The increase of punishment for ill-treatment of dogs and cats and the persistence of the anthropocentrist paradigm in brazilian legislation
| Autor | Elisaide Trevisam - Jessé Cruciol Junior |
| Cargo | Master in Human Rights from the Master's Program in Law at the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS) - Doctorate in Philosophy of Law from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo |
| Páginas | 1-21 |
1 | Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal, e-ISSN: 2317-4552, Salvador, Volume 16, n. 03, p. 01-21, Set/Dez.2021
THE INCREASE OF PUNISHMENT FOR ILL-TREATMENT OF DOGS AND CATS AND
THE PERSISTENCE OF THE ANTHROPOCENTRIST PARADIGM IN BRAZILIAN
LEGISLATION
O AUMENTO DE PENA PARA MAUS-TRATOS DE CÃES E GATOS E A
PERSISTÊNCIA DO PARADIGMA ANTROPOCENTRISTA NA LEGISLAÇÃO
BRASILEIRA
Recebido:08.09.2021 Aprovado:30.12.2021
JESSÉ CRUCIOL JUNIOR
Master in Human Rights from the Master's
Program in Law at the Federal University of Mato
Grosso do Sul (UFMS). State Judge in the State of
Mato Grosso do Sul
EMAIL: jesse_crucioljr@hotmail.com
LATTES: http://lattes.cnpq.br/2772869327079656
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1772-9095
ELISAIDE TREVISAM
Doctorate in Philosophy of Law from the
Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.
Master in Human Rights. Permanent Professor at
the PPGD of the Federal University of Mato
Grosso do Sul (UFMS)
EMAIL: elisaide.trevisam@ufms.br
LATTES:
http://lattes.cnpq.br/6965703867431559
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6909-7889
ABSTRACT: The Federal Law 14.064/2020 altered the Article 32 of the Environmental Crimes
Law, which refers to the ill-treatment of animals, in order to increase the punishment when
the act is committed against dogs and cats, prescribing 2 to 5 years of imprisonment, in
addition to a fine and prohibition of custody. This provision treats equally sentient animals
differently, overvaluing the sentience and suffering in dogs and cats in spite of the same
characteristics on other animals, such as vertebrates and even octopuses. Therefore, the aim is
to introduce an analysis of the arbitrariness of the dif ferent legal consideration between dogs
and cats and the other animals, especially the group of the sentients, regarding to criminal
protection against ill-treatment. The research is bibliographical and in what comes to the
analysis of what is hidden in the norm it is exploratory, using the phenomenological method,
to achieve the expected result, which is to unveil the meaning and paradigm that underlie the
quoted legislative reform, exposing the difference in legal treatment among animals, its
arbitrariness and what lies behind it.
KEY-WORDS: Crime; Especiesism; Ill-treatment; Sentience.
RESUMO: A Lei 14.064/2020 alterou o artigo 32 da lei de Crimes Ambientais para aumentar
a pena de maus-tratos aos animais quando ocorrer, exclusivamente, em face de cães e gatos
para 2 a 5 anos de reclusão, além de multa e proibição de guarda. Essa alteração trata
diferentemente animais igualmente sencientes, sobrevalorizando a senciência e o sofrimento
de cães e gatos a despeito de iguais características de outros animais, como os demais
vertebrados e até polvos. Diante disso, a presente reflexão tem por objetivo apresentar uma
análise da arbitrariedade da diferença de consideração entre animais (cães e gatos) face aos
demais quanto a proteção penal contra maus-tratos, principalmente no que se refere ao grupo
dos sencientes. A pesquisa tem caráter bibliográfico e quanto à análise sobre o que está oculto
na norma, é exploratória, utilizando-se o método fenomenológico, para alcançar o resultado
2 | Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal, e-ISSN: 2317-4552, Salvador, Volume 16, n. 03, p. 01-21, Set/Dez.2021
esperado que é o de desvelar o sentido e o paradig ma que subjazem à mudança legislativa,
expondo a diferença de tratamento entre animais, sua arbitrariedade e o que a embasa.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Crime; Especismo; Maus-tratos; Senciência.
SUMMARY: 1 Introduction 2 The offense of ill-treatment of animals (art. 32 of Law
9.605/1998) 3 Innovation brought by Federal Law 14.064/2020 regarding the crime of ill-
treatment of animals 4 The arbitrariness of legal differentiation among animals made by
Federal Law 14.064/2020 4.1 What underlies this reform: the ethical relationship between
human and non-human animals 5 Conclusion 6 References notes
1 Introduction
Taking into account the significant increase in the punishment for the crime of ill-
treatment of animals, provided for in Article 32 of Federal Law 9.605/98 (Environmental
Crimes Law) when the conduct affects dogs and cats, carried out by Federal Law 14.064/2020,
it can give the impression of greater appreciation of the animal situation in Brazilian legislation
or even a tendency to acknowledge their interests and/or rights (in a moral or legal sense) in
order to move towards overcoming or mitigating legislative anthropocentrism in this sense.
After all, the minimum punishment provided for the ill-treatment of dogs and cats is
currently - with the inclusion of paragraph 1-A in Article 32 - of 2 (two) years of imprisonment
- doubled in relation to the maximum punishment hitherto in force, which was 1 (one) year of
detention, in accordance with foreseen in the head of the Article in question (still in force for
the other species of animals). In addition, the new provision cumulatively imposes fines and
prohibition of keeping the animal(s).
The provision deserves more accurate analysis and, therefore, the purpose of this
Article is to expose and analyze the arbitrariness of the difference in consideration between
animals (dogs and cats in relation to others) in what comes to criminal protection against ill-
treatment, especially regarding to the sentient group (or the undoubtedly sentient, like other
vertebrates) and, beyond that, to unveil the underlying human values, judgments, and
assumptions that informed this reform.
The protection against ill-treatment of animals is enshrined in the Brazilian
Constitution, considering that its article 225 (§1) (VIII) provides that it is incumbent on the
Public Power to prohibit practices that submit animals to cruelty. Not neglecting righteous
criticisms about the provision (such as the one relating to the insufficiency of prohibiting cruel
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO