Defendant's Reckless Act Proportional to Intentional Murder: States' Laws on Dangerous Dogs - Essay Sample

Introduction

The defendant's recklessness indeed created an extreme threat to human life, and thus the gravity of her crime was proportional to intentional murder. It is because she owned vicious dogs and properly fails to train them. The majority of the states in the United States embodies laws on dangerous dogs geared at the protection of the public from harm. The owners of such dogs must, at all times, keep such hazardous animals in confinement and, at the same time, muzzled for having an insurance liability. According to the States analysis, it was found that Davidson's conduct was above the frequent failure of confining the family dogs. There was a vast range of earlier cases that involved her dogs. A lady who babysat for the defendant also testified on some of the two scenarios that included the defendant's dangerous dogs. Occasionally, as per the witness, Davidson let out the shepherd dog in a cage, thus attacking the puppy. The sitter tried all her best to intervene, and the impact she got snipped off. Consequentially on a different occasion, Davidson's puppy nipped calve while leaving behind some teeth marks, and when she was informed, she only busted in laughter.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Moreover, Margaret Smith being another witness who resided near Davidsons, narrates that during the school year of 1995-96, she was chased by two dogs, believed to have belonged to Davidson. One of the dogs was Rottweiler, and at the same time, Smith's friend testified that as he was bicycling over Davidson's house, the dogs used to bark tenaciously inflicting fear of attack. All such incidents are a clear justification of the defendant's recklessness and that she genuinely cared less about the people's lives at all. The judgment bestowed upon her was genuinely free and fair, and all were acted as per the law.

Davidson's conviction was proper for second-degree murder, unlike the less severe category of homicide, such as the negligent manslaughter. Dangerous dogs such as the Rottweiler poses a severe threat not only to human beings but also to other domesticated animals. The caution has to be taken by the owner immediately before harboring such vicious animals (Berry, 2019). The defendants in an argument claim that all she did was letting the dogs into the fenced domain before consuming a pill then heading to the slumberland. Her case genuinely ignored some of the fundamental arguments that jointly contributed to the 11-year-old Chris. At the same time, Davidson significantly ignored the advice as per the experts on how to train the dogs. It was a prerequisite that she socializes her dogs, but all ended in vain since Davidson saw it better to ignore.

Furthermore, she ignores the evidence of her fatal dogs getting out subsequently on different occasions and also the failure of securing the gate. She also ignored the aggressive behavior of her dogs and the risk it posed to the people around her vicinity and the children at large. The proof was that the defendant dogs killed the eleven-year-old boy, and she possibly foresaw that the dogs had the probability of attacking or even injuring an individual due to what she failed to observe. The jury was significantly instructed to consider the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, either intentional or unintentional reckless killing executed in the commission of such a crime of pertinently permitting dangerous animals being at large. The jury found that Davidson's conduct involved an extreme degree of recklessness.

Work Cited

Berry, William W. "Cruel State Punishments." North Carolina Law Review, Forthcoming (2019).