In 1386, the French city of Falaise tried a sow accused of infanticide. The appointed lawyer failed to stop its execution, and the animal was dressed in human clothes before being beheaded in public by an official executioner.
Almost three centuries later, on June 26, 1659, a province in northern Italy initiated legal proceedings against caterpillars. According to the complaint, the specimens invaded and stole from gardens and orchards. Citations were issued, with five copies posted on trees in the surrounding forests of each city, summoning the caterpillars to appear in court on June 28 at a specified time, where they would be assigned legal representation. Of course, no caterpillar showed up, but that did not stop the process, which ended with the judge ruling that an alternative plot of land should be allocated to the caterpillars for their sustenance and enjoyment. By the time the details were settled, the accused had already pupated, leaving all parties satisfied with the outcome.
Thousands of kilometers away, in the Brazilian province of Piedade no Maranhao, Franciscan friars filed a lawsuit in 1713 against ants for illegally excavating under the monastery's foundations, threatening its ruin. Lawyers were appointed for both the plaintiffs and the defense, and after scholarly arguments from both sides, an ecclesiastical judge decreed that the Brothers should designate a nearby suitable land for the ants, which they must respect, under penalty of major excommunication.
Disputes between animals and humans have remained unresolved for centuries, posing questions like: What to do with a moose crossing the street recklessly? Or with a bear caught burglarizing a home? And with a killer tree? Asks American journalist Mary Roach, author of Animal Crimes. When Nature Breaks the Law, a bestseller now published in Spain by Capitán Swing.
It may seem that the actions of judges and prelates from 300 years ago lacked logic. However, their aim was simply to instill fear in the population. To demonstrate that even nature must abide by their laws, and that they would not be deterred by trivial matters such as animals not speaking our language or being unaware of the concept of private property.
Before concluding that centuries ago we were like goats judging goats, remember that even the U.S. president continues to pardon a turkey for Thanksgiving in a solemn ceremony today. "Humans tend to see the world as if we were the center of the universe. So why wouldn't we treat animals the same way?" says Roach. In fact, we constantly do. "In the U.S., we even have pet spas."
-So, we are shocked by dressing a pig as a person for execution in a trial, but not for taking it to a spa.
-Nowadays, the pet food industry no longer says pet owner, but pet parent.
-If someone mentions it, I guarantee they will try to do something.
-In Spain, we sometimes blame Walt Disney for having educated our generation by giving animals human qualities.
-I tend to think this started in the 60s and 70s with environmental movements. People began to have more awareness of how we treat animals. But part of the blame can indeed be placed on Walt Disney. If you look at how people perceive sharks, it has a lot to do with the movie Jaws (1975), which made people have an exaggerated sense of danger.
Illustration of the "Trial of a Sow and Her Piglets in Lavegny," from the "Book of Days" (1863).
Centuries have passed, and animals continue to commit the same offenses: murder, homicide, serial killing, aggravated assault, theft, burglary, corpse theft, or major sunflower seed theft. Bears and large felines are among the usual suspects, along with bees, bulls, horses, and snakes; but unexpected criminals like monkeys, blackbirds, or fir trees also appear. And what about minor offenses? Those deer and wild boars crossing the street without looking. Those vultures, geese, moles, seagulls, and rodents that daily wreak havoc on properties.
Two thousand species in two hundred countries regularly commit acts that alienate them from humans or what Mary Roach calls "the heavy footprint of humanity," which often takes justice into its own hands with total impunity.
"Animals do not abide by our laws but by their instincts. Almost without exception, animals simply do what they usually do: eat, defecate, build a home, defend themselves, or protect their offspring. The problem arises when they do it to humans, or human homes, or human crops, creating dilemmas for people, municipalities, and the fauna itself," points out Roach, one of the most popular science writers in her country.
Of course, there are different kinds of humans, which forces animals to know a bit about religion and even international law. In the ski resort of Aspen, Colorado, black bears raid trash containers of houses and restaurants for calorie-rich scraps, maple syrup, honey, and even ice cream, often resulting in some being shot. However, in West Bengal, herds of hungry elephants do the same without consequences. They have even killed 403 people with impunity in the last five years. That's the privilege of being a sacred animal. Padma, a woman selling grain in a store in northern Bengal, was asked about an elephant that had eaten part of her store the previous week and refused to have it killed. "Why would I want to kill a God?"
-So, we just say, 'Namaste and please leave,' the woman said.
It's challenging for animals to understand. "Depending on the species, religion, gender, and caste, India can be a better place to be an animal than a human," Roach notes.
Until recently, criminal species were simply destroyed. Consider our campaigns to eliminate crow, blackbird, coyote, or wolf populations in Spain. Many of these initiatives were not only morally questionable but also ineffective and costly. When it comes to problematic wildlife, humans are often both the problem and the solution.
"We design human strategies to enforce the law on animals without questioning to what extent it is reasonable to impose our norms on other species. We immediately assume this is my property, you can't be here, and I can do whatever I want to you. I'm not saying we consider them equals, but we should have compassion," Roach asserts.
-Although sometimes that compassion depends on how cute we find them...
-That's true. Any small rodent in your house is already considered a pest, giving us permission to kill it as we please, something we wouldn't consider with a dog or a cat. We have a double standard, but where do you draw the line? I now take spiders outside, but my husband takes off his shoe and squashes them. The other day, I was in an interview and started killing some fruit flies on the screen. Why do we draw these arbitrary lines? Some people are researching the sensitivity and pain of insects. Now we have to consider if a fruit fly has the kind of nervous system that feels pain. But well, it was a quick death, right?
"We design human strategies to enforce the law on animals without questioning to what extent it is reasonable to impose our norms on other species."
Three hundred years ago, animals breaking the law were assigned a lawyer and tried. Today, the answers are not found in jurisprudence but in science: the curious discipline, as Roach defines it, that studies conflicts between humans and wildlife. The intersection of human behavior and animal biology.
Ecologists and government agencies have focused in recent years on resolving these conflicts. There is a whole world of experts working on ingenious and sometimes unsettling technologies to deter "criminal" behavior: lasers to repel vandal seagulls at the Vatican, special lights for vehicles that scare away deer on roads, and genetic modifications to sterilize mice.
Often, human interventions to enforce the law on animals do not work, or even worsen the situation. A 2005 study says that if a deer crosses the road, it is safer to drive straight towards it than to swerve or brake abruptly. Safer for the driver, not for the deer. Research shows that scarecrows can attract birds; and the relocation of problematic leopards in India led to even more attacks on humans.