[Practical problems in criminal laws of prevention of cruelty to animals].
1. To ascertain serious pains and sufferings in the meaning of section 17 no. 2 b law of prevention of cruelty to animals you cannot do without the help of an expert witness for taking possession of evidence--apart from simple cases. Except the clarifying of fundamental questions concerning prevention of cruelty to animals a professional statement of the administrative veterinary surgeon will be as a rule sufficient. 2. For the actual seizure of animals for the purpose of confiscation and compulsory disposal the criminal justice is extremely dependent on the support of the authorities of administration. Therefore a trouble-free cooperation of criminal justice, veterinary authorities, animal homes and--concerning the protection of species--authorities for protection of endangered nature is imperative. 3. The main problems with the application of the regulation concerning the interdiction of keeping animals according to sections 20 and 20 a law of prevention of cruelty to animals are justified in the legal prerequisites. It is unsatisfactory that an interdiction of keeping animals cannot be imposed by summary punishment order and that a confiscation of animals is not possible by criminal proceedings in case of offence against sections 20 subsection 3, 20 a subsection 3 law of prevention of cruelty to animals. Therefore an admission of the sections as mentioned above to section 19 law of prevention of cruelty to animals seems to be convenient.
Iburg
U
U
Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover, Abteilung Umweltschutz und sonstige Spezialgebiete.
D017087:Animal Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000827:Animal Welfare / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000818:Animals; D003415:Crime / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans