Dog Assists Rape Victim

Rosie, the first ever approved courtroom dog in New York, comforts traumatized children and aids one teenager on the stand in a rape trial in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.  A fifteen year old girl in Poughkeepsie was testifying that her father had raped and impregnated her.  While testifying for this, the teenage girl had Rosie, the judicially approved dog, sit by her feet and comfort her during uncomfortable moments.  This event has turned Rosie into a controversial argument of whether or not her presence in a courtroom is appropriate.  One side of the argument is that Rosie may unfairly sway the jurors due to the natural empathy that Rosie attracts.  The other side of the argument is that these courtroom dogs are crucial for comforting those who are testifying, specifically children and young adults.  This issue concerns reason/logic, emotion, sense perception, and language. 

With this issue, we need to first look at reasoning, for example a judge or jury’s reasoning for making their decisions on a crime.  Judge’s and Jury’s have the ultimate responsibility of determining the fate of the person who is testified against in court.  It is also their responsibility to deduce the least bias response to the situations presented.  Using each of the testimonies and defences, the judge/jury must consider all of the reasoning and make a final decision.  This brings up the question of suitability: how can someone qualify to become a jury member or a judge, and what are the criteria?  If the presence of a courtroom dog can potentially “sway” the judge/jury, than we must question the suitability of the judge/jury and analyze whether or not they have the actual ability to come up with their decision with the least amount of biases as possible.  This also relates to an issue of emotion, regarding the argument that the purpose of Rosie is to give comfort to the people who are testifying against someone.  How can it be determined whether the dog is helping to give the person comfort and allow them to speak the truth, or that the dog is assisting them, giving them strength to lie?  For example, in the case it was explained that Rosie simply helped to “help a victim suffering from serious emotional distress”.  However, we can’t exactly figure out what the cause of this distress is, whether it’s from a discomfort in the situation or whether the person is uncomfortable lying to the jury/judge.  An argument claiming that perhaps the natural empathy that the dog may attract will sway the judge/jury, must be examined through the jury/judge themselves and how susceptible they are to this empathy.  As a lot of people may agree, empathy can greatly influence our decision making, and therefore, if a judge/jury is highly empathetic, are they at all suitable to become a judge/jury?  How would the level of empathy be measured if this were questioned? 

Next is the concern of sense perception, which is basically how this dog is perceived and to what extent can this dog be distracting or potentially deceiving.  For instance, in the event that the jury/judge has a strong disliking for dogs, they may become annoyed or bothered by its presence, and vice versa, if the jury/judge has a soft spot for this type of animal, they may become more susceptible to bias.  Sense perception also relates to the previous point made regarding whether or not the judge/jury is suitable, because those are the people who must make sure that their decisions are not subject to bias. 

The last concern regarding this issue is the subjective aspect of language.  The supporters of the courthouse dogs suggest that these animals bring a sense of comfort for the victims of emotional distress.  However, we need to look at the phrase “emotional distress” and how it is defined and measured.  Essentially, it has a dictionary definition of “a highly unpleasant emotional reaction which results from another’s conduct and for which damages may be sought called also: emotional harm, mental anguish, mental distress, mental disturbance, and mental suffering”.  All of these are vague to a certain extent, which raises the question of how we can determine or measure how great this “emotional distress” is and how much of an impact it can make on the person giving the testimony.  Since most cases that are brought to court will indefinitely cause some sort of emotional distress to the people within the case, when do we deem a courthouse dog appropriate for such situations?  Also, since most of these dogs are used to help children take a stand, would there be a cut off age for the use of such comfort in the courtroom?   

In my opinion, although strong in both points, I think that the use of courthouse dogs is appropriate under certain circumstances.  Although immeasurable, in most cases children are very vulnerable to emotional distress especially under the pressure of a courtroom, and therefore they should be allowed to be accompanied by this comfort dog.  Also, in cases perhaps where the case is so serious that it is difficult for the person to give a testimony, the only possible way for them to speak clearly and openly is perhaps the presence of this courtroom dog.  For the people who are concerned about the judges or the jury being potentially “swayed” by this dog, they must take into account that not just anyone can become a judge or a part of the jury.  These people are specially chosen and qualify for a reason, and they are considered to be most suitable for the job through the perception of higher authoritative figures, even though it may be hard to determine exactly how suitable they are. 

 An issue pertaining to similar ways of knowing aspects would be whether or not children should be allowed in the courtrooms.  This is very similar to the idea of courtroom dogs, because children possess a certain innocence to them, which may sway the judgement of the judge or the jury when making a decision.  Perhaps they are more likely to subconsciously take the point of view of the child, because they don’t believe that children are able to utilize deception and manipulation the way that adults are able to. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/nyregion/dog-helps-rape-victim-15-testify.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=general&src=me