Cat in the Hand Versus Birds in the Bush
posted by Adam Kolber
Yesterday’s New York Times had an interesting story about James M. Stevenson, on trial for killing a cat that was apparently stalking endangered birds. If convicted, Stevenson faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Stevenson was indicted under a statute that, at the time of the incident, prohibited killing a cat “belonging to another.” The prosecutor argued “that the cat had a name, Mama Cat, and that though the cat lived under a toll bridge, she was fed and cared for by a toll collector, John Newland.” So, there appears to be a question about whether this animal belonged to the toll collector. Two comments:
(1) I suspect I’m not alone in thinking that whether this man spends up to two years in jail or receives no punishment at all should not turn on whether or not this cat belonged to someone. And, in fact, the law was subsequently changed to eliminate the belongs-to-another requirement.
(2) I wonder if Stevenson might have a choice-of-evils defense if the cat was just about to kill endangered birds at the time Stevenson fired. We don’t ordinarily think of cat-on-bird-violence as itself animal cruelty, probably because animal cruelty statutes tend to focus less on animal pain and more on the risks created to other humans by people who are cruel to animals. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to imagine a legal regime that empowers us to intervene in ordinary predatory conflicts among non-human animals. So, here’s an easier case: If one member of endangered species Y was about to kill several members of endangered species Y, I imagine that one might have a choice-of-evils defense when killing the former. (Is this the case?) Matters might get more complicated, I suspect, when the predator and prey species differ (ie. how do we value the life of one member of endangered species X compared to the lives of one or more members of endangered species Y?)
November 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Syd - November 14, 2007 at 6:58 pm
According to the report I read, Stevenson’s lawyer said in his opening statement that his client went to the toll bridge (cat’s location) with the intention of killing the cat, which his client thought of as a wild animal. That would seem to pretty much eliminate the “Oh, that nasty feral cat is right this instant about to kill an endangered bird! Isn’t it lucky I happen to have my .22-caliber rifle with scope and hollow-point bullets!” argument.
The %$#&*@ didn’t even make it a clean kill, meaning that the cat suffered before it died. When an officer on the scene testified to that effect, the defendant’s lawyer said the witness wasn’t qualified to judge the cat’s “state of mind” as to whether it felt pain. Which is bollocks, because anyone who has experience with animals–and often, those who don’t–can tell when they aren’t feeling well, are in pain, etc.
Obviously, I hope they give him the maximum penalty…
Stephen Aslett - November 14, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Here’s Texas’s necessity defense statute, TEX. PENAL CODE § 9.22 (2005):
Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
M Andre - November 15, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The cat was not native species. If the birds are endangeered, protected, and people who would kill those birds would be fined or go to prison, then that cat had illegal alien status with a long list of crimes to account for.
I am almost lifelong vegetarian, and I am on the side of getting rid of the cat. Maybe to trap it and take it away, but, as someone said, “they would just put it to sleep” – whatever it took to get the criminal cat getting away with murder taken off the protected wildlife area.
M Andre - November 15, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The cat was being taken care of by the tollbooth man? This is weird because he is the first to be on the job to access into the bird’s protected areas. So if a carload of people came in with the intention of each killing a bird, how would they fare? If that cat killed six birds, same amount of damage. The tollbooth man needs to have been given some ecology instructions, just like, if you go diving in a reef don’t touch things or break coral for souvenirs. Just like the hangar personnel feeding cats – hundreds of cats – at Kennedy Airport – round them up.
Leave a Reply