I ran across this California law, and I’m wondering what its effect actually is. I’m assuming that “It is the policy of the state” does not carry the same weight as saying that something is unlawful, right? So is it basically saying that animal shelters need to try not to euthanize adoptable animals, but that if they do there is no legal liability or anything like that?
CA PENAL § 599d
(a) It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future.
(b) It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. This subdivision, by itself, shall not be the basis of liability for damages regarding euthanasia.
It is no different than a policy statement for an organization or a family. It is a broad statement of purpose that leaves the specifics for later.
In this example, California would like for any adoptable animal to be adopted instead of euthanized. But it realizes that as of right now, this isn’t always possible. But it is declaring that the state will continue to do things to move in the direction of the policy. What those things are remain unknown.
I think, (but am ready to be corrected), that it is an interesting difference between American legislation, with the separation of the legislature and the executive, and Australian legislation, with “parliamentary” government.
Reading American legislation, I am struck by the observation that it consists of directions to the executive, rather than implementation instructions. And Australian legislation consists of implementation, rather than direction.
In Aus, the quoted legislation would have no effect. At all. But I think I am aware that in some places, courts take more notice of legislative intention when interpreting black-letter law. (I suspect that California is more a black-letter state, but I’m not a lawyer.)
So are there any legally binding implications to using the term that way? Or is it purely a “warm fuzzies” phrase with no repercussions at all for the politicians writing it?
It isn’t really “warm fuzzies” but the provision in isolation is that. Suppose another ambiguous provision of the animal control code was enacted where reasonable people were debating whether that meant funding for adoption agencies or for lethal injection drugs for animals.
A lawyer or a court could properly use the legislative policy cited above to argue or hold that the ambiguity would properly be for adoption of the animal instead of euthanasia.
I’m not sure that the quoted section even has any effect on own in the US - I’ve never seen something like that in a Penal Code before ,
a section that simply defines a public policy but neither defines a crime nor an exception. ( You can’t serve liquor to someone under 21 UNLESS their parent is present and consents, that sort of thing)
But this was enacted as part of a bill that changed many laws related to animals , and I assume the intent was to encourage no-kill shelters without actually providing sufficient funding to mandate that all shelters be no-kill.
Somewhat similar to a Legislative Resolution. Such as in 1909 the U.S. Senate adopted a Resolution proclaiming the 1774 battle of Point Pleasant Virginia the 1st battle of the American Revolution, not Lexington, MA.
Or another example may be State Attorney General Opinions, some states may consider them as the force of law I believe (?), some/most don’t (?).
In general policy is distinct from law; the law requires the state to do X, but doing X by method Y rather than by method Z is a policy choice. So a statement in the law that “it is the policy of the State to do X” is confusing; if the intention and effect is to constrain the state to do X then that’s now a legal obligation, not a policy choice. Whereas if the intention is that the state remains free to do X or not do X then the declaration of policy in the law has zero effect. This looks to me like a compromise between competing views in the legislature over whether the law should constrain the state to do X or merely allow it to.
Thanks everyone, it sounds like it’s pretty much what I thought. And it makes sense to me that animal shelters should try their best not to euthanize, but if occasionally they have to there shouldn’t be a legal penalty.