PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Dogs, and other companion animals, are currently classed as \"property\" in theft sentencing legislation for England and Wales. This means that offenders who steal dogs are given similar sentences to those that steal inanimate objects. This review presents the argument that the penalty for dog theft should be more severe than for the theft of non-living property. Evidence of the unique bond between dogs and humans, and discussion of the implications of labelling a living being as mere \"property\" are used to support this argument. The review concludes that the Sentencing Council\'s guidelines should be amended so that offences involving the theft of a companion animal are deemed to be a Category 2 offence or above. The review further proposes that \"theft of a companion animal\" should be listed in the Sentencing Council\'s guidelines as an aggravating factor.
摘要：
狗,和其他伴侣动物，目前在英格兰和威尔士的盗窃量刑立法中被归类为“财产”。这意味着偷狗的罪犯会被判处与偷窃无生命物体的罪犯相似的刑罚。这篇评论提出了这样的论点，即对狗盗窃的处罚应比对非生命财产盗窃的处罚更重。狗和人类之间独特纽带的证据,并讨论了将生物标记为“财产”的含义，以支持这一论点。审查的结论是，应修订判刑委员会的准则，以使涉及盗窃伴侣动物的罪行被视为第2类或以上罪行。审查进一步建议，“盗窃伴侣动物”应在判刑委员会的准则中列为加重因素。
