{"id":779589,"date":"2025-10-23T08:21:55","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T12:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=779589"},"modified":"2025-10-23T08:52:20","modified_gmt":"2025-10-23T12:52:20","slug":"necessity-defense-advocates-who-rescue-animals-in-grave-danger-should-qualify-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=779589","title":{"rendered":"Good Samaritan Law: Advocates who rescue animals in grave danger should qualify for ‘necessity defense’"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0The ‘necessity defense’ essentially excuses an offense because averting a greater harm justifies committing this lesser harm. Often, the crime being excused is a property-based one, such as trespass. The legal statute requires the defendant acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to himself or herself or \u201csomeone else.\u201d It doesn\u2019t say that it has to be another human. When we think about who can experience significant bodily harm \u2014 it\u2019s a being who is sentient and can experience pain. There is no reason why that couldn\u2019t be a dog or a horse or a pig, in addition to a human being.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

An advocate breaks into a California livestock farm \u2014 which he knows has violated animal cruelty laws violations \u2014 and ferries away 70 mortally ill ducks. The birds receive fast medical attention, and all except one survive. But for his deed, the man is tried and convicted of trespassing.<\/em><\/p>\n

If he had walked onto the property to save a human being\u2019s life, he likely could have claimed California\u2019s necessity defense, a law intended to shield Good Samaritans from punishment for lower-level offenses committed when someone\u2019s life is in danger.<\/em><\/p>\n

The same standard should apply to people who save the life of an animal, argues Kristen A. Stilt, a professor of law at Harvard and faculty director of the Animal Law & Policy Program.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe law in California requires that the defendant act in an emergency to prevent significant bodily harm or evil to himself or herself or \u2018someone else,\u2019\u201d she says. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t say that it has to be another human.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In a pair of ongoing criminal cases in California \u2014 one at the trial court level and one on appeal \u2014 animal rights activists removed sick or dying animals from farms in Sonoma County and are now facing jail time or stiff fines for their actions. Stilt, who submitted a friend of the court brief for the person whose case is on appeal, says that in both situations, the defendants should have been allowed to raise the necessity defense, which may potentially excuse the break-ins because they prevented a greater harm \u2014 the animals\u2019 deaths.<\/em><\/p>\n

Such a finding would be in line with other policies in the Golden State that acknowledge and account for the pain and suffering of animals, Stilt argues. And allowing advocates to raise the necessity defense doesn\u2019t mean they would automatically win their cases, she says, adding that defendants would still have to show that the animals were, in fact, in immediate danger and that there was no other reasonable option to save them.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re arguing, yes, the defendants will still have to prove all those elements, but they shouldn\u2019t be precluded as a matter of law from trying,\u201d she explains.<\/em><\/p>\n

In an interview with Harvard Law Today, Stilt explains how the necessity defense works, why she believes it should also apply to the rescue of animals \u2014 and what it would mean for California to take this step for animal welfare. <\/em>RACHEL REED<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n