Why is there a proposal to give a life sentence owners of dangerous dogs that kill a person? When someone deliberately drinks and drives  or drives dangerously they only get a fairly short sentence for killing people. Driving related fatalities are far far more frequent than dog related fatalities and I would say there is a much bigger element of irresposibilty in the driving offences.?

It doesn't make any sense to me. I can't see why the sentence should be longer or as long as for something that was done DELIBERATELY (i.e. murder). Yes so far all the cases I have heard of have involved owners being irresponsible, but they haven't commanded the dogs to kill. And I don't think it will make any dereference. Currnelty people can be sent to prison if their dog kills somebody, just not for life. But it's not being done, and it clearly is not working as a deterrent, so why would a longer sentence work? If the courts don't send people to prison for even 6 months, I can't see it being more likely they will do it for life. Nor will it STOP anything from happening.  Nobody in the published cases over the last few decades has believed their dog WOULD kill.

exactly Marianne. I am not for one minute saying owners of dogs that bite and kill should not be punished. I really just don't understand the hysteria regarding dogs that kill. I head some statistics the other day that approximately 250 people a year are killed by drunk drivers where as there have been something like 16 fatal dog attacks in the last 8 years. Perhaps if they spent the same amount of time and effort persecuting drunk drivers as they do persecuting dog owners then these numbers would fall.Drunk drivers it would seem are a far bigger threat to human life than out of control dogs.

Sadly it is because the motoring lobby is a powerful force in this country, amply aided and abetted by the AA and RAC. It has always seemed to me at least ,an outrage that dangerous and careless drivers  who kill and maim get no more than a proverbial slap on the wrist and can be back behind the wheel within months. Of course, every person killed or maimed by a dog is a tragedy but fortunately such incidents are extremely rare but they get a disproportionate amount of press. I can only hope that each case is judged cautiously. Imagine, for example a boisterous dog who playfully knocks a person to the ground and that person sustains a ultimately fatal head injury . This could happen to any dog owner. Are we all going to be at risk of life imprisonment ?

Nearly happened to my friend with her manic collie some years back! Yes there should be some punishment, but life is an overreaction imho.

When has life ever meant life in this country? Unless it is without parole and this wouldn't be.

A life sentence is 25 years and usually plea bargained down to 15-20 and with good behaviour and over crowding they may be out in 10?

I don't think we really should compare it to other crimes, to me having a dangerous dog is like walking around with a loaded gun, you have to look at it from the police point of view, the council estates with owners of vicious dogs, ready to set them on people and the continual 'accidents' where children are killed and people injured, do we ever get to see the true figures?  The police and courts do and this is probably why a proposal is being made.

Gross negligence when you know you have a dangerous dog and you did not protect people and people who purposely set their dogs on others should be punished and when someone is killed due to that so be it, a life for a life (which it isn't) if you are the parent of a child killed or a police officer or other person killed by a dog like this wouldn't you want some decent kind of sentence to justify the crime?..............I would.

An accidental death or injury from a dog doing something out of protection for itself or owner, or acting out of illness/medical reasons, I'm sure will be viewed as such, it's the bad guys and irresponsible this is aimed at and all crimes have a tiered system.

No, I'm not against this and I'm sure it would be fair..... (one hopes)

to me having a dangerous dog is like walking around with a loaded gun,

But in the great majority of cases (of not all) the people involved had no idea the dog was as dangerous as it was. Ignorant people yes, but putting kids at risk on purpose -no. It's nothing at all like a loaded gun. I very much doubt any single person would have left the dog with the child had they had any idea whatsoever of the possibility of the child being killed.  What is your definition of a dangerous dog, anyway? One that already has bitten? One that is of a breed or cross seen as dangerous? If it is either, then what about the old Kelly Lynch case? Two Rottweilers that according to all reports had never been anything but friendly, yet they killed a girl?

I agree to a certain extent..... but I've had an about turn, whilst drying my hair I was just thinking of all the cases and more that you have mentioned, of how a photo of the dog is always front page, when we always agree it should be the owner who has generally been irresponsible.

The trouble is today too many people own dogs who don't understand them, don't know how to look after them, what they need, what they don't, they don't realise that they are animals with prey drives and hunting skills or that they are not robots, they put children and others at risk all the time due to this and they get let off because they didn't know.......

Perhaps it is time to put the blame on the owners door step where it belongs, not just the 'bad' guys as I said previous.

If people do not know that dogs do not like toddlers screaming in their faces, poking and prodding them, shame on them! Why should they be let off because the dog killed their innocent child, they caused it. People have to take responsibility for their dogs, they shouldn't get them if they don't know how to protect people and their dogs from harm.

I know I'm being harsh, but too many people have dogs today who shouldn't for all kinds of reasons, a dog is an animal and should only be owned by people who take responsibility for all it does whether in the know or not.

Would you honestly not protect a toddler around your dogs Goldmali, I'm pretty sure you would always being aware of a potential situation and make sure it never happened, but that is because you know dogs, too many people don't and we can't keep hearing the excuse, that they didn't know it would do that.

Maybe, just maybe, the type of people that buy dogs that have a tendency to be aggressive, may perhaps hesitate if they thought they might end up in prison for a long time. Or am I being too naive? Perhaps they just don't think that far ahead.

Exactly Jodi, my thoughts on this too, if people know they truly are responsible for what they bring into their home, we may indeed see a lot of 'bad' owners wishing to make and keep aggressive dogs, and irresponsible owners who do no homework or thinking....... actually thinking twice. ;-)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201768181635203

don't know if link will work or if it is allowed but in view of current legal thoughts ...........what almighty IDIOTS are 'parenting' the child!!!!

Chris

Very good example, one of thousands all over the internet....... if the dog now grabs that little girls throat and kills her, it is at present viewed as an accident with idiot parents, who no doubt will cry and say they never thought it would happen. It should be a prison sentence and I hope it soon will be. An innocent child could be killed and also an innocent dog pts. Too much of this around and it needs stopping at the source. :-(

I don't think long sentances will make much odds.  the type of owners this happens to do not think ahead enough to be detered from owning an out of control dog by consequences of their actions. thats why children get so badly bitten. its usually a dog belonging to the family of the victim- they can't think ahead enough to realise if a dog isn't trained then it will not be safe.why would they think their beloved out of control dog is going to attack when they can't see that?

it is prevention that is needed as these families rarely realise there even is a danger. quite how one raises awareness of the dangers of not training a dog though i really don't know.  slip it into a popular soap story maybe?

the other issue is the vaste trade in second hand dogs. some of these poor creatures are bought on a whim from byb then just as casually sold on-after several homes and bad handling in each they are a time bomb waiting to go off. again i think the free adds situation needs addressing- its far too easy to sell on your bored-of staffie once it starts trashing the house,

I don't think they do think that fat ahead either Jodi.

Did anyone else listen to PM on Radio 4 this evening? Kendal Shepherd was an amazing voice of reason. Her view is Education is the only way forward, especially as almost all the owners of dogs that have attacked think the dog is "fine" until the attack occurs. A dangerous dog isn't dangerous until defined as such by that bite.

And in my opinion, it doesn't help that a large number of people follow a certain tv dog trainer whose interpretation of canine body language is so incorrect as to be potentially lethal.

No sooner have I mentioned Kelly Lynch before a toddler is attacked by a family pet Rottweiler.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-dog-attack-recap-live-2131833

Yes Carrington like I said, the owners always tend to be IGNORANT in these cases, and of course I would NEVER leave a toddler with my dogs (I have had 3 children and I never did, not even when my breeds were Goldens and Cavaliers only) -but should the parents really be put into prison if their child is seriously hurt or killed by what they believed was their safe pet dog, of a breed these days no longer known as devil dogs? (And quite rightly, too.) How exactly would that help? If somebody genuinely believes their dog would not hurt a fly, they are not going to change their opinion because there is a life prison sentence. It will be the usual case of "It would never happen to me" or "It does not apply to me because my dog is friendly".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/iplayer/episode/b037tnxr/PM_06_08_2013

Kendal Shepherd on Radio 4 - segment starts at 33min 33 seconds.

WHY do they ALWAYS use a pic of a dog lunging with its mouth wide open for this sort of report, the VAST majority of Rotts walk happily on all 4 legs and just sit to look at things NOT like the photo!!!!

But it's not always the case that the dog was believed to be safe, hadn't the dog who killed John Paul Massey bitten another family member quite badly on the leg ?, in my book, thats not a safe dog to have around a small child.
What we really need is legislation against stupidity.

This is such a hard one. Sometimes the owner is just plain irrisponsible other times dogs that have never shown any agression can respond if the situation is right/ wrong. I was at the vets the other day sitting away from others with my pom  ( on my lap as she was too poorly to be on the floor, she had just had a serious abdominal op and was very sore. on coming past  a litle girl suddenly darted away from Mum and patted my dog on the head, mum never realissd. Mia didnt react badly and all was well but had she reacted to the sudden pat on the head think what could of happend True she is small and unlikely to kill but my gsd if he had been touched while so poorly has the power in his jaws to do so although is a well tempered dog and it would have been completly uncharacteristic
Each case may be different so hard to blame owner or dog in all circumstances..
A suggestion on the radio was that all dogs should be  on  lead and muzzled at all times in public would that work ? and what about cases at home where people have been killed

What is a dangerous dog, it is only thus when it has proven to be so - it is hard to understand how you can be punished for something that you were unaware of.

Punish if it is proven you know you have a dangerous dog but by the definition it would have to have been a second offence and by that time the dog would have been PTS.

If somebody genuinely believes their dog would not hurt a fly, they are not going to change their opinion because there is a life prison sentence.

I don't even wish to look at the link you've just added Goldmali as I know I'm going to be very upset by it, (but I will in a minute :-) ) I think a prison sentence will make many people think, no it won't stop it completely but it will help maybe save a few people/children's lives.

People still murder and thieve knowing there is a prison sentence, but it still stops many from doing it, because they are worried about consequence.

People have to learn that whether you have a Pom or a Great Dane, dog gates have been invented for a reason, most of us always think to protect our children and visitors children, I trust my girl and most of our family dogs, but still I segregate when I have young children in my home, I always will, we wouldn't let it happen and the sooner people think of dogs as animals and not cuddly teddy bears the better. It may stop impulse buying and the throw away society we are today and dogs may be bought by many with much more thought.

Education doesn't work, not without consequence, sidetracking immensely here :-) but look at the millions the government have wasted on s*x education, TV, adverts, schools, has it worked -  not a squat, because there is no consequence. STI's will be treated FOC, teenage pregnancies will be paid for FOC via the NHS, and if teenage parents with teenage fathers who do not work don't have family to support them the government will. No consequence so they will never think about protecting themselves for more than two minutes and a drink later it is forgotten.

IMO it will be the same with dogs - education with a consequence may work for many, without it, IMO it would be a waste of time, even if anyone wanted to do it, which they don't seem to.

IMO this is the only way forward. I know people won't like it, but can't see another way to protect the innocent.

Just read the link Goldmali, so many reasons why a dog may do that, but it probably wouldn't have happened if the dog had been in experienced hands trying not to sound too contrite as I know it is upsetting for the family and I don't really wish to come across like that, but, you just can't get away from it....... you know that your 2nd breed has a higher prey drive and could do that, but they never would because you know how to handle them.

Dogs do not bite or attack for no reason, wrong hands, wrong hands, wrong hands. People should not have dogs they cannot read or control.

Getting off my soap box.

Maybe I am too close to it so my views are scured, but I think there should be tougher penalties for dog bites due to be negligent, including a dog killing (not life sentances, unless it can be proven that they knew.
My Step daughter at the age of 2 had her finger bitten off by a dog. A border collie, who had been brought into her house by her mothers boyfriend and they left her at the age of 2, ,  in a room on her own with the dog.The only dogs she was used to were mine. The dog bit her ring finger clean off.
The words when we rushed to the hospital that will ring in my ears for ever more were 'we went back in as soon as we heard her scream'
Now social services were not even informed and there was no come back on the mother and her boyfriend.
My Step daughters finger was sewn back on and is useable, but it is obvious it is not right.
She now lives with us permanently hence how I am able to say anything about it. To this day near enough 4 years to the day later I think there should have been some redress on the 2 adults in the house NOT the dog, but nothing.
And before you all jump on me, I have 2 rottweilers and an Am cocker, One Rottie has lived with me for 7 years well before I even met my partner, and one that I got in November last year.
So yes there should be more stringent redress on dangerous dogs, but more for the owners neglect!!!
Lea.

think there should have been some redress on the 2 adults in the house NOT the dog,

Absolutely, and how terrifying for your step-daughter, bless her, a choice they made she has to always live with.

That report is terrifying approx 100 dog bites/attacks a week.......... a week!

Someone has to protect the innocent as many dog owners are not.

Just read the link Goldmali, so many reasons why a dog may do that, but it probably wouldn't have happened if the dog had been in experienced hands trying not to sound too contrite as I know it is upsetting for the family and I don't really wish to come across like that, but, you just can't get away from it.......

I know, I agree -but it's just not possible to make sure ONLY the right people buy dogs. Not as long as there are so many bad breeders out there (and also, I have to say, bad rescues) -which means that the wrong person can always get hold of a dog even if turned down by good breeders. They may even get a dog from a good breeder, because they may say one thing and do another. And they may make a genuine mistake. "The dog has always been so good with the child, it won't hurt if I leave them for just 2 minutes while I answer the door/phone/whatever." (Wasn't that the excuse given by the woman whose toddler was killed -or injured, cannot remember- by their 2 Golden Retrievers in the late 80s or early 90s? The one that formed the group called Parents Against Needless Dog Attacks.) I just don't see that somebody who has lost their child would be better off being put in prison, or that it could prevent the same thing from happening again. There has been a possible prison sentence for so long, not to mention the types of dog banned under the DDA, and it has made absolutely no difference at all. Nor have people been put into prison. Why would making a possible sentence longer make any difference? Wouldn't the average law abiding family (if we are not talking about the dog fighting illegal Pitbull type yobo) be just as scared of being put into prison for even a year, as for life?

By the way, THIS type of thing really does not help -have you ever seen anything so irresponsible??!
http://blog.petspyjamas.com/top-ten-dogs-perfect-for-kids/
Such as this comment: Naturally patient with children and good with other animals, especially if socialized early, Bulldogs are sturdy so are perfect for kids who like to roughhouse.

(Umpteenth attempt, I couldn't get this link to work!!)

are we also going to ask for the same for the owners of Cows, or horses that injure or kill their riders?

Wouldn't the average law abiding family (if we are not talking about the dog fighting illegal Pitbull type yobo) be just as scared of being put into prison for even a year, as for life?

Yes, they would, and irresponsibility should I guess be a much lesser sentence, but I really do think it needs a sentence to hit it home to these type of owners and those who may wish to do the same.

That link you just put up Goldmali, can't believe it! Dogs on that link are mostly being advocated as play things for children, oh boy what is the world coming to, dogs don't stand a chance in some homes, they are all but heading for the vets table the minute they are collected. :-(

> are we also going to ask for the same for the owners of Cows, or horses that injure or kill their riders?

That's exactly the argument put forward on the Radio 4 debate.

> People should not have dogs they cannot read or control.

But they do, and they THINK they can both control and/or read them. If you spend some time on the FB sales groups you'll see many of the ideas and attitudes of the BYBs and (let's call them "grass roots") owners, and most training advice given belongs to the dark ages or is straight from the trainer they've watched on telly. Many of them genuinely believe rubbing a dog's nose in its faeces is both acceptable and effective

> That report is terrifying approx 100 dog bites/attacks a week..........

Maths has never been my strong point, but out of an estimated 8 million dogs in the UK, what's the percentage?
And "attack" covers being tripped up by a dog, being knocked over by one, in fact quite a few things that don't involve teeth.