The Evolution Of Anti-Cruelty Laws

Animal’s status as property- evolution of anti-cruelty laws

The concept of animals as property prevailed since time immemorial where some animals were categorized as personal property of owners. However, under the jurisprudence of English Common Law, not all the animals had equal status. The greatest protection was given to the animals who were designated as “useful” on contrast least protection or rather no protection was given to animals under the category of ferae naturae i.e. animals who were wild in nature. The useful animals such as cattle and sheep were said to have the intrinsic value and they were given similar protection as goods that the owner owned however, the animals of base nature were not even regarded as property. Neither could

The law initially saw animals in the light of the economic value they held. Some kind of legal protection was provided, not to all animals but only farm animals. Pets or companion animals did not hold any socially recognized value. Gradually, there was a transition of animals being mere property that preserved the interest of the owner and held the economic value, to the concerns about the interest of those animals regardless of the actor . A conceptual breakthrough was paved in the year 1867 by foundation of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals . Thereafter, other states started considering anti cruelty laws, this was in a way the inaugurating stone for diversion from the general notion. Besides providing the benefits to humans, the emergence of such laws reflected the acceptance by the legislature of the proposition that the interest of the animals i.e. be free from unnecessary suffering and pain should be recognized in our legal system. The Courts of their time did not address the question of the animals being property but saw the statute as a protective shield to save the animals from cruelty. This was highlighted in a case called Stephens v. State where it was quoted

A similar approach was adopted in other case Grise v. State which noted that the anti-cruelty laws are not made for the protection of any kind of absolute or relative rights of persons. It quoted- “They seem to recognize and attempt to protect some abstract rights in all that animate creation ... from the largest and noblest to the smallest and most