Dissertation of Laws against Animal Cruelty and for protecting Animal
Executive Summary
The possible conditions about laws to stand against animal cruelty and for protecting animal feeders have the potentials of widespread changes, as well as some similarities among different countries. This effectively gives enough reason for launching a research, which would present effective outcomes and results, which would present some important answers to the existing unfulfilled questions. Through careful contextual factors and conditions about, the research showcase the centrality and umbrella-like influence of animal cruelty laws to actual manifestations like used for protecting animal feeders. Additionally, other considerations were central in portraying the circumstances and conditions as well.
Introduction
When tackling the topic about laws concerning animals, there is a legitimate challenge since this covers a wide area of many topics comprising entire countries’ numerous legal codes and statutes. It is why this dissertation is generally focused upon two distinct yet interrelated topics. Animal cruelty, by normative view of the law, is the infliction by humans the commission or omission of suffering and/or harm toward non-humans (Sauder, 2000). Providing to protection for animal feeders generally relate to individuals or parties who take to providing necessary food for consumption to non-humans. Such people are generally threatened by a number of external forces actions like verbal abuse, physical violence as well as constructed or derived legal action like threats for eviction (Li & Davey, 2013). Nevertheless to properly understand these would require getting into the umbrella concepts like animal rights and animal welfare respectively.
1.1 Animal Rights and Welfare in terms of preventing cruelty and protecting feeders
The point about including the ideas, concepts, questions etc. regarding the treatment and behaviors against animals included some questions being presented throughout human history. For instance, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebooks displayed the emotion of anger he felt towards humanity raising animals for slaughter. However, French philosopher Rene Descartes believed that non-humans or animals are ‘functioning automata’, basically meaning that they are complex machines with no soul, reason or mind to actually compare with humans (Srinivasan, 2013). Nevertheless, it was Charles Darwin’s seminal theory of evolution, which fully painted the picture of the relationship that humans had with other species. Despite what Descartes had claimed before, there was noted sign usage in complex forms, use of tools and a certain extent of self-consciousness, which were evident within some animals (Sauder, 2000). Social, moral and mental orientation is evident under the theory of evolution for animals; however, as noted by contemporary philosopher Nigel Warburton, humans have sought to use animals as they see fit with the dominance of justifying their underlying differences from human beings.
Animal rights and welfare is mostly based upon the following terms, and often end up point to the fact that capacity of suffering constitutes the main focus of discussion. This is the current point of basis that laws against animal cruelty and for protecting animal feeders have become so prominent under judicial conditions and statements in so many places and nations (Srinivasan, 2013). The notion of life-hood, and the conditions of suffering that animals have to experience has immense magnitude in terms of occurrence. Taking, for example, the questions about animal cruelty could constitute legitimate concerns about the conditions, policies and functions of factory farms in general (Sauder, 2000). Or, they could potentially involve a random act of inflicting physical violence in the hopes of gaining something, such as entertainment in circus or video. Additionally, the point about inflicting cruelty could be seen as an act or behavior to be attained as an end by one, which also constitutes a legitimate case of animal cruelty.
The need for protecting animal feeders generally originate from wider social concerns about recognizing the concepts of animal rights and welfare. It applies to people specifically in terms of protecting those who satisfy the needs of animals from a specific perspectives. There are certain animal species who have been first domesticated by humans, and then eventually remain within the human society (Srinivasan, 2013). It could be seen as people owning pets, or stray dogs and cats that remain localized in an area, depending directly upon humans for their survival. Generally speaking, laws are aimed to those who actually help in surviving with the term animal feeders generally meaning those who provide food. However, in such a case of concerns, there have been many instances of other humans looking for ways to prevent humans in terms of actually see through their motivations and their resultant actions.
So, both these topic areas are covered in the law in many countries across the world, but the main question of this research focuses if there actually has been proper coverage of legal policies and codes in such fashion. From the previous paragraphs, it is quite evident that the occurrences of challenges and cases under law (Srinivasan, 2013). The main point of question would be to seek out and understand whether laws from different countries actually recognize the scenario (Srinivasan, 2013), and is able to convey judgment with proper orientation and recognition of animal rights and welfare respectively.
1.2 How Different Countries present the Laws that prevent Animal and Protect the Animal Feeders
The variations under the laws about the potential provision of recognizing legal constructions under both these conditions and circumstances are highly relevant and consequential. India, for example, launched the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act in 1960, and it has become the primary legal basis of seeking proper animal rights and welfare in the country (Sorenson, 2003). Section 11 specifically provides the grounds for animal cruelty making it illegal to inflict unnecessary pain or suffering or other causes, which could be experienced by the animals (Srinivasan, 2013). For a long time, the details of this Act was tantamount to a number of contradicting positions and circumstances. These were, however, changed with the Indian Animal Welfare Act, 2011, which sought to classify animal cruelty as an offence and actually increased the fine to a minimum of 10,000 INR on first time offences (Srinivasan, 2013). However, the still active Act is still operable under the indication of opening up possible exceptions like the killing of animals for food and for different religious purposes of tradition and/ceremony (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These perspectives leave a great deal of opportunities for egregious actions of animal cruelty to actually not receive a great deal of prosecution and the achievement of justice.
Sections 428 and 429 of the PCA, 1960 mentions that it is illegal to cause any injury or maiming to animals, even those that are stray and live close to human proximity (Li & Davey, 2013). Moreover, Section 11 ensures that it is illegal to poison any animal regardless of their state. However, as one can note that there is no specific provision in the law for protecting animal feeders in the country in what is their lawful right to explicitly do so (Sorenson, 2003). Only the point of the Animal Welfare Board of India issuing recognizable Identification Documents have possible notion of preventing harassment from other people (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). But, one can evidently view the apparent gaps under this legal provision, as it leaves a great deal of options open for the many actors in attacking and preventing animal feeders.
In the United States of America, there is most definitely a different set of conditions operating in terms of what the proposed legal conditions and arrangements bring forward. The Animal Welfare Act, 1966 is the most prominent law operating in the country, which potentially provides the legal instrument in preventing animal cruelty, specifically in the federal level of governance (Sorenson, 2003). However, this act only seeks to prosecute animal cruelty only under specific conditions, including research, exhibition, transport and those who indirectly profit as a business. Among other criteria, there are also Endangered Species Act, 1973, which actually makes it illegal to kill an animal belonging to a recognized endangered species (World Wildlife Fund, 2020), and Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act, 2019, which makes egregious forms of animal cruelty like crushing, burning, drowning etc. of all animals a federal criminal offense (Sorenson, 2003). However, the most important responsibilities in these legal codes within the jurisdiction of states, which tend to offer laws that differ significantly. As a balancing case, local governments of counties and cities also provide necessary statutes of directing and presenting possible equitability in the law of recognizing animal cruelty even if their respective states should not recognize many of the required clauses and sections.
In terms of protecting animal feeders, the question associates directly with most state and local laws instituting legal statutes, policies and conditions, mainly on the basis of companion animals and protecting wildlife (Srinivasan, 2013). Feeders could specify their attention in any specific direction, but it certainly poses a problem wherein the possible distinctions could not be made (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These laws have lately started associating with some notable directions of presenting ‘hands on’ scenario to effectively require reduction of harmful conditions and circumstances (Kelch, 2012). All these points are all significantly associative of presenting and constituting important factors (Kelch, 2012), which show the apparent failure to recognize such occurrences and the problems that could be faced.
As one can effectively witness, the apparent distinctions and differences between animal cruelty laws and those protecting animal feeders are notable in India and the United States (Kelch, 2012). However, there is certainly consistent trends, which need to be address in terms of the contexts, conditions and specificity covered under these grounds at large. (World Wildlife Fund, 2020) These would comprise the overall conditions, which would provide the necessary grounds of performing the exact research depending greatly upon the applying details.
1.3 Research Problem
The general specific conditions that apply to animal cruelty laws generally supply with the observations that they essentially fail at achieving their ultimate results. A number of possible reasons could apply to them, such as lack in proper enforcing, a wide extent of possible exemptions and other incidental factors (Kelch, 2012). The lack of proper, direct and actually effective composition of legal statutes addressing the topic need to be explored in terms of what different laws present under different jurisdictions. The matter with laws protecting animal feeders offers a different scenario at large, which evidently applies specifically to India in terms of instituting the conditions for cruelty animals may happen or take place (Kelch, 2012). However, the case of United States does not even go as effectively as it probably should (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). This opens up the question whether occurrences against animal feeders is as notable in many countries as they are in India, and what exactly constituted the proper definition of the term ‘animal feeder’ (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). These important questions all require helpful answers with the help of the constituting circumstance of research questions mentioned below.
1.4 Research Objectives
The conditions associated with presenting the necessary of objectives of this research are as follows:
To properly understand the ideas behind animal rights and welfare, which went in to establishing these laws.
To find proper explanation of the lack in context and background exactly why certain areas, small or big, of topic focus or area are not actually covered.
To establish the relations between laws about animal cruelty and laws that protect animal feeders.
Explain the significance behind the possible conditions with respect to the challenges over the outcome of justice.
To underscore improvements in these laws in certain directions and why exactly such things need to take place.
1.5 Research Questions
The effective conditions that lie beneath specifying the exact answers, and what they actually mean or be defined by could be distilled into a research question to be answered fully and acceptably at the end of research. This may be shown as per the following:
What are the commonalities in laws against animal cruelty and those for protecting animal feeders in different countries, and what exact relations do they offer between each other?
Taxation Law
As per the taxation Laws to Australia, a visitor visiting Australia is liable to pay tax. However, there are certain aspects of that are being checked to ensure the fact that the tax liability being imposed is at par the guidelines of Australian taxation laws.
