Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons, Grants Them Writ of Habeas Corpus
Source:
MarketWired
URL Source: http://www.marketwired.com/press-re ... ersons-grants-them-2011517.htm
Published: Apr 20, 2015
Author: Nonhuman Rights Project
Post Date: 2015-04-20 19:20:22 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 1661
Comments: 6
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - Apr 20, 2015) - For the first time in history a judge has granted an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a nonhuman animal. This afternoon, in a case brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe issued an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, who are being used for biomedical experimentation at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York. Under the law of New York State, only a "legal person" may have an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus issued in his or her behalf. The Court has therefore implicitly determined that Hercules and Leo are "persons." A common law writ of habeas corpus involves a two-step process. First, a Justice issues the order to show cause and a writ of habeas corpus, which the Nonhuman Rights Project then serves on Stony Brook University. The writ requires Stony Brook University, represented by the Attorney General of New York, to appear in court and provide a legally sufficient reason for detaining Hercules and Leo. The Court has scheduled that hearing for May 6, 2015, though it may be moved to a later day in May. The NhRP has asked that Hercules and Leo be freed and released into the care of Save the Chimps, a sanctuary in Ft. Pierce, Florida. There they will spend the rest of their lives primarily on one of 13 artificial islands on a large lake in Ft. Pierce, Florida along with 250 other chimpanzees in an environment as close to that of their natural home in Africa as can be found in North America. In the second step of the process, the Court will determine whether the reason given by Stony Brook is legally sufficient, or whether Hercules and Leo should be freed. Hercules and Leo's suit was originally filed in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County in December 2013. A Justice of that Court refused to issue the requested writ of habeas corpus, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the NhRP lacked the right to appeal. In the belief that both courts erred, the Nonhuman Rights Project respectfully re-filed its petition for an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Hercules and Leo in March 2015, in the New York County Supreme Court in Manhattan, which led to today's decision. In two similar cases on behalf of two other chimpanzees, Tommy and Kiko, the Nonhuman Rights Project has filed Motions for Leave to Appeal to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Decisions in both cases are pending. For more information on the Nonhuman Rights Project, please visit www.nonhumanrightsproject.org.
Poster Comment: Well I gotta agree, chimps are certainly more human than Citizens United.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Stay out da bushes! It started with dubya....
Yep. And the writ of habeas corpus is issued to the government penal institution responsible for the imprisonment. And the writ of habeas corpus demands that the prisoner be taken before the court. None of these apply to chimpanzees.
Lock them away in a sanctuary? That's inhuman! I say file a writ of habeas corpus to free them from that ... that prison!
But see... http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2014/518336.pdf Decided and Entered: December 4, 2014 518336 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF v PATRICK C. LAVERY, Individually OPINION AND ORDER At 2-3 This appeal presents the novel question of whether a chimpanzee is a "person" entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus. Notably, we have not been asked to evaluate the quality of Tommy's current living conditions in an effort to improve his welfare. In fact, petitioner's counsel stated at oral argument that it does not allege that respondents are in violation of any state or federal statutes respecting the domestic possession of wild animals (see e.g. ECL 11-0512). According to petitioner, while respondents are in compliance with state and federal statutes, the statutes themselves are inappropriate. Yet, rather than challenging any such statutes, petitioner requests that this Court enlarge the common-law definition of "person" in order to afford legal rights to an animal. We decline to do so, and conclude that a chimpanzee is not a "person" entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus. At 6: Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus – that have been afforded to human being. Our rejection of a rights paradigm for animals does not, however, leave them defenseless. The Legislature has extended significant protections to animals, subject to criminal penalties, such as prohibiting the torture or unjustifiable killing of animals (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 353), the abandonment of animals in a public place (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 355), the transportation of animals in cruel or inhuman manners (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 359 [1]) or by railroad without periodically allowing them out for rest and sustenance (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 359 [2]), and the impounding of animals and then failing to provide them sustenance (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 356). Notably, and although subject to certain express exceptions, New Yorkers may not possess primates as pets (see ECL 11-0103 [6] [e] [1]; 11-0512). Thus, while petitioner has failed to establish that common-law relief in the nature of habeas corpus is appropriate here, it is fully able to importune the Legislature to extend further legal protections to chimpanzees.
Gutta cavat lapidem.
They should be renamed Barrack and Michelle,but that's too anti-PC,so maybe they could rename them Biden and Gore?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
"Under the law of New York State, only a "legal person" may have an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus issued in his or her behalf."
#3. To: Willie Green (#0)
"The NhRP has asked that Hercules and Leo be freed and released into the care of Save the Chimps, a sanctuary in Ft. Pierce, Florida."
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
State of New York
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
NEW YORK ex rel. THE
NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT,
INC., on Behalf of TOMMY,
Appellant,
and as an Officer of Circle
L Trailer Sales, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.
#5. To: nolu chan (#0)
#6. To: Willie Green (#0)
Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons, Grants Them Writ of Habeas Corpus
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]