Legistation: Protection From the Assaults of Dogs Essay

The main thesis of this essay states that more severe and comprehensive legislation is needed to protect ordinary citizens from the aggressive assaults of dangerous dogs. The thesis is defended through analysis of the main facets of the problem and involves following points. The first point postulates that many dogs are dangerous to the life and health of people, especially children. In defending the second point we claim that guard and specially trained dogs are aggressive and often uncontrollable which the abundance of cases reveals. Thirdly, we address the issue of the lack of law enforcement which is evidenced by the fact that owners of aggressive dogs often do not have responsibility for their aggressive behavior. And finally we propose some measures for improving law enforcement and legislation on the aggressive dogs. This essay is mainly directed at law enforcement and dog’s owners’ audience. The first should take all necessary measures to redress the situation with dogs attacks and adopt effective and viable legislations as well as to compromise the demands of personal security with individual freedom of ownership. The latter – owners are often unaware of dangerous connotations of aggressive breed dogs’ ownership both for strangers and the members of their own family. They often are not good specialists and simply regard a dog as a safeguard for them and their property. Their lack of awareness of possible consequences leads to complete absence of societal responsibility. This argumentative essay tries to draw their attention to these burning issues in the view of changing their attitude to aggressive dogs’ ownership. This is necessary for consolidated efforts in law enforcement and legislation.

1. The dangerousness of dogs is evidences by many examples of violent assaults of dogs on passer-by or even on family members. The assaults of brutal dogs on Meg Jordan in Oakland, California, Diane Whipple who was killed by a dog near San-Francisco as Michel (2002) states show that the occasions of dog attacks with tragic outcomes for people have considerably increased and this is mainly due sufficient inefficiency of legislation and a rush for personal security in the United States that often is associated with violent and specially trained killer dogs.
2. Such guard dogs that are often bought by people who think that it is prestigious and secure to hold them in apartment but often being ignorant of necessary canine knowledge and skills needed for a owner to secure his own family and other people. As the case of 16-year old daughter of Nathan (girlfriend of Rudy Giuliani – ex-mayor of New York) who after violent assault of rottweiler required the plastic surgery and forty five stitches on her face which was torn, suggests that guard dogs are very dangerous for family members and especially for children (Michel 2002). This is particularly a case for such breeds as rottweilers, pit bulls and mastiffs who have the most violent records in many districts and cities are referred to as ‘dangerous dogs’. Besides this many violent assaults on people are not well-documented but the fact that even celebrities become the object of attack point out to abundance of such examples. For instance, Dyball et al. document that a violent attack was made on Ray Raphael a famous host of talk show in New York (Dyball et al., 2007). It seems to us that these examples are adequate to formulate and outline the main contours of dog’s dangerousness for people which is itself important part of our argument.
3. The lack of regulation for dogs should be addressed and new measures in legislation taken to improve the safety of American citizens. The complaints of citizens as Michel’s article suggest are often disregarded by authorities. The requirements for muzzling big dogs seems partial palliative for security.
4. No uniform laws are used for dealing with the aggressive dogs. Each state and municipal authority creates its own standards – for instance that a dog has to bite two persons or make severe injury to other animal to be destroyed. Many cities don’t have any laws to remove aggressive dogs as a famous specialist in ‘dog legislation’ Kenneth Philips suggests (see references). Moreover law enforcement concerning aggressive dogs attack on people is underdeveloped and ineffective. Criminal charges and their implementation against the owners of aggressive dogs is not very frequent today. Many aggressive dog owners were found not guilty in dog-mauling cases though as the evidence suggest they should have charged of irresponsible behavior in relation to their dogs. Notwithstanding the fact that there were some cases of owners being jailed there is no effective conditions for proper jurisdiction. Thus, we propose certain measures that will radically change this situation. The policy and practices of this kind of legislation should be comprehensive to embrace the whole variety of different cases.
5. As the real examples of legislation design on aggressive show the main contradictions are the contradiction between individual right and citizen’s safety. For instance Urbina discusses it in his article. As he notes 33 states in Columbia district introduced strict laws for the dog attacks which made dog owner liable for his dog actions. Texas as Urbina notes made a felony offence when owner’s dog injures anyone. Virginia also created public online Dangerous Dog Registry.

As these examples show some changes are being occurring but they we consider are partial and not in accordance with the scope of problem. Our position in this matter is as follows.

1. It is needed to adopt federal legislation for every state. Until this is done we still have the majority of states with dog-ownership tradition like Texas where ownership of ‘dangerous dogs’ is still present a risk for American citizens.
2. Furthermore, it is needed that dog-owners have full scope responsibility if their dog made assault in the case of their inactivity or irresponsible treatment like not muzzling collaring or muzzling their dogs or not doing other safety measures outlined in new legislation. The law enforcement and terms of imprisonment should carefully evaluated and juxtaposed with other crimes and minor offences described in legislation acts.
3. Another important measure concerns limitations on ‘dangerous dogs’ ownership (rottweilers, pit bulls etc.) for those citizens who do not eligible for such ownership. It would be an effective move if dog- ownership is stipulated by the same conditions as gun ownership – psychological testing etc. Another thing that should be in place for ‘dangerous dogs’ ownership is canine professionalism of a potential owner. Until this is a case there is a certain danger that dog owners wouldn’t control their pets and they may cause harm to other people as well as family members. The list of ‘dangerous breeds’ should be created on the national level and be enforced in every dog sales outlet.
4. Moreover it is necessary to increase effectiveness of dog control public service a primary function of which is search and pursuit of homeless dogs often deceased with rabies and are dangerous for passer-bys.

In sum these measures in our view will produce positive affect on general situation in this sphere and will help prevent many tragic events connected with aggressive dogs. Thus, we consistently defended our thesis and hope that the conclusion will be interesting for abovementioned audience.

References

Dyball, Rennie et al. ‘Ray Rachael’. People, Vol. 67 Issue 11, p28-28, 1/6p, 2007.

Michel, St. ‘Carrie Bred for trouble. Good Housekeeping’, Good Housekeeping, Vol. 235 Issue 4, p83, 3p, 2c, 2002.

Philips, Kenneth. Biography and Mission. Web.

Urbina, Ian. ‘State Try to Weigh Safety With Dog Owners’ Rights’. New York Times, Vol. 156 Issue 54014, pA12-A12, 2/3p, 2007.