A jury rendered a guilty verdict in the trial of five beagle rescuers. But the defendants still won where it matters. The history of social movements teaches us that courtroom “losses” often end up being the biggest victories in history because they show the public the need for change. This is the beauty of nonviolent resistance. Heads, we win. Tails, the oppressors lose. There will no doubt be difficulties ahead for the defendants, and for others who face trials ahead. But their sacrifices will inspire others to heed their cause. And for that reason, they’ve already won.
VOX POPULI: Beagle rescuers may soon join the laboratory dogs in being trapped in a cage… A jury rendered a guilty verdict in the trial of five beagle rescuers with the animal rights organization Animal Rising (AR), who were charged with burglary after entering a Marshall BioResources (MBR) facility and removing 18 beagles from their cages. Sentencing will occur on February 19, where the defendants face up to 10 years in prison. (Most experienced criminal lawyers say they should expect a small fraction of that, including the possibility of “suspended sentences” that include no jail time at all.)
Supporters of the activists are shocked because, quite simply, the defendants did not commit the crime. Burglary convictions in the United Kingdom require that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants acted “dishonestly.” Given that the removal of the beagles was done openly — press releases and videos were published by AR everywhere immediately after the rescue — and that the defendants “turned themselves in,” many felt certain that the jurors would side with the defendants…
The reason is that juries, and people more generally, make decisions based on emotions and stories more than technical arguments. That was true of the Sonoma case, where efforts to tell the story were fundamentally disrupted by a hostile judge. And there were a number of key factors in the UK beagle rescue trial that likely undermined their ability to tell the right story, too. Here are a few of those factors, and some of my other takeaways from the trial…
1. Evidence regarding animal cruelty, and the motive of rescue, was disallowed. The first and most important factor in the verdict is that key evidence regarding cruelty—and thus the defendants’ motive—was forbidden in court… The defendants were not allowed to present key evidence regarding the cruelty to dogs that was unfolding at MBR, and reports from the courtroom indicate that the judge even shouted down one of the defendants’ attorneys for referencing that abuse in closing argument…
2. The government made extraordinary efforts to suppress public discussion of the case. The prosecution repeatedly moved to impose extraordinary restrictions on public disclosure of what was happening in court, including a bizarre and anti-democratic attempt to seal the verdict from public disclosure… The general thrust of the government’s approach was to silence the movement and media from saying much of anything about the case. Efforts to suppress transparency such as these, when successful, have an effect on courtroom dynamics because they insulate the government and court from public scrutiny…
3. The animal rights activists were in an echo chamber, too… While people in the UK (and the US) do indeed love dogs, they are also willing to support horrifying things when they are told those horrifying things are normal and necessary. This overconfidence by many activists likely led to errors in storytelling. The best storytelling is the result of relentless and punishing criticism from diverse sources that makes the final narrative as strong as it can possibly be… The movement did not do enough to seek harsh feedback on the narratives they were portraying in court, particularly from experienced storytellers and lawyers, before delivering that story to the jury and public…
4. The defendants still won where it matters. And this is the most important takeaway. The defendants won because they saved 18 beagles from ghoulish experiments. (Many dogs at MBR are sold for the infamous toxic inhalation experiments that first put vivisection on the public’s radar decades ago—and which still have not been stopped.) They won because their case will now be an opportunity for appeal, which could establish the availability of defenses such as necessity. But the most important reason they won is that the stakes were asymmetric. The history of social movements teaches us that courtroom “losses” often end up being the biggest victories in history because they show the public the need for change…
This is the beauty of nonviolent resistance. Heads, we win. Tails, the oppressors lose. There will no doubt be difficulties ahead for the defendants, and for others who face trials ahead. But their sacrifices will inspire others to heed their cause. And for that reason, they’ve already won. WAYNE HSIUNG
RELATED VIDEO: