would stop their felonious heha\ ior. But all due formalities had to he ohser\ ed, as is typical with The Last Best Cdiance. Trials of animals seem to fall into onK’ two types/' I'irst, where a particular animal has committed an especially atrocious act, hut not a minor offence. Second, w here there is an ongoing crisis of epic proportions, not simply normal predations by beetles or rats. I'or lesser offenses no trial was called for, the creatures were simpK’ put down, further proof that the trials are e.xamples of The Last Best Cdiance. One should not conclude from the trial of the rats of .\utun, as Ewald for instance insists, that those imolved would concede to all (iod's creatures a right to share in the fruits of the earth.^' Such a feeling is entirely absent for rbe time from the slaughtering of pigs or cattle for food, or the mindless killing of rats going about their business in a normal year. 1 would conjecture that we shoidd not be surprised that the rats of .\utun won, yet not by an acquittal, but on a technicality, d'he same was also true of the beetles that infested the \ ineyards of St. Julien in i-tq-r and subsequently."' I would suggest that in situations of ongoing destruction by small creatures the judges wotdd be chary of pronouncing a sentence on them w hich in all probability would be to n(^ a\ ail. The majesty of the law is not light1\' to be shown to be contemptible. 'Trials td animals incidentally present ver\’ real problems for legal theorists such as I Ians Kelsen who claim that "norms of a legal order regulate human beha\ ior."" 'The\' must emphasize that laws govern hitmau beha\ ior because for them law is about regulating conduct, and only humans can regulate their beha\ ior according to law. 1 lence they w ill wrongly claim that the "absurd legal content is the residt of animistic ideas, according to which not only men, but also 48 I am relying on the evidence in Evans, Criminal Prosecutions. 49 'Comparative Jurisprudence (i),' pp. I9i4f. 50 For this see Evans, Criminal Prosecutions, pp 37ff. 51 The Pure Theory of Law, 2d edit. Trsl. Max Knight (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 3off. 145
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=