Dog Theft: A Case for Tougher Sentencing Legislation

Abstract

Simple SummaryThe Sentencing Council (England and Wales) currently considers dogs to be “property”. This means that if someone steals a dog, they may be punished in the same way as someone who steals a non-living object, like a mobile phone or a piece of furniture. This review argues that losing a dog is very different to losing a non-living object, and that many people consider their dog to be a friend or a family member, not just a “possession”. The review concludes that that people who steal dogs should be punished in a way that reflects the emotional harm that can be caused to victims of dog theft.AbstractDogs, and other companion animals, are currently classed as “property” in theft sentencing legislation for England and Wales. This means that offenders who steal dogs are given similar sentences to those that steal inanimate objects. This review presents the argument that the penalty for dog theft should be more severe than for the theft of non-living property. Evidence of the unique bond between dogs and humans, and discussion of the implications of labelling a living being as mere “property” are used to support this argument. The review concludes that the Sentencing Council’s guidelines should be amended so that offences involving the theft of a companion animal are deemed to be a Category 2 offence or above. The review further proposes that “theft of a companion animal” should be listed in the Sentencing Council’s guidelines as an aggravating factor.

Reducing the Gap Between the Ambitious Goals and Practical Reality of Animal Welfare Law Enforcement: A Review of the Enforcement Gap in Australia

“…Legally animals are a form of personal property [112][113][114], and defined as 'goods' under Australian Commonwealth legislation [115]. The legal status of animals has been debated and discussed by legal scholars for decades, arguing between awarding rights to animals [116,117], to maintaining the current protection approach but strengthening the existing framework [118].…”

“…Simply put, property status allows the exploitation of animals in production systems, animal experimentation, and sports and entertainment [66,119]. It has been stated that humans may use the fact that animals are their property as justification to treat animals how they wish [116] and compared them to inanimate objects [114]. However, as Nurse [96] noted, animal welfare statutes provide protection to animals by making owners or responsible persons have a duty of care responsibility.…”

Experiences of dog theft and spatial practices of search/ing

“…The sentences available under the Theft Act, 1968 are dependent on the monetary value of the stolen animal, rather than their cultural, emotional, and social significance as family members (see for example Charles, 2016; Irvine & Cilia, 2017; Power, 2008; Shir‐Vertesh, 2012). For Harris, ‘the law trivializes the emotional harm that can be caused by the theft of a companion animal’ (Harris, 2018, p. 6).…”

Spatialities of Dog Theft: A Critical Perspective

“…As such, a significant tension between the social and political dimensions of pet ownership continues to be exacerbated, whereby the sensual experiences of pet engagement are poorly represented through the legalities of U.K. law. Such tension has influenced respective campaigns by the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance (Sampa) [7] and Dogs Trust [8] to reform the Theft Act 1968 [1] and its associated Sentencing Guidelines [2].…”