Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario
Daniel Dylan
Abstract
This article presents a critical analysis of Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), focusing on its ethical and legal shortcomings. First, it highlights that DOLA permits courts to order the destruction of dogs deemed dangerous, a practice compared to capital punishment — which is something that has been abolished for humans in Canada. Second, it contends that dogs are often punished for actions that stem from human negligence, lack of training, or provocation, yet receive no legal representation or procedural fairness. Third, the critique underscores the speciesism inherent in the law, which treats dogs as property rather than as sentient beings. Finally, it proposes reform through alternatives such as provincially funded rehabilitation sanctuaries, aiming to promote a more compassionate and just legal framework.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.