It was reported earlier here (July 2015) that courts in New York were
deciding the fate of non-persons like the chimpanzee Tommy. The cases are still very much active but, not surprisingly, have faced skeptical courts. On March 27, 2017 a new filing was made with Tommy challenging the definition of "person" used by the Court of Appeals.
Bear in mind that the issue in The Hot Monkey Love Trial is whether
Bert Gropes, with a single but unique monkey gene can be prosecuted as a “person”
for the crimes with which he’s been charged.
How might the New York courts define a “person” if deciding Bert’s
case?
It boiled down to this, according to the earlier Court of Appeals decision:
“Unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal
duties, submit to societal responsibilities, or be held legally accountable for
their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities
and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer on chimpanzees the
legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ
of habeas corpus – that have been afforded to human beings.”
This pretty much bodes well for corporations since they are held to that standard and are therefore "persons" under law. But it doesn't look good for Bert… or, actually, it does if he wants to
dodge the responsibilities that come with personhood such as a crime conviction.
Does Bert adequately submit to societal
responsibilities? To his non-personhood credit, he loses his job and finds
himself with no life and arguably no responsibilities.
This could open up a whole new defense even for those who don't have Bert's parahuman genome. Move over, "Twinkie" defense!
