I was just looking through the records of [people who’ve been killed by dogs in the UK.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom) I noticed two things:
1. A small number of breeds are responsible for most of the deaths.
2. Many of the owners were given shockingly minor sentences considering their actions resulted in someone’s death.
Just as an example (which is fairly typical), a 27F lady called Emma Bennett was killed by two banned pit bulls in 2013. The punishment for the owners?
” Ormondsthorpe, [Leeds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds), [West Yorkshire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Yorkshire), England – Pregnant mother-of-four Emma Bennett, 27, died after she was attacked by the animals at her home in Leeds on 9 December. The dog’s owner pleaded guilty to owning dogs prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act and was ordered at Leeds Magistrates’ Court to do 280 hours of unpaid work. The court heard he had threatened to set one of the dogs on two female social workers months before the fatal attack. Prosecutors said he told one woman “shut it or I’ll set the dog on you”, and told another, who was pregnant, “What you looking at? Wait until I get the dog and see if you continue looking at me like that.” He was banned from keeping dogs for life and ordered to pay £800 costs ”
Owning banned dangerous dogs, threating social workers with them and them later killing someone should merit a prison sentence in my view. Am I crazy for thinking these punishments are insanely lenient?
35 comments
In the example you cite, the person was convinced of owning prohibited species, an offence which carries a fairly minor sentence.
That charge will be settled on by the CPS because that is what they think they have evidence to convict for. Meeting the evidential threshold for manslaughter would be very hard in such cases.
Partly because when the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed, it was so badly written and rushed through that it’s been used as an example of bad legislation ever since.
Partly because it’s not a conviction for murder nor even manslaughter, just not being in control of a dog. If you compare with convictions for people whose cars kill people, the drivers generally get away even more lightly.
Having a dog license should still be a thing. Especially for powerful dogs. Not so sure a license is worth it for pugs or pomeranians, mind you.
Dogs, as much as we love them, are dangerous predators with a big protective, pack instinct and powerful dogs are absolutely capable of killing or seriously injuring people in unpredictable ways. Ownership of powerful dogs should definitely be licensed. It’s not that far removed from allowing someone to have a weapon. Having a powerful dog that you don’t really understand how to control is unfortunately a status symbol for some people. And sadly many of these dogs, particularly bull terriers, are absolutely lovely, safe companions IF you put the effort into training them correctly.
The problem with harsher punishments is when you end up in a situation thats genuinely a freak accident. Say an owner is walking a dog on a lead, as far as they’re concerned they’re doing everything right and its a normal Sunday morning dog walk, then suddenly the dog bolts it after seeing something and ends up hurting someone, does the owner deserve prison then?
Im probably gonna upset the ‘nanny dog’ crowd but I do think that breeds like fighting dogs should definitely remain banned, you dont see many Beagles or Golden Retrievers in the news cos they ripped a kids face off. As with the example above, you as an owner cant really do much when instincts kick in.
Dog licenses and stiffer sentences.
I say this as someone who has always owned/grown up with Rotties and German Shepherds.
On a slightly different note, I believe that when you register for your dog license, the dogs dna should be taken and put on a database. Any stray turds could then be tested and fines delivered in the post…..
I dunno but every time a dog maims someone the comments on the article are always a ridiculous amount of “oh no now the poor dog will have to be put down blame the owner the poor dog isn’t at fault 💔💔” like they’re mourning for a dog that ripped a kid’s arm off
r/banpitbulls discuss this from time to time, as do r/dogfree ofcourse.
Dogfree is anti-dog so they blame dog culture, but with pits I think its more of an idea of activism.
People like the idea of a poor breed that people are prejudiced against, rather than fighting breeds well being fighting breeds.
What I cant get with either of these though is why not people into pit bulls, if they *actually believe* in it being on the owner, dont push more effort into laws punishing owners whos dogs kills, rather than complain about prejudice towards their dogs. They may blame the owners, but theres really no move to enforce punishment of bad owners whatsoever, just remove pit bans.
Dog culture lunacy
As someone who’s had some pretty bad encounters with dogs before, the amount of people who are absolute arses when it comes to owning a dog almost comes to a bloody 50/50 point.
No leads in areas where they’re required, mounds of dog s*** on every footpath and village pathway, letting them run and jump up at people.
*”Don’t worry, he’s just being friendly!”* are perhaps some of my most hated words. How do I know that? By the time little Rex there has gotten up to me he could already be gnawing my arm off. Even if he doesn’t, I’d really not have your dog leaping and bounding at me, that’s really not as pleasant as you might think it is.
Seriously, the obnoxious nature of a very large number of people is astounding. Not everyone adores your dog. Some people might think it’s a pain in the arse.
I know now if I want to murder someone just buy some dangerous breeds of dogs and unleash them, i’ll get off very leniently
There should be laws about certain breeds having to wear muzzles and always be on a leash when out in public.
Just the other day I saw some asshole walking around a park with his two massive Dogue de Bordeaux (easily over 100lbs ) with no leash or muzzle. The owner also looked exactly like the kind of douchebag that you’d expect to be doing that.
The amount of damage that one of those dogs could do to a person or even to another dog is crazy.
An inability to be responsible isn’t the same as wilful.
I have a dog that could be considered dangerous, I think.
(He isn’t, he is literally the soppiest dog ever with everyone)
But I agree with other comments, you should need to have a licence to own dogs.
Mines a doberman by the way, raised with a labrador though so he thinks he is one.
dangerous dogs should be treated as a deadly weapon, definitely deserve a custodial sentence for them harming someone
Honestly the amount of times I’ve seen someone just about able to control their dog on a leash scares me, especially when I’m with my kid, small ones I wouldn’t mind as I’d kick it like I’m going for a Rugby Penalty but some bigger more aggressive dogs I would shit my pants and have no idea what to do.
Nope you are certainly not. You can tell through the quotes ( and this is true for a lot of people who make a point of owning dangerous breeds,) that the danger is a benefit to them. They WANT to intimidate. Killing a pregnant mother and depriving 4 other children of their mother by reckless ownership of a dangerous dog should be a prison sentence
and before anyone starts on about Not all Pit bulls etc, the problem is with the PET OWNER – they get a pet for the wrong reasons ( enhance their tough image), go out of their way to pick an illegal breed with violent potential if mistreated, and then, mistreat it and don’t train it properly because they see it as a way to intimidate other people. Watch the inevitable happen. This is anti-social behaviour, causing a danger to the public and these owners should receive a much steeper sentence because it wasn’t a tragic accident, its was a foreseeable and reckless event.
Any DECENT dog owner agrees with you.
Owners like this make people scared of my Rottweiler and she gets sad when people are scared of her. My GSD/Rottweiler mix gets sad when strangers won’t play the fetch game. And all this stems from a minority of owners who don’t train their dogs.
However… I think the punishment should be the same if a owner of a Jack Russell doesn’t socialise the dog and it bites a child… just because the dog is too small to cause as much damage doesn’t make it any more forgivable.
Next time I get bitten by a little rat dog I’ll be suing. I’ll be pressing charges as far as I can.
Currently I have a dog who is scared of little terriers because they’re vicious! And they’re vicious because their owners don’t socialise them correctly, or bother training them, because they’re small and “nothing to worry about”
No. Your responsibility is the same as mine.
As someone who works in the criminal justice sector the simple answer is this: the CPS and court system are utterly unfit for purpose and have been unfit for purpose for as long as I can remember.
The CPS especially are a waste of time and money.
Just asked my dad about this (he’s a dog trainer, works with aggressive dogs). Obviously all the legal shit people have already mentioned, but he also said a dog is like a gun.
You can be charged for illegally owning a gun, or keeping it loaded when not in use, but you cant always be charged if someone else shoots someone with it. I dont really get what he means but I’m a teen with no want for big dogs nor guns.
His advice; Never trust your dog, not fully, unless you know 100% where it came from. If it was byb or from a shelter dont let it sleep in your room or leave it unattended with anyone vulnerable.
His dogs are from reputable breeders who breed above standard, and even then they arent ever alone with me or my son. I trust my puppy with everything, and he’s a tiny thing, but I wouldnt leave him alone with my son either.
And, evidently, dont own dogs if you’re epileptic. Jesus Christ.
Because they’re Soft As Clarts™ Wouldn’t Hurt A Fly™ possibly also a Nanny Dog™ and definitely, certainly, without a doubt, Have Never Done That Before™
This just illustrates it’s specific owners not the dogs that are the problem, they just happen to pick dogs they can train to be dangerous. The dogs pay the price tho
Just make up a law that if your pet does something illegal, it’s the owners who’s at fault. Like teaching crows to steal money in exchange for meat
I may be misunderstanding, but they were her dogs too? So she was killed by her dogs that her partner had threatened people with? Or was she the social worker.. someone help please, I’m too thick to decipher..
I think they recently changed the law so people would be more responsible if their animals kill.
People have a strange obsession with dogs in this country, to the point where they prefer dogs over people.
Too many dogs being bred not enough owners who have a clue what they are doing, and the uk dog population jumped from 9 million to 12 million over lockdown. Harsher sentences definitely but what we absolutely have to do is get all this dog breeding under control it’s too easy for toe rags like the bloke in the OP to get hold of as many status dogs as he wants if he turns up with cash.
I don’t understand why something wasn’t done when he threatened the social workers though, surely the police should have stepped in at that point? Dogs have been removed from families and destroyed for far less.
It seems like the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be reviewed and updated. There are so many people, often children, being killed or seriously hurt by dogs every year that it really needs to be a lot tougher and the sentencing especially needs to be far harsher.
I honestly don’t know what a lot of people are thinking when they have these sorts of dogs in the house around their kids. I have a Shih-Tzu and he is super gentle and due to his breed has a small muzzle and teeth, but I always remain vigilant when he’s interacting with my kids because he could still hurt them badly if he got angry with them. I honestly cannot understand why people put their own kids in danger with these horrible big dogs around.
Don’t worry, Gary Hart (who also looks like a pedo) killed 10 in the selby rail collision after he fell asleep while driving. He was given a 36 months prison sentence and showed no remorse, blaming the deaths on the points up the track after his vehicle derailed the train.
Our justice system is a joke.
Always been a supporter of “it’s not bad dogs it’s just bad owners” I own a Labrador who could easily attack and possibly kill a child, but he’s been trained right and is soft as shit
>1. A small number of breeds are responsible for most of the deaths.
Any breed of dog can bite and be aggressive, the reason certain breeds are responsible for the most injuries and deaths is that they are the breeds with the strongest bites, not necessarily because they’re aggressive breeds (Staffy’s and GSD’s make excellent family pets for example). It’s probably that if any bite was required to be recorded by law, that you’d see a much larger mix of breeds, especially from terriers and spaniels.
That being said, I think stricter legislation around dog ownership, breeding, and tougher punishments when serious injuries and deaths happen should be introduced. But classifying certain breeds over others is erroneous.
With the context, it’s very clear why the sentence was so low: They were her dogs too, in her house and her partner was the one convicted and sentenced. She was as much at fault as him – and he lost his partner and unborn child. What good would a prison sentence do anyone? Guy sounds like a class A cunt-bag but she doesn’t sound any better. Our sentencing in the UK is built on four pillars: rehabilitation, punishment, retribution and deterrence. A prison sentence is unlikely to rehabilitate him in this circumstance, more than the death of his partner and unborn baby. The same goes for punishment. The victim is dead and the secondary victims would only be further harmed by a prison sentence (i.e. the children who just lost their mother wouldn’t find “retribution” in their father being locked up) and anyone who isn’t deterred from being a shitty owner at the concept of their partner and unborn baby being killed is unlikely to be deterred by a prison sentence. It’s clear why OP intentionally excluded the context from their post when trying to garner opinion.
The sentence does sound exceptionally low but the OP was written to sound like he set the dogs on a random women – which isn’t what happened. In reality, an irresponsible couple acquired dangerous dogs, encouraged them to be aggressive and one of them got attacked and killed. It’s no different really from a couple buying unsafe cars, not maintaining them and spending and one of them dying in a crash.
I preface this by saying Im not a dog or even an animal person, but in my experience dog owners are blissfully unaware or uncaring about how their pets might affect over people. As a kid big ass scary dogs would ran at you barking and you would see the owner casually stroll over with a shit eating grin on their face saying, “dont worry, he’s friendly he wont bite you”. I feel so many dog owners, including those with so called dangerous breeds, have this attitude and dont proactively try to curb their dogs interactions with strangers or brush of any vicious behaviour they might exhibit.
​
I guess this comment does little to answer your question but it’s just something that grinds my gears.
Whippet owner here. Yep incredibly lenient punishments.
Dog licencing/training should be mandatory requirement.
Fee chargeable and scaled as another commenter has said for basic/med&lrg/’challenging’ breeds.
Linked to microchips for easy enforcement (on-the-spot scans to check) – big fines for no chip or adequate licence. that’s part of the way to addressing.
[Link](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-dogs-breed-cant-predict-most-of-its-behavior-new-study-shows-180979999/) this is a link to a recent study that stated that the dog breed doesn’t have very much to do with its behavior aggressive or not and its mainly down to the environment. The genetics simply nudge it in a direction and the environment influences the rest.
To many factors to just point the finger at the owner
Why have you wikipedia linked Leeds and West Yorkshire? Also you spelled Osmondthorpe wrong.
The owner was her partner, who sounds like a nasty man. He watched them kill his partner. That’s a visceral consequence right there. I hope he has been evaluated, because either he has been traumatised beyond words or he’s deeply disturbed and should be locked away for his own good and the good of society. And treated, if possible.