By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) seeking to move five elephants from Cheyenne Mountain Zoo to a sanctuary. The court affirmed that habeas corpus applies only to persons, and elephants, regardless of their intelligence or emotional complexity, are not considered persons under the law. The zoo had argued the elephants received excellent care, and the court’s decision upheld the lower court’s ruling. The NRP, while expressing disappointment, stated this loss was expected in the ongoing fight for animal rights.
Read the original article here
Elephants are not people, a US court has recently ruled. This decision, while perhaps unsurprising to many, has sparked a wave of commentary, ranging from the sarcastic to the deeply concerned. Some observers have pointed out the inherent absurdity of the situation, highlighting the fact that corporations, often considered soulless entities, hold legal personhood, while highly intelligent and sentient creatures like elephants do not.
The ruling has reignited discussions surrounding animal rights and the ethical treatment of animals in captivity. Many commentators feel the decision is a stark reminder of how far society remains from fully recognizing the sentience and intelligence of non-human animals. The intelligence and emotional depth of elephants, evidenced by their complex social structures, mourning rituals, and demonstrable capacity for empathy, are frequently cited as reasons why they deserve greater consideration.
The argument that granting personhood to non-humans would lead to insurmountable legal problems is frequently raised. If an elephant were to harm a human, for instance, would it be subject to prosecution under the same legal framework as a human? This concern reflects the challenges of applying human-centric legal systems to non-human life. However, it’s also argued that this is a problem of legal framework, not of inherent worthiness of the creatures involved.
The court’s decision has been compared to historical injustices, with some drawing parallels to the Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to enslaved people. This comparison, while potentially hyperbolic, underscores the frustration and concern felt by many who believe that the very act of needing a court to determine this is an indicator of moral failing. This highlights the deep-seated biases within legal systems that prioritize certain forms of life over others. The incongruity of granting personhood to corporations while denying it to elephants is seen by many as a clear example of this bias.
The discussion also brings forth the question of whether granting personhood is the only, or even the best, way to protect elephants. Some argue that focusing on improved animal welfare standards and ethical treatment, rather than pursuing personhood, may be a more practical and effective approach. The question of whether personhood is even the appropriate path for advocating for elephants, or if it might be counterproductive, is an ongoing debate.
This is not the first time a US court has ruled against granting personhood to animals. The decision, therefore, while generating renewed debate, is not entirely unprecedented. However, the consistent stream of comments highlighting the perceived illogical nature of granting personhood to corporations while denying it to elephants underscores the widespread dissatisfaction with the current legal system’s handling of these matters.
Many commenters expressed their concern that this decision highlights a broader issue of societal priorities. Some believe that prioritizing the legal rights of corporations over those of sentient beings, like elephants, reflects a skewed set of values, underscoring the need for a reevaluation of how human society interacts with and values the non-human world. The deep frustration over this ruling shows many people deem the current state of legal standards inadequate and in desperate need of reform.
Beyond legal arguments, the emotional response to the ruling is palpable. The intelligence, social complexity, and emotional depth of elephants are frequently highlighted as factors that should command greater respect and protection. This includes their observed mourning rituals, their strong family bonds and their apparent understanding of death, all pointing to a complexity that seems to deserve greater acknowledgment.
In conclusion, while the US court’s ruling that elephants are not people may seem straightforward on the surface, it has triggered a much broader conversation about animal rights, legal personhood, corporate power, and societal values. The ruling will likely continue to fuel debate and activism surrounding the ethical treatment of animals and the need for a more just and compassionate legal framework. The fact that this requires discussion in the first place speaks volumes about humanity’s relationship with non-human species and our responsibility to create a more equitable world.