Courtroom dogs: An unfair advantage?
Service dogs are increasingly being used to comfort witnesses during difficult testimony, but some lawyers argue that the practice prejudices jurors
Earlier this summer, for the first time ever in New York state, a service dog trained to help traumatized children was allowed to accompany a teenager to the witness stand, where the dog offered comfort during emotional testimony. The case involved a man accused of raping and impregnating his teenage daughter. The man was found guilty, but his lawyers are now appealing the case, arguing that the presence on the witness stand of Rose (aka Rosie), an 11-year-old golden retriever, unfairly swayed the jury to side with the teenage girl. Should dogs be allowed to help witnesses in courtrooms?
Yes. Legal precedent supports the use of dogs: Service dogs assisting in legal proceedings are "a growing trend, with comforting canines appearing in court rooms in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana and Hawaii," says Sara Nelson at Britain's Daily Mail. Indeed, dogs like Rosie have been used in courtrooms since 2003, when the practice was pioneered in Seattle. The judge in the New York case who allowed Rosie's participation relied in part on an earlier New York case involving a teddy bear, which was held by a child witness in a 1994 sex-crime trial.
"How a golden retriever called Rosie is helping comfort young victims of rape and violence in court"
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
No. Dogs obviously bias jurors: The presence of a dog unfairly prejudices a jury, says defense attorney David S. Martin, as quoted by The New York Times. In the New York case, "every time [the young girl] stroked the dog, it sent an unconscious message to the jury that she was under stress because she was telling the truth." That's quite an advantage, especially since "there was no way for me to cross-examine the dog."
"By helping a girl testify at a rape trial, a dog ignites a legal debate"
Don't listen to the defense lawyer's "horrifying" argument: "Tell me that's not the most pathetic case of legal sour grapes you've ever heard," says Jacqueline Burt at The Stir. The attorney's contention that the presence of a friendly-looking dog "infected the trial with ... unfairness" is just absurd. What's next — denying a blind witness a seeing-eye dog?
"Sweet golden retriever helps rape victims testify in court"
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Will Starmer's Brexit reset work?
Today's Big Question PM will have to tread a fine line to keep Leavers on side as leaks suggest EU's 'tough red lines' in trade talks next year
By The Week UK Published
-
How domestic abusers are exploiting technology
The Explainer Apps intended for child safety are being used to secretly spy on partners
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Scientists finally know when humans and Neanderthals mixed DNA
Under the radar The two began interbreeding about 47,000 years ago, according to researchers
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published