Reggie goes to court TODAY!!

Most people who understand anything about me understand that my dogs are more important than you are.
At least this is how I feel, they are excellent friends of mine.
Anyway, I was browsing the mourning morning news to see how many young have been killed overnight, as I do every morning when I ran across a dog story and I was thrilled to see a hero dog in the news!
Story
I read of this companion who helps victims, and I thought this was awesome until I got to a certain line in the story where the judge said,

In her ruling regarding Reggie last year, Gilliard said she sought to strike a balance between the constitutional right of the defendant to get a fair trial and the disabled accuser's need for support.

Can a persons needs overrule our rights.
How do you feel about counties using a dog to get a court win?
Shouldn't the accused have the right to a comfort dog as well?
What say you, citizens of ATS?

reply to post by g146541


I personally don't think they are using the companion dog's for a court win; they are using the dog's to give moral support to the victims of sexual assault; they help to give the people (victims) courage and comfort in a time of deepened stress when having to face their attacker in a courtroom.

I am all for these companion dogs in the courtroom; they help the victims.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by g146541

 

I personally don't think they are using the companion dog's for a court win; they are using the dog's to give moral support to the victims of sexual assault; they help to give the people (victims) courage and comfort in a time of deepened stress when having to face their attacker in a courtroom.

I am all for these companion dogs in the courtroom; they help the victims.

I agree that they help the victims, that awwww factor is powerful.
If you were accused of something would you still approve of someone using a dog in their case against you?
Sometimes the accused are the victim, shouldn't they be allowed the same?

reply to post by g146541


In answer to your question; I am really undecided at this point and time.

Do you think they should have an animal for comfort too? (the person being prosecuted) that is.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by g146541

 

In answer to your question; I am really undecided at this point and time.

Do you think they should have an animal for comfort too? (the person being prosecuted) that is.

Tit for tat, but no.
I believe the only person who should be allowed a service dog in court should be a person physically handicapped.
Dogs can lead us and carry airtanks and the physical things that might burden us.
There is only one person who can carry my emotional state and that is me.
These people are "using" a dog for its cute factor.
I would also suggest that someone so utterly devastated by something that they have to bring the breathing equivalent of a security blanket into court, may have not been all that stable to start.
See what I' saying?
I love dogs, all shapes and sizes and in many ways I think they are simply better than us.
I also think this dog in the OP is being used, like a dogs ability to side with the victim, the dog would be the same way to a pedophile murderer too, dogs don't judge naturally.

This is a really brilliant idea and it should be implemented everywhere! I work with victims & witnesses and I know for a fact this would help!

I've seen children as young as four having to give evidence.... So traumatic.... Yeah there are special measures which can be put in place like a video link but live evidence is always best for getting down to the real story....

If a child or any other vulnerable person is willing to actually take the stand with a dog beside them, instead of doing a live link or hiding behind a screen, this can only benefit the system in my opinion....

Of course the defendant should also be allowed a furry friend at trial, everyone's innocent until proven guilty after all....