Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

sciencehabit writes Chimpanzees are back in court. Judges in New York State heard the first in a series of appeals attempting to grant "legal personhood" to the animals. The case is part of a larger effort by an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) to free a variety of creatures—from research chimps to aquarium dolphins—from captivity. If the case is successful, it could grant personhood to chimps throughout the state.

Comments

Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BitterOak]

If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my thought. I think the corporate ruling is insane and compared to that this is super sensible.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[mwvdlee]

If a person is criminal or criminally negligent (which is different from negligence), (s)he should be held accountable no matter what the role in a corporation.

Ridiculously high damage claims is an entirely different issue and, as I understand it, one that usually gets corrected by judges.

Life imitating Art

[techno-vampire]

The idea of a chimp, or other primate being intelligent enough to be considered human isn't new. Heinlein covered it back in 1947 in Jerry Was a Man. If you haven't read it yet, you really need to before discussing this article any further.

Re:Can you marry one?

[MightyMartian]

In virtually ever jurisdiction in the industrialized world children under a certain age cannot give consent for a variety of activities; sexual intercourse, signing contracts, medical treatments, etc. That a nine year old cannot consent to having sex or signing a contract doesn't mean they aren't a person. Personhood alone doesn't afford all rights and privileges, but it does guarantee the basic liberties.

I can imagine animals like chimps, dolphins and elephants being granted personhood under the law, but being that they do not have the cognitive and rational capacities of humans (well, I'm not so sure about elephants, there is something kind of spooky about them in the intelligence and emotional departments), they might hold those basic liberties in the same way that a child, a mentally ill person or a severely mentally handicapped person might. They couldn't sign contracts independent of a guardian, they couldn't be given the vote, but they would be protected from egregious violations of their basic civil liberties.

Re:Not until they can put on a suit of clothes

[MightyMartian]

There are plenty of people who appear before the courts who cannot argue their own cases. In fact, most Common Law jurisdictions have individuals called Public Trustees (or a similar office) who are charged with representing those who, because they are not deemed capable of representing themselves in court, still may need access to the judicial system. Surely granting basic liberties to other sentient creatures could be modeled on the same legal structures we put in place to protect children and the mentally incapacitated.