Scholarly Legal Analysis

Details

Category: Scholarly Legal Analysis

Published on Saturday, 19 March 2011 01:56

Written by Super User

Scholarly Legal Analysis Uniformly Critical of Breed Specific Legislation

Scholarly legal analysis is uniformly critical of Breed Specific Legislation on both legal grounds and as a matter of policy and cost. Scholars agree that legally, BSL violates due process, equal protection, is void for vagueness and does not have a rational basis.  As a matter of policy, BSL punishes law abiding citizens allowing those who don't care to continue to acquire pit bulls.  The cost of enforcement is high, and yet bite statistics remain the same. For those of you who want to read what legal scholars have to say, I have compiled the following list (most recent first):

1. Irrationality Unleashed: The Pitfalls of  Breed Specific Legislation, 78 University of Missouri L. Rev. 839 (Spring 2010).
2. Animal Law-When Dogs Bite: A Fair, Effective, and Comprehensive Solution to the Contemporary Problem of Dog Attacks, 32 University of Arkansas at Little Rock L. Rev. 259 (Winter 2010) - Criticism of the Pit Bull ban in Maumelle, Arkansas.
3. Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior, 56 Depaul L. Rev. 1285 (Summer 2007).
4. Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed Specific Legislation Won't Solve The Dangerous Dog Dilemma, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2847 (April 2006).
5. The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners' Insurance Companies, Vol. II, No. 1 Connecticut Insurance Law Journal  (2004-2005).
6. Canine Profiling: Does Breed Specific Legislation Take A Bite Out Of Canine Crime?, 108 Penn. St. L. Rev. 855 (Winter 2004).
7. Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy, 10 Animal Law 313 (2004).

Commentary on these articles to follow.

1 comments