ASPCA to pay $9.3 million to Ringling Bros. circus over claims about elephants

[No Elephants]

By Jonathan Allen, Reuters

NEW YORK - A major animal welfare group has agreed to pay $9.3 million to the owners of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus to settle a lawsuit brought in response to now-dismissed legal claims of mistreated elephants.

The settlement, announced by the parties on Friday, removes the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, from litigation by Ringling Bros. against the Humane Society, the Animal Welfare Institute and a former elephant handler for the circus.

The ASPCA and others originally filed suit in 2000 against Feld Entertainment, producer of the circus, accusing the Virginia-based company of mistreating the Asian elephants that perform in its shows.

<snip>

Feld Entertainment, in turn, sued the various animal welfare groups and Rider, accusing them of abuse of process, malicious prosecution and violation of federal racketeering laws through unfounded litigation.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16221308-aspca-to-pay-93-million-to-ringling-bros-circus-over-claims-about-elephants?lite

[Enthusiast]

1. I cannot believe

there are not mistreated elephants at the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

[No Elephants]

2. IMO, it is mistreatment per se to confine to a cage an animal whose nature it is to roam for miles

and forage.

However, courts are about, in this case, what criminal law forbids. Not even that, actually, but about whether the prosecution has proven violation of law beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt--obviously, a very high standard. (Yes, people get wrongly convicted under that standard every year, maybe every week, but it is still a high standard.)

But, there was something else at work here.

The animal protection groups supported this plaintiff for years as his only source of income. That cast a lot of doubt on his credibility and came close to violating prohibitions against champerty and maintenance--quite longstanding in the British legal system, which we adoped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

There is a conflict between our distate for champerty and maintence and our social value of keeping the courtroom doors wide open, including to poor people. (We do that because we don't want people "taking the law into their own hands," i.e., using violence.)

However, in this case, the lawsuit may have been less about compensation for any injury that the plaintiff actually suffered and more about the ASPCA wanting to bankrupt the circus or to make a point about circuses. Those are maybe arguments to be made to a legislature, rather than to a court. And you can pick up the judge's annoyance about that, even from the article.

[Enthusiast]

3. You are right, of course.........nt