involving animal welfare, animal rights, and the complicated terrain of animal personhood. But what is unique to the criminal process is that at the center of the proceeding is a human defendant facing a possible incarceration sentence. An interesting aspect of this project involves the way activists perceive, and make meaning, of this prospect, and one possible way to think about this is to rely on Idit Kostiner’s typology of legal mobilization schemas.

Kostiner, who interviewed social justice activists, found that they related to what the law could do for their movement in three primary ways: instrumentally (whether they might “win” their rights through an effort to legislate or through impact litigation), politically (whether the very effort of participating in a mobilization project will bring the movement together, give it a political direction, galvanize it), and culturally (whether constructing the struggle in a rights perspective offers avenues of change in thought and perception.) While Kostiner found evidence of all three schemas in her interviews, she also hypothesized that there’s a progression from one to the other – that people move from the instrumental to the political to the cultural.

I found Kostiner’s work helpful in 2004, when I started working on the opposite question: why the polyamorous community in the Bay Area was not mobilizing for legal recognition of nonmonogamous relationships. Like Kostiner, my interviewees were influenced by considerations belonging in the three schemas. The instrumental perspective was served by the fact that many activists had found other ways to secure their rights, such as contracts, power of attorney documents, wills and trusts, and others found that keeping their relationships under the legal radar served them well in terms of rights. Politically, some of my interviewees were averse to the notion of damaging the LGBT marriage equality struggle, which was nascent at the time, by association, and wanted to give their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters their moment in the sun (my later work with Gwendolyn Leachman showed the wisdom of this approach, as well as how poorly it paid off for the poly activists later.) And culturally, many interviewees were averse to the idea that they would have to appeal to the mainstream, to be digested into “normality”, to appear bourgeois, to eschew their interests in sacred sexuality and BDSM, all of which seemed too dear a price to pay for legal recognition.

Studying animal rights activists using the same framework is useful in the sense that the three schemas can reflect attitudes toward a prospective conviction and jail time. Instrumentally, activists may work toward an acquittal in the hopes of preventing conviction and incarceration. Such a victory, whether through a jury acquittal or through an appellate reversal, would be a double win: for the human defendant, who won’t be going to prison, and for the nonhuman animals, if the win will be interpreted as some legal recognition of the value and moral weight of animal suffering (if not an acceptance of a weak or strong theory of animal personhood.)

But short of such an instrumental win, the prospect of incarceration could carry some important political implication. A normative, principled, ideological young person behind bars is a powerful motivator for movements to unite. There are some serious fractures within the animal rights movement, not only regarding strategies and action but also regarding activist styles, dispute resolution, and questions of intersectionality that have arisen in a variety of progressive movements and communities in the last few years. Some of these may heal in the face of a person unjustly incarcerated for bringing animal cruelty to light.

Incarceration also has a powerful cultural symbolism. It creates an important analogy between the animals, for whose conditions incarceration might be even regarded a euphemism, and their human protectors, now behind bars. In my years of studying and advocating about prison conditions, I’ve often heard the conditions described as “like animals.” Since here, helping animals is the point, there is something very powerful about analogizing incarceration. There is also a sense of cultural continuity with other movements for civil rights, particularly with incarcerated nonviolent activists fighting for compassion and equality. This is particularly important for movements building their action program around concept of Kingian nonviolent resistance. 

There’s plenty more to say, but this should give you an idea of the project – and now, I’ll get to work!

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part IV: Planning Legal Strategy

Image result for animal activists in court
Australian animal rights activists protesting during a criminal
trial of an activist for trespassing an animal culling operation.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Trials of animal rights activists can be seen as the site of convergence for two very different legal events: a criminal process against an individual charged with a crime, in which the individual faces the prospect of conviction and punishment (and the dilemmas involved in going to trial vs. pleading guilty), and a landmark case for animal rights. By contrast to impact litigation on issues of animal cruelty, though, the latter meaning is a bit more indirect: the accused are pointing the finger at their own accusers as lawbreakers (of anti-cruelty laws), perpetuators of illegalities (through the pursuit of ag-gag laws that might be struck down as unconstitutional), and moral transgressors (through engaging in cruelty.) This duality in the function of the trial has complicated implications as to the legal strategy employed by the activists.

To begin, there is the choice of legal representation. Cases pursued as impact litigation might attract the attention and services of organizations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) or animal law clinics at law schools (such as the program here at Harvard.) As Bruce Wagman explains here, there’s often a crossover between the litigation and the academic world in this field (Also see this great piece by Kathy Hessler). But most of what these organizations do is litigate with the animals as clients, as it were (now there’s an interesting issue of animal personhood), against factory farms, laboratories, zoos, amusement parks, etc., and they might find it difficult to litigate with a human lawbreaker as a client. This problem might reflect a more general rift in the animal rights community between the “moderates” and the “radicals”: Taimie Bryant writes about this rift, and the hesitation of the former to get behind the latter to provide legal representation, in this piece. There is also the more mundane issue of legal specialization: is it best to hire a criminal lawyer, or an animal rights advocate, for a criminal case involving animal rights advocacy? And how might the choice of representation inform the issues to highlight at the trial? This might also bring out interesting attorney-client conversations (and potentially disputes) as to the value of provocative strategies. 

The activists on trial seek support, financial and otherwise, and the emphasis on one aspect of the case over another might impact the sources of said support. Presenting oneself as an idealistic, otherwise normative person in risk of a considerable prison sentence might be a persuasive strategy in obtaining support on a personal basis from sympathetic people, but it also centers the person, rather than the suffering animals, in the debate. Presenting the criminal case as an effort to produce a landmark outcome is also fairly complicated. If the activists are seeking a jury trial, even in the happy event that they are acquitted, they will not obtain a reasoned, written decision supporting animal personhood and rights (or even animal welfare), and it might be anyone’s guess whether the acquitting verdict is the product of legal analysis or jury nullification due to sympathy for the defendants. So, is the desired outcome a conviction, followed by a reversal on appeal with a written judicial opinion? And if so, how might that affect the ways in which support is sought? 
Image may contain: 24 people, including Almira Tanner, Matt Johnson and Jon Frohnmayer, people smiling, people standing
Activists packing the court at Rachel Ziegler and Jon Frohnmayer’s
trial for open rescue activities, Sep. 9, 2019.
Photo credit: Paul Picklesimer on Facebook.
And what about behavior during the criminal trial? Is filling the courtroom with supporters wearing animal rights t-shirts a winning strategy, or might it prove a turnoff to a jury, especially in a rural farming area? Again, the answer might lie in the question what the activists are trying to achieve at trial.

And then there is the legal strategy itself. The endgame for some (albeit not all) animal liberationists is some recognition of animal personhood. There are fierce debates in the literature about how to conceptualize animal personhood, of course. The granddaddy of animal liberation theory, Peter Singer, seemed revolutionary when the book came out, but in light of later writings on the topic, his writing on food and medical experimentation does allow for some exceptions. Tom Regan’s take on animal personhood relies on the animals’ cognition. In their provocative comparison of the animal rights and pro-life movements, Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf rely on the concept of sentience. And  perhaps the most radical formulation of animal personhood is Gary Francione‘s abolitionist theory, which finds no exceptions to the prohibition against using animals for any purpose. And against these philosophical theorists, whose views are, perhaps best articulated as biocentric, we have the ecocentric views of environmental ethical thinkers, for whom the perpetuation of a species or an ecosystem might be more valuable than the protection of individual animals (see more about this debate in a post I wrote a while ago in my oft-neglected cooking blog, of all places.) The big question is – to what extent would prospective jurors need to “buy” any of these formulations of animal personhood, be they strong or weak, to find that the necessity defense applies and the activists were justified in saving the animals? Since the necessity defense requires a balance of harms, is it necessary that the harm be suffered by someone who has some sort of legal status, some sort of claim to rights? Or are rights and suffering fundamentally different? And to what extent will the activists’ lawyers expect jurors to parse out these different theories? Again, Helena Silverstein’s wonderful Unleashing Rights is relevant here: as she points out in other legal contexts, “lawyers in the movement rarely speak of animal rights in the courtroom.” But importantly, “rights talk itself is not out of bounds in the courtroom. When rights talk is used, however, it is not in the form of animal rights but in the form of human rights. . . lawyers and movement organizations advance human rights claims such as the First Amendment right to freedom of speech in order to promote animal rights.” Is this true in the criminal context as well?
Finally, given the jury’s power to nullify (big debates here about what jurors should do when confronted with unjust laws or their application), there is the question of whether the activists’ lawyers should invest in crafting their arguments within existing law (that is, arguing that the necessity defense, as currently framed, applies to open rescue) or changing the law (that is, arguing that the necessity defense should change because the current conceptualization of animal suffering/rights/personhood in law is insufficient or unjust.) What the lawyers choose to do is also a question of jurisdiction: there might be some states in which it is easier to work within the interpretation of the necessity defense, and those might, ironically, be places in which the defense is not codified, which might create a first-impression situation that gives the lawyers an interesting blank canvas to argue rights and personhood. 
But underlying these important considerations is an important feature of the criminal process: pursuing animal rights through the criminal process means that there is a human individual who might face conviction, and even incarceration, at the end of the day. My last blog post on the project discusses that.

Part V

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part III: Planning Open Rescue in the Shadow of the Law

Image result for dxe arrested
Arrest during a protest in Petaluma. Photo credit: DxE.

Whether or not the necessity defense applies, or should apply, to open rescue, is a doctrinal legal question. As a law and society scholar, I ask myself questions about the interaction of the law with people, institutions, and movements. Because I have a special interest in social movements, I ask myself: How do animal rights activists understand and perceive the role of the criminal process in their lives? The extent to which the law is present in people’s lives is its own field of study, known as legal consciousness. 

Part I
Part II

In their classic book The Common Place of Law Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey present three schemas of relating to the law in everyday lives: before the law, with the law, and against the law. People’s experience of the law extends farther than their involvement in official legal institutions, such as calling the police on someone, visiting a courtroom, or hiring a lawyer. While some scholars have supported the idea that the law is present everywhere in everyday lives (see Austin Sarat’s study of the welfare poor) others have found people so busy surviving that they are not even conscious of the law or so skilled and privileged that they can structure even oppressive legal experiences, such as incarceration, as “games”, “experiments”, or “educational experiences”, outside of the legal framework.

But what about social movements? An entire area of study is devoted to this question, looking at the way advocates and activists perceive the law. Idit Kostiner, who studied social justice activists, found that they see the law’s value through three main schemas: instrumental (obtaining rights), political (galvanizing activists and organizing) and cultural (relying on the law to change perceptions.) In expanding the understanding of legal consciousness beyond merely obtaining rights, she follows Michael McCann, who argues that legal mobilization helps social movements even if they don’t get exactly what they advocate for, because it provides them with a framework that is helpful for advancing their cause.

How do animal rights activists map onto all this? The animal rights movement operates within the constraints of a legal order that completely ignores, or negates, what the movement believes in. The law sees animals as property, and much of our economic system is structured around the exploitation of animals (often in conjunction with the exploitation of others.) This could make the activists very cynical about the law. Indeed, a beautiful interview-based study conducted by Erik Fritsvold found that radical environmental activists tend to perceive their relationship to the law as “under the law” and their primary engagement with it through lawbreaking.

Fritsvold’s subjects and mine are not that different from each other. The activists he studies also define their actions as direct action, which, according to Noel Sturgeon, is “a series of ‘actions’ engaged in by groups that organize themselves in a decentralized, nonhierarchical manner . . . which use a participatory, democratic, decision-making process . . . and which prefer direct action to institutionalized, electoral, or interest-group politics. Frequently, such groups are involved in civil disobedience, that is, the principled breaking of the law in the process of political protest.”

For direct action environmentalists, the law is an instrument of injustice to fight against. This schema differs from Ewick and Silbey’s category of “against the law”, because to the activists, “the law veils the illegitimacy of the existing social order and actively represses dissent. Against the Law observes that the law often fails as an asset to achieve justice; Under the Law views this failing as intentional and perceives law as an active agent of injustice.”

Nonetheless, it seems that animal rights activists in general, and DxE activists in particular, somewhat differ from Fritsvold’s interviewees. Helena Silverstein’s wonderful 1996 book Unleashing Rights about animal rights activism shows that, despite thorny philosophical difficulties with the concept of “rights”, which activists saw as anthropocentric, they did not shy from employing this concept when it served their purpose–or from hiding it from sight when it did not. Indeed, my own subjects, when planning open rescues, display some important markers of legal sophistication. Until fairly recently, DxE was led by Wayne Hsiung, an attorney and former legal academic, who is very well-versed in the legal status of animal rights nationally and internationally. Other members of DxE are lawyers, law students, or aspiring law students, and very well aware of the role the law plays in their activism.

Important questions regarding DxE’s legal consciousness involve how open rescue operations are planned. In anticipation of a direct action, do activists reach out to legal authorities to report animal cruelty? Do they expect the authorities to intervene, and on whose behalf? When entering the facility, do activists try to seek detection, avoid detection, or a mix of both? If and when they encounter the facility owners or workers, do they attempt to alert the media or resolve things quietly? When encountering law enforcement in the field, how do they interact with them?

Answers to these questions are strategically tricky, because there are two different legal outcomes looming ahead: the short-term one consists of a possible arrest of the activists, perhaps followed later by a court case. The long-term outcome consists of changing the laws of the animal products industry and, perhaps in our lifetime, even eradicating it. What activists might do to promote one of these outcomes could harm the other, and requires careful thinking ahead. It is also the case that, even with carefully planned actions, unexpected circumstances can change the nature of the encounter and enhance, or diminish, the clash with law enforcement. I plan to look at these questions as well.

The next post in the series will address preparations and strategies for criminal trials, involving both strategic and tactical considerations.

Part IV
Part V

Facing Criminal Charges for Saving Animals, Part II: The Necessity Defense

Image result for activists rescuing chicken
Activist rescuing pigs. Photo courtesy DxE.

Part I here

The necessity defense is recognized in common law as a situation in which a person violates the law in order to prevent or mitigate harm. One way to understand the principle behind necessity is to think of a car swerving off the road to avoid an accident and then running into someone’s fence. Ordinarily, the driver would be responsible for the damage to property, but because she caused it in order to avoid a greater harm, we do not hold her responsible. Necessity belongs to a family of affirmative defenses known as “justifications”: rather than merely excusing an individual for a particular set of circumstances that absolve them of responsibility (because they are insane, too young, or intoxicated, for example), a justification applies more universally, and might be regarded as a legal statement that, when faced with these circumstances, the law wants people to choose the lesser harm.

As Jenni James explains in this excellent article, the necessity defense can be elusive, because over the years judges have narrowed its scope. Most states do not even have it codified into their penal code: for example, to find California’s necessity defense, you’d have to recur to the California jury instructions. The elements vary somewhat across jurisdictions, but for the most part they conform to some general principles:

  1. Serious harm (in CA, defendants have to prove that they acted “in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else)”
  2. No adequate legal alternative.
  3. Proportionality between the harm committed and the harm avoided ( in CA, “[t]he defendant’s acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided). In other words, the opposite of what the Cowboy Fireman did in this terrific Faith Petric song.
  4. A genuine, subjective belief that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil.
  5. Objective support for the subjective belief: In other words, that “a reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances.
  6. Lack of culpability on the part of the defendant for the emergency in the first place (CA law requires that the defendant “did not substantially contribute to the emergency.”)

As James argues in her article, the ability to even present the necessity defense in court depends on judicial discretion (typically exercised in the context of a motion in limine to prevent the presentation of the defense.) In one decision, U.S. v. Schoon, the Ninth Circuit held that the necessity defense will only be available to activists who engage in “direct civil disobedience”–that is, directly challenging the rules they protest–and not “indirect civil disobedience” activists, who violate a law that is “not, in itself, the object of protest.” As James explains, open rescuers engage in both forms of civil disobedience, because they challenge both the exploitation and cruelty of the animal industry (indirect) AND ag-gag laws (direct.) But the upshot of the decision was that protesters, by definition, were to be denied the necessity defense–even though lower courts sill allow it on occasion. And of course, as James points out, the necessity defense can be a poor fit for these premeditated and planned operations, because by its very nature it is designed to address emergencies.

This means that activists encounter some serious hurdles in presenting the defense. The first and foremost issue that might come up is the big question whether the suffering of animals constitutes “serious harm,” and also, a harm that is proportional to the harm they cause when they enter the facility or remove an animal. Part of this debate is factual: the activists would have to prove the imminent harm to the animals, and to come up with a way to show that this harm is equal or greater to the harm that their actions caused to the farmers. Video evidence showing sick or dying animals might prove their marginal monetary worth to the farmers as well as the harm and suffering to them (but requires, of course, that activists engage with the legal framework that sees animals as property.) As to how harm and suffering are to be measured, one thing I plan to look at is the extent to which potential jurors are open to considering evidence of animal emotions and theories of animal personhood.

I’m reading Frans de Waal’s Mama’s Last Hug, whose point of departure is the animal behaviorist’s skepticism about proof. De Waal argues that we can, and should, be able to assess and measure animal emotions, which human and nonhuman animals can both exhibit and control. The examples he provides show nonhuman animals as imbued with a sophisticated understanding of their social world, as well as a sense of justice, as well as fairness. Larry Carbone’s interesting What Animals Want, which is set at a lab, raises important questions about assessing physical suffering of animals held in labs for experimentation. My hope is to expand my reading on animal emotion, feelings, and suffering, and think about which theory of animal agency would be persuasive to a jury.

Then, there are questions about the subjective and objective intents of the activists, as well as the extent to which they recurred to legal means before taking illegal action (reports to the police, etc.) – this element can be difficult to handle, because often one can know of the specific harms that are occurring only via illegal means. In short, as James argues in her article, “[j]udges seldom have to overtly pit commercial privacy interests against an animal’s right not to suffer. Instead, judges often assume the practice causing the animal’s suffering was legal and thus not harmful for purposes of the necessity defense balancing of harms. Rescuers who wish to remove animals from industrial facilities, then, should be careful to select only animals suffering from clearly illegal activity, which, ideally, should also be documented. However, to avoid the appearance of vigilantism, rescuers might consider using this documentation sparingly and perhaps even sharing it with law enforcement promptly.”

But that raises other questions, which are a proper subject for ethnographic research: How do animal rights activists relate to the law, and to the prospect of criminal justice in their activities? More on that in Part III.

Part III
Part IV
Part V

Facing Criminal Charges for Saving Animals, Part I: Open Rescue

Image result for dxe rescues bird
DxE activists with rescued birds. Image courtesy Indybay.

Hello, friends! I’m writing this from the Harvard Animal Law Policy Program, where I am a Visiting Fellow this fall. My plan for this fellowship is to examine the intersection of criminal justice, social movements, and animal rights–in other words, what happens when animal rights activists engaging in open rescue are criminally charged for their actions?

A brief primer: the conditions of confinement experienced by animals–cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and others–in factory farms are beyond atrocious, and this is true not only for conventional farms, but also for so-called “humane” or “cage-free” facilities. I have seen footage that has torn my heart apart. In one video, from a chicken farm, I saw emaciated and sick chickens, some of which were barely moving and clearly close to death. The animals trampled upon each other to breathe and carcasses of trampled chickens were clearly visible on the ground. Parts of the animals’ bodies were torn, likely by other animals trying to push through to obtain food and air. There were some indications that the animals, starving and parched, had turned to cannibalizing each other.

These are difficult things to see and experience, partly because opening our eyes and hearts to animal suffering requires seriously reconsidering our consumption habits that contribute to this cruelty. But the first step is, of course, to raise public awareness to these conditions, and there are very few legal avenues to doing so. Because of that, activist organizations turn to a technique called open rescue.

The Animals and Society Institute defines open rescue as “[t]he process of giving aid, rescue, and veterinary treatment to animals confined in typical factory farm living conditions. The immediate aim of the rescuers, who identify themselves even when trespass is necessary, is to save lives, while documenting the animal suffering inherent in large-scale industrialized food production.” This definition has several important components.

First, it is a “rescue” mission, and therefore often involves not only documenting conditions at the farm, but also removing sick and endangered animals. The activists I spoke to explained that they seek to identify animals that might imminently die or suffer irreparable harm unless they are removed from the facility (this, in itself, requires them to do some selection, because all animals subject to factory farm lives are in dire circumstances.) They also do this because working for animal rights can be emotionally devastating and demoralizing, and rescuing animals provides an optimistic element to the experience.

Second, open rescue is “open”. In an article about the need for solidarity and cooperation in the animal rights movement, Taimie Bryant quotes Paul Shapiro, formerly of Compassion over Killing, who explains that, by contrast to other animal liberation actions in which participants “go to great lengths to conceal their identities”, the point of open rescue is to rescue the animals “completely openly… you videotape yourself doing it, you take full responsibility for the fact that you did it and you openly publicize the fact that you did it.” Shapiro argues that the overt nature of the action garners much more sympathy for the activists and focuses attention away from the morality of their own actions (“should we treat them like orderly criminals, or like political prisoners?”) and toward the conditions suffered by the animals.
–> But, as it turns out, you can’t really avoid the question of how to treat the people, even in the face of the serious question how to treat the animals. Entering factory farms to document conditions does not only violate garden-variety penal code provisions against trespass (and, if animals are rescued, larceny), but also a slew of ag-gag laws–laws lobbied for by the agricultural industry prohibiting entry to, and documentation of, animal factory farms.

As an aside, saving animals turns out to be a fairly dangerous proposition in general. During Hurricane Katrina, the Animal Legal Defense Fund composed a memo offering legal guidance for the brave people who broke into abandoned, flooded homes to rescue animals left behind. Even in the face of the heartbreaking story of Snowball— reportedly, the inspiration behind legislation requiring states to come up with animal rescue planning as a condition for FEMA assistance–the law offered (and still offers) little to no protection even for people who rescue the most sympathetic animals of all: domestic pets. Good Samaritan Laws, which protect emergency rescuers from criminal and/or civil liability, either do not refer explicitly to animals or explicitly use the term “person.” Local animal cruelty laws do not go as far as offer coverage for rescuers.

This is especially true for farmed animals: as reported by the Animal Welfare Institute, several states explicitly exclude farmed animals from the definition of “animal” in their animal cruelty laws, so that these laws do not apply to them. Moreover, the aforementioned ag-gag laws were designed specifically to protect agricultural interests, as exemplified in this Intercept story by Glenn Greenwald. So, from the perspective of the farmers, the legislature, and the prosecutors, open rescuers are trespassers (when they step on the premises) and thieves (when they remove animals from the premises.)

My project involves a study of an organization called Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) which, among other avenues, pursues open rescue and documentations. DxE activists use sophisticated technology–drones, virtual reality filming–to present the horrors of factory farms to the public. And, the organization often rescues animals, whom they name and care for with the help of vets and sanctuaries. Such acts have resulted in several criminal cases against activists. Some of these have been dismissed (such as the case against a woman who gave water to thirsty pigs on their way to slaughter) but some are still pending, in California (Sonoma County), Utah, and North Carolina.

The activists facing trial have, so far, declined plea bargains in favor of jury trials, and they plan to argue for a necessity defense.

The next installment in this blog post series will examine the elements and feasibility of relying on a necessity defense in open rescue cases.

Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V