is unclear, because “pit bull” is not a specific breed and the definition in the law includes a dog whose appearance is “substantially similar” to that of a pit bull. He concludes that better generalizations could have been used to protect Ontarians from severe dog attacks.
His article was written several years before the Ontario courts upheld the pit bull law. A pit bull owner, as being contrary to her Charter rights, challenged the law. She argued that the ban on pit bulls was overbroad, because not all pit bulls are dangerous, and vague, because “pit bull” is not a specific breed. Her arguments were similar to the kinds of arguments that Gladwell makes in his article. The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed her application.
Gladwell’s article is subtitled “What pit bulls can teach us about crime”, and his article, along with the court decision, addresses three significant ideas.
Gladwell states that laws are often based on generalizations, and in this article he makes a point about how the pit bull law is a “generalization of a generalization of a trait”. Second it is important to use evidence to try and choose an appropriate generalization, because being too vague or too specific can have negative influences on the enforcement of said law. And lastly in an ideal world, lawmakers would periodically review the generalizations that they have based laws upon to ensure the generalization was or remains …show more content…
valid.
We have laws to govern the behaviour of our citizens, and those laws have to be written in a way that allows people to understand what they can and cannot do. Sometimes it is hard to write laws that target the exact behaviour you want to stop. For example, Gladwell suggests what we really want to regulate is bad dog breeders, trainers and owners, but it is very difficult to design a law that stops those behaviours, especially one that stops them before anyone gets hurt. When we can’t write the best law, we have to find another way to try and achieve the same goal, even if it isn’t a perfect match. In it’s decision upholding the ban on pit bull ownership, the Court of Appeal for Ontario writes:
Legislatures frequently enact blanket prohibitions on things or activities that may be used or conducted safely because of the risk that severe harm can result from misuse or misconduct. The prohibition and regulation of certain firearms provides an example.
Gladwell’s argument is like the bumper sticker that says, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. However, since we can’t ban potential killers, we restrict weapon ownership and even prohibit ownership of specific kinds of firearms.
A ban on pit bulls tells the whole province what isn’t allowed. Would-be dog owners know what breeds are prohibited, and those living near dog owners will know whether those owners are obeying the law. Banning pit bulls from the province ensures that pit bulls will not be bred to be vicious, trained to be vicious, or abused to the point of viciousness. That alone reduces the risk to Ontarians. Not only will this reduce risk in the future, but also, current pit bull owners will take extra precautions to avoid drawing any unwanted attention from the public and media.
Gladwell states that lawmakers need to be careful to choose the right generalization when making laws.
He suggests that in the case of the pit bull ban, the Ontario Legislature chose the wrong generalization because the real behaviour to be targeted is bad breeding, bad training, and abusive ownership. He refers to evidence that many pit bulls are gentle, which means the law is too broad, and that many other breeds have caused serious injury to people, which suggests a ban on pit bulls only is too narrow. I disagree with Gladwell on this point. I think that the generalization is a good one, and that Gladwell’s conclusion ignores some of the evidence that the Ontario courts looked at. For
example
* Cites evidence of fatal dog bites; many attacks described in court case caused life-altering, but not fatal attacks * Underemphasizes evidence that pit bulls are uniquely dangerous because when they are preparing to attack there is no warning and even if their opponent gives up/ submits they are relentless in their attack and, in some cases, will disembowel dogs. * Doesn’t take into account that many jurisdictions (esp. cities) had bans on pit bull, which would skew statistics on pit bull attacks. * His suggestions (focus on owners, known dangerous dogs) don’t address prevention until a dog has attacked. (90% of owners don’t even register/license their dogs)
Scientific or social science evidence rarely supports a single point of view. Where there is competing evidence, it is open to the legislature to make a policy choice based on generally recognized evidence. [Add quote from court] Another recent case in which the court acknowledged that the Legislature could choose a policy based on evidence where there were competing views is the prohibition on distributing raw milk.
Gladwell suggests that the Ontario Legislature got the law wrong shortly after it was enacted. I think that was too early to decided whether the Legislature got it right. In fact, maybe the only way to know for sure is to compare dog attach statistics before and after the law was put in place. You cannot thoroughly assess the impact of the law when it has been enforced for less than a year.
I do think that it would be a good idea for legislatures to revisit some generalizations after a law has been in place to see if the law is making a difference. That is a way to weed out the “unstable” or changed generalizations that concern Gladwell. The government could do this on its own initiative. They might have to do so in response to a challenge to the legislation. (For example, Ontario used to effectively ban gay marriage; subsequent to a court challenge, that law was changed). (Banning of raw milk distribution/sale) Here, could look at whether there were fewer dog bites after the ban. Government didn’t do but someone did look at it (refer to competing conclusions by non-government examiners) competing evidence suggest still value to the ban.
An ongoing debate over this law can be argued with many positive points towards pit bulls, but it is better to be safe then sorry. Laws are based on generalizations, and since laws can not target a specific threat or disturbance they must make a more categorized law so that it not only covers the highlighted issues but enforces similar offences to be less likely to occur. While creating this law may put some at a disadvantage, collectively it is for a greater cause that will help benefit many people. Ongoing newspaper articles have been shown to have contradicting evidence, one suggesting fatal dog bites have decreased, and the other saying that they have increased. All factors considered, I once again, state that my opinion lies with the Ontario Government