Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario

Over the last decade, India has witnessed a fluctuating but consistently high number of death sentences awarded by session courts, reflecting ongoing tensions between retributive justice and judicial restraint. Between 2016 and 2023, trial courts imposed capital punishment in significant numbers: 153 in 2016, 110 in 2017, 163 in 2018, 104 in 2019, 78 in 2020, 146 in 2021, peaking at 167 in 2022, and dropping slightly to 120 in 2023. Despite this high frequency at the trial level, higher judiciary particularly the Supreme Court has shown increasing reluctance to confirm such sentences. The appellate courts have emphasized the “rarest of rare” doctrine, reinforcing the need for individualized sentencing and consideration of mitigating factors. This reflects India’s cautious, evolving approach to capital punishment, grounded in constitutional morality, procedural fairness, and human rights jurisprudence. This paper aims to study the legal framework having punishment of death sentences and also the crimes for which death penalty awarded in India.

This chapter applies the cross-cutting themes in Chapters 1–5 to the highly contested issue of the death penalty. It begins by considering the differences in constitutional texts, and particularly the ambiguity as to whether the death penalty is permitted. This requires judges to apply their interpretive theories. Original intent, natural meaning, and living tree approaches have all been relied on to achieve a mosaic of different and vehemently contested approaches. The chapter then considers how courts in different jurisdictions have addressed three main issues: whether a fair procedure can be found which justifies the death penalty; whether there are good penological justifications; and the role of substantive values, such as human dignity. The chapter highlights the ways in which courts approach the demarcation between judicial and legislative power; their use of comparative materials; and the increasing interconnectedness of the approach of different jurisdictions to the death penalty.

Background:Despite pets are sentient beings, they are legally considered and regulated as objects in sales contracts. Therefore, the buyer is protected by law if the purchased animal should be affected by defects such as an illness or a congenital / hereditary condition that depreciates its value. In the sale of animals, a disease is legally considered a defect if it is hidden, severe, and pre-existing at the time of purchase. Canine Atopic Dermatitis (CAD) having these three requirements can, therefore, legally be considered a defect. To acquire his legal rights, the buyer must obtain a certification from the veterinarian reporting that the animal was unfit for buying within a certain time frame.Aim:This paper analyzes the legal choices that owners of dogs affected with CAD can make to help practicing veterinary clinicians comprehend and recognize this disease and because it may be considered a defect.Methods:Thirteen cases of CAD are reported and analyzed from a medico-legal point of view.Results:In cases n. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 owners of dogs affected with CAD partial or full reimbursement from the seller obtained. In cases n. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, dog owners could not take any legal action because the diagnosis of CAD was made beyond the time limits required by law. In cases n. 1, 6, and 8, the owners decided not to take any legal action.Conclusion:The veterinarian practitioner is a key professional figure not only for diagnosing the disease within the legal time limits, but also for support the owner in medico-legal disputes. A basic medico-legal background for all veterinarians and greater involvement of them in the sale of animals as a guarantee for the buyer is recommended.

The debate over the death penalty remains unresolved, with mixed opinions from legal professionals and human rights activists. In many Asian countries, discussions about international human rights and abolition treaties often face limitations, as they can be viewed as forms of cultural imperialism. This paper explore the implementation of the death penalty in Indonesia, examining the reasons for its continued use and analyzing steps that the Indonesian government could take to abolish it in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The research is normative legal research, which focuses on identifying legal rules, principles, and doctrines to address existing legal issues. It seeks to generate arguments, theories, and new concepts that can contribute to solving these problems. The findings indicate that the death penalty remains entrenched in Indonesia's legal system despite ongoing debates about its application. Many still view the death penalty as necessary, believing it aligns with human rights standards and Islamic principles. However, Indonesia has options for moving towards abolition, such as instituting a moratorium on the death penalty. It is recommended that the House of Representatives review all laws imposing the death penalty and mandate institutions to reassess cases where this penalty has been applied, potentially commuting sentences. The government can also consider implementing a moratorium on the death penalty as a step towards eventual abolition.

The death penalty has been under increasing empirical study since the United States Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia. In recent years the Supreme Court has narrowed both the relevance and applicability of empirical evidence in deciding capital punishment cases. This paper reviews empirical challenges to the death penalty from the perspective of program evaluation. Recent trends in death penalty litigation suggest that the Supreme Court is simply fine-tuning the "death program," focusing on fairness of procedures and deferring the more difficult moral questions to state legislatures.

Economic Governance Series II - The Strength of Competition Policy and Regulation in the Arab Region

Capital punishment remains a contentious issue at the intersection of Islamic law and human rights law. This paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of the discourse surrounding capital punishment within these two legal frameworks. Islamic law, rooted in the Quran and Sunnah, provides guidance on criminal justice, including provisions for the death penalty in certain cases. Human rights law, on the other hand, emphasizes the protection of individuals' inherent dignity and right to life, often challenging the legitimacy of capital punishment. Through a comparative analysis, this paper explores the philosophical, theological, and legal underpinnings of capital punishment in Islamic law and human rights law. It delves into the historical evolution of capital punishment in Islamic jurisprudence and examines contemporary interpretations and applications of hudud punishments. Additionally, it scrutinizes international human rights instruments and jurisprudence, evaluating the compatibility of capital punishment with principles of human dignity and the right to life. Furthermore, this paper examines the practical implications of capital punishment within Islamic legal systems and its interaction with human rights norms. It considers case studies and legal precedents from various jurisdictions to illustrate the complexities and challenges inherent in reconciling Islamic legal principles with international human rights standards regarding capital punishment. By engaging in this discourse, the paper aims to foster a nuanced understanding of the tensions and harmonies between Islamic law and human rights law concerning capital punishment. It contributes to scholarly dialogue on the intersection of religion, law, and human rights.

<p><em>The death penalty remains a contentious issue, sparking debate both nationally and internationally. It represents the harshest form of punishment within the criminal justice system. This sanction is deemed necessary by some due to its strong deterrent effect on individuals committing grave offenses. This research aims to examine how the death penalty is implemented within Indonesia's legal framework. The study employs a normative juridical method, relying on primary sources such as legal texts, academic literature, and relevant regulations. The analysis is conducted descriptively. Currently, the death penalty is no longer regarded as the primary form of punishment but rather as a special and alternative measure. The findings indicate that judges consider multiple considerations when deciding on capital punishment, including legal principles, existing laws, regulatory frameworks, and religious factors. The death penalty is applicable for the most severe crimes as stipulated by law. Indonesian law treats foreign nationals and citizens equally in this regard. In judicial decisions, judges evaluate both juridical evidence—such as testimonies from witnesses and experts, defendant statements, and other proofs—and non-legal factors that may either mitigate or intensify the defendant’s sentence. </em></p><p> </p><strong><em>Keyword</em></strong><em>:<strong> </strong>Death Penalty, Human Rights, Sanctions</em>

Capital punishment operated in the British Empire as the apogee of colonial law and punishment, but during counter-insurgency its role within the wider framework of colonial violence was more contested. This chapter provides the first comparative analysis of the role of the death penalty in British late-colonial counter-insurgency, focusing on the targeting and timing of the use of executions. It demonstrates how rather than just a legal sentence, capital punishment was an expressly political penalty whose use was shaped by shifting socio-political climates, military contexts, and legal frameworks. Both capital sentencing and executions themselves had multiple functions—gathering intelligence, deterrence, individual punishment, revenge—because the death penalty had multiple audiences: insurgents, colonized society, settlers and security forces, imperial authority, and public/international opinion. The chapter shows that whilst capital punishment was purported to be a targeted, legalistic assertion of the rule of law, it was in fact an emotional, irrational punishment and a sign of the weakness of colonial states rather than their strength. The shifting usage of capital punishment reveals the significance of the internationalization of anticolonial insurgencies, the growth of human rights discourses, and the vulnerability of British colonial rule to public and international opinion.

In this paper, the author advocates for the recognition of the principle of ‘non-cruelty to animals’ as a General Principle of Law under Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This principle of ‘non-cruelty to animals’, commonly understood as condemning the unnecessary infliction of suffering on animals, is widely reflected in national legal frameworks, indicating a broad global consensus against cruelty. However, the term ‘unnecessary’ is often applied inconsistently and is open to variable interpretation across jurisdictions. The author therefore proposes interpreting the principle through the lens of avoidability, suggesting a clearer, and in our view more objective standard that suffering should be avoided wherever possible. This reframing would promote a more objective and actionable standard, address subjective exemptions and eliminate activities that cause avoidable suffering to animals, while promoting viable alternatives to animal products and animal-based methods. The author also examines how current anti-cruelty laws are limited, often excluding certain animal groups or exempting practices for traditional, scientific, or economic purposes. By recognizing non-cruelty as a General Principle of Law, the ICJ could officially establish the international value of this principle, ensuring that animal laws consistently reflect a consensual baseline for ethically treating sentient beings. Such recognition would establish non-cruelty as a foundation for new international frameworks, specifically avoiding animal crimes, and would encourage the development of global instruments that universally condemn and prevent animal cruelty. This proposed legal framework would represent a significant advancement in both ethical and legal treatment of animals, affirming a new international commitment to the legal protection of animals as sentient beings.

Institutions, as Robert Garland has written, are the result of historical developments and are influenced by the political, social, and cultural environment. Those institutions, in turn, help to shape the environment. “Punishment,” Garland states, “is a social institution composed of interlinked processes of law-making, conviction, sentencing, and the administration of penalties. It involves discursive frameworks of authority and condemnation, ritual procedures of imposing punishment, a repertoire of penal sanctions, institutions and agencies for the enforcement of sanctions, and a rhetoric of symbols, figures, and images by means of which penal policy is represented to its wider a udiences.”1 In the United States, the social institution that is capital punishment sets the nation apart from many comparable nations. Judith Randle contends that the death penalty is a cultural artifact that “reflects and reproduces contemporary American requisites and constructions of the social world” with deeper social and personal significance. She is critical of how support for capital punishment is “fueled by a nasty underbelly of fear, vengeance, and disregard for criminals’ lives,” feelings created from images of evildoers as unredeemable.2 Perhaps because of the practice of dehumanizing offenders and unlike the conversation about the death penalty in many other countries, the American debate has seldom included recognizing it as a violation of human rights. Rather, much of the discussion has centered on procedure.

This paper explores the reliability of extradition treaties as objective tools for assessing human rights conditions, using the China-Australia extradition treaty as a case study. Unlike biased statements from government officials, extradition treaties are formal legal agreements, offering a more credible lens for evaluating justice systems. The paper examines Australia's refusal to ratify the 2007 treaty with China, citing concerns about torture, politically motivated charges, and the death penalty. It also highlights some complexities in China's legal system, including the shuanggui practice and high conviction rates, raising questions about procedural fairness. Australia’s decision to resist ratification underscores its commitment to human rights and sets a precedent for other nations in handling diplomatic relations with China.

Albania has made positive steps in improving the legal framework of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and the political environment. The laws have encountered several amendments in the last 10 years, but there is still room for improvement. Albania has incorporated the EU directives and the UNCITRAL recommendations into PPPs legislation and we have to admit the effectiveness of the law 125/2013 “On concessions and public private partnership.” This paper aims to present a view of the actual legal and sublegal framework of PPPs in our country and to note the development of this sector in potential benefits for both sectors, private and public.Moreover, judicial quality has improved in Albania even though there is room for further improvement. Moreover, there has been noticed a strengthening of institutional capacity due to co-ordination of consultants and external advisers, but government agencies are at the early stages of developing PPPs. The political environment for PPPs is favourable, especially in the energy and transport sector. Further improvement is required in the transparency and fairness of procedures in practice.

The rapid expansion of digital technologies has fundamentally altered the nature of crime and evidence, posing new challenges for legal systems worldwide. In Pakistan, the prosecution of cybercrimes under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 has highlighted significant procedural and evidentiary gaps, particularly regarding the admissibility, integrity, and accessibility of digital evidence. This study aims to evaluate the procedural fairness in cybercrime prosecutions, focusing on how digital evidence is collected, preserved, and presented within Pakistan’s criminal justice framework. Employing a doctrinal legal research design, the article analyzes relevant legislation, judicial decisions, and institutional practices, while drawing on comparative and international standards for digital evidence. Key findings reveal those systemic deficiencies—including investigative delays, lack of technical expertise, poor chain of custody management, and restricted access to evidence for defense—undermine the fairness and efficacy of cybercrime prosecutions. Recent institutional reforms, such as the establishment of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency and digitalization initiatives in courts, indicate positive developments. However, the study concludes that comprehensive reforms in legal procedures, capacity building, and technological integration are imperative to ensure procedural fairness and uphold justice in Pakistan’s cybercrime litigation. The paper offers practical recommendations to align Pakistan’s framework with international best practices. The proliferation of digital technologies has transformed the landscape of criminal activities, necessitating a robust legal and procedural framework to address cybercrime effectively. In Pakistan, the integration of digital evidence into the criminal justice system presents both opportunities and challenges. This article examines the current state of digital evidence handling in Pakistan's cybercrime prosecutions, identifies procedural shortcomings, and proposes reforms to enhance fairness and efficacy in the judicial process.

Capital punishment is very important issue in the present situation as it is often challenges as the violation of human rights. But in India capital punishment is not rule but act as exception on the touchstone of rarest of rare case and it is applicable in such situations only. With the rising rate of crime, it is very much necessary to retain the capital punishment in the criminal law to instill deterrence in the mind of people from committing the same. India usually follows the deterrent and reformative theory of punishment as per the case suited. There are so many landmark judgments whereby judiciary recognized the applicability of capital punishment in “rarest of rare” case only. The paper deals with the historical background of capital punishment highlighting its significance from the historical times. It focuses on theories of punishment which play an important role for punishing the offender keeping in mind the purpose behind it. It also covers the various judicial pronouncement starting from Jagmohan Singh to Machhi Singh which decided the constitutional validity of capital punishment in India which held that it is awarded in “rarest of rare” cases only. It further deals with legal framework of both national as well as international whereby capital punishment has been made applicable for some specified offences. It also emphasizes on law commission report like its 35th and 262nd reports which specifically mentions about different aspect of capital punishment. It also covers the judicial review and clemency power of President and Governor as a means of last resort to the offences punishable by capital punishment.