# Rosie The Court Dog



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/n...e-victim-15-testify.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&bl



What is you opinion on this? I personally think this is a fabulous idea. Petting an animal has been proven to decrease stress levels and help ease fears. Allowing an animal into the court room to help ease the fear rape victims feel facing their attacker is a plus. Trying to get necessary information from a scared child can be made difficult and animals help ease that fear because animals just have that amazing ability to be your best friend no matter what. I think the idea to have a dog in the court room to help ease fears and stress is a good thing because people who wouldnt normally be able to mentally handle the situation out of fear which can cause extreme stress and lead victims to just shut down and important information to never get out in the open to punish the offender.

There are dogs who help kids read just by being there with them when the child would normally have trouble reading in front of a person. Why not apply the same idea of someone NOT judging and providing support and comfort in the courtroom? 

I think its a good idea.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

This is the first I've heard of allowing a service dog in a court room to help someone give testimony, sounds like a good idea ... however ... I can also understand it could also influence a jury seeing a dog's reaction with the witness as some type of affirmation that the witness is being honest or deceitful. My vote goes to allowing the dogs in court, but will understand if they're found illegal by higher courts.


----------



## Wolfiesmom (Apr 10, 2010)

I think it's a great idea when they are used for comfort, especially for little kids.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

I can understand the possible views as well but they REALLY need to take into account that little kids will shut down faster than anyone when they're scared or nervous and being in a courtroom because you were in a situation to need to be there in the first place is scary enough and then you're being grilled by some stranger who may or may not change gears to a softer questioning so as not to scare the child further. Guess we'll see how it goes. I think its a good idea.


----------



## kiwilrdg (Aug 26, 2010)

I can also see a problem if the person accused does not care for dogs (or is muslim). A jury may be unfairly swayed in favor of the story from the witness who is petting a dog if they think the accused looks angry at the witness.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

kiwilrdg said:


> I can also see a problem if the person accused does not care for dogs (or is muslim). A jury may be unfairly swayed in favor of the story from the witness who is petting a dog if they think the accused looks angry at the witness.


 
yeah but thats where it gets confusing because the accused is going to be angry anyway so the whole petting of the dog doesnt matter. The problem will come when people pay more attention to the dog than the case itself. A victim is still a victim regardless of whether there is a dog there or not. If the dog means the truth gets out and the accused is punished for their crimes, i am most definitely all for the presence of the animal in the court room and honestly, if you mess up, your race and/or religion dont matter. 

maybe if its explained before all starts that the dog is there simply as a tool to help ease some fear a witness may have in facing the accused otherwise the accused could go free and repeat the offense to someone else, it wouldnt be as "swaying". 

I hope that makes sense. Words and my brain are having trouble working together today.


----------



## kiwilrdg (Aug 26, 2010)

> maybe if its explained before all starts that the dog is there simply as a tool to help ease some fear a witness may have in facing the accused *otherwise the accused could go free and repeat the offense to someone else, *it wouldnt be as "swaying".


Based on that there shouldn't even be a trial. Don't get upset at that statement, it was just to show how easily things can get twisted. I do understand your point.

A problem with the justice system is that a trial is often just a contest to show who can say things the best. Many cases are won or lost because the jury had sympathy with someone. Explaining that the jury should pay no attention to the cute dog does not remove the thoughts from the jury.

I do think it is a good idea for calming the witness but it can cause problems as well.

There have even been court cases that were lost when a defense attorney suggested that the witness/victim might have been making up stories for the police because the police gave the witness/victim a stuffed toy.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

I think it's a great idea in the case of children. I think, though I can see the value of it in alleged rape or assault/battery cases, that it would be too much of a pull for a jury in one way when it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. People are already going to be empathetic to a child so having the dog really wouldn't probably pull the jury one way or another, but saying a full grown person is so scared that they need a service animal to help them stay calm is probably stacking the cards against someone, and that's just not how our justice system should work.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

There are going to be a variety of opinions on this and not many are going to agree 100%.

What about the people on the jury who absolutely do not like dogs? How do you think that would go? That could just as easily sway them to the accused side.

I believe that the good out weighs the "what ifs" and "maybes". Because that is something that can happen even w/out a dog. All it takes is finding that ONE thing and that ONE person on the jury. Thats it, so I don't see how a dog is going to make it worse.

If you (general) have never been raped/sexually assaulted then you have no idea how much that can shut a person down. Having to face the person who did it to you can easily send someone back to that situation and live it all over again. This is why alot of offenders get off, because the people will not speak, even if what they say is what will save someone else.


----------



## beaderdog (Dec 23, 2010)

> maybe if its explained before all starts that the dog is there simply as a tool to help ease some fear a witness may have in facing the accused otherwise the accused could go free and repeat the offense to someone else, it wouldnt be as "swaying".


If it were explained that way, it would be _extremely_ prejudicial to the defendant, who is, after all, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. An explanation that testifying is stressful and that no inference as to the truthfulness of the witness is to be taken from the presence of the dog would be better.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

GSDolch said:


> There are going to be a variety of opinions on this and not many are going to agree 100%.
> 
> What about the people on the jury who absolutely do not like dogs? How do you think that would go? That could just as easily sway them to the accused side.
> 
> ...


 

exactly. Its...difficult and scary to face an attacker again when all you want to do is forget about what happened and try to move on. Unfortunately after an experience like that, you are constantly looking over your shoulder. if the dog provides enough of a safe feeling for rape or abuse victims to speak out... well there's nothing negative about getting a dangerous person out of society. Just my opinion. BUT, i also speak from experience on the shutting down side of things. Fear is a powerful thing.


----------

