Courtroom Comfort DogsFollow

If their aim to throw out the conviction is the dog then it sounds like a pretty flimsy defense case.

I'd have issues with dogs in the courtroom, but it stems more from my irrational phobia of dog-poo. Plus there are fleas, pees, hair on the chairs, allergies, barking, possible biting etc, etc.

As far as the dog-stroking giving some subliminal message to the jurors about truth or lies is pretty ludicrous.

Crying in the courtroom, or continued hugging of oneself or whatever that individuals habits might be, could just as equally sway a jury.

I'm similarly phobic of dog poo, but therapy dogs have to be trained and certified basically not to do that among other things. For those who don't know about therapy dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_dog

I don't think access to a therapy dog should be a right or anything, but if a child advocate/psychologist, the attorney, and the judge approve it, I'm really not going to argue on any grounds.

My dog would make a kick-*** therapy dog, btw.

The "emotional play" issue is less about how the person on the stand acts and more about how the dog reacts to the person. If the person seems distraught, the dog will act sympathetically and people tend to assume that dogs are more "sincere" about these things. It adds credibility to their distress whether it deserves it or not.

Presumably then, if the dog reacted unsympathetically to the stroking of a victim, it would make the person seem less credible. What does an unsympathetic dog look like?

I guess people are weird enough that they (as a juror) could make a decision about the person on the stand based on the dogs reaction to that person. Dogs don't like bad people ya know.

In reality though, as mentioned above somewhere, trained dogs are gonna probably react to most everyone in the same fashion. They're trained to.

So, they should be able to be used without causing any rational people to form opinions based on the dog's actions, but meh. People can be kind of odd.




Edited, Aug 9th 2011 8:04pm by Elinda

I'd be more concerned about interference with the witness/victim/culprit. Much easier to lie convincingly if you have a furry animal to innocently project some of your attention to.

Also, I'm severely allergic to dogs (like suffocating, high speed drive to the hospital allergic in some cases). I wouldn't be able to sit on the stand in that room for days afterwards. Court rooms are not there to comfort you.

The term "comfort dog" makes me think of the Cake song "Comfort Eagle" which, in turn, makes me imagine a 15 year old rape victim trying to nuzzle an agitated raptor during the court proceedings.

Wrong raptor but...

Not saying she doesn't deserve the comfort, just don't agree it should be provided in the courtroom.

It's ******* and Old Lace from Marvel's The Runaways. Three volumes, worth the read.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 3:53pm by lolgaxe

I don't know how I feel about the dog actually being in the courtroom. After thinking about it, that's just too much influence on the jury. For a while I've firmly believed that therapy dogs for victims is a very powerful thing, because I've heard of them being used pre-trial for therapy and comfort before testimony. I think there's almost as much influence on the victim's well-being just having the dog as comfort immediately before and after they take the stand, as there would be in the courtroom. Give the small children a stuffed toy that resembles the dog, and I think it would be just as much emotional comfort during the testimony as having the dog there with them, without the added sway of a sad puppy on the jury.

The purpose of a court is determine if an illegal act has been perpetrated and to what extent. That is not to say decreasing the hostility of the courtroom environment for some victims isn't a prerogative, but it absolutely cannot be done at the cost of objectivity.

Though likely unintentional, your poll happens to be biased. The first option is worded such that there are no drawbacks. It's phrased as an automatic assumption that the dog helps the truth come out. It should be counterbalanced in a way like "I believe the comfort provided is worth the risk of jury manipulation," versus "I believe the comfort provided is not worth the risk of jury manipulation." I'm sure you can word it in an even more neutral way, but it's pretty poorly written as it is now. I thought it was worth mentioning since this thread is about unintended emotional manipulation.

How dare you show bias towards dogs in your poll about whether or not dogs create bias, Joph!