If a person commits a crime, it is normal that, depending on the offence, he or she will be punished to varying degrees under the laws of the State. But it would be strange if someone judges the "crimes" of animals according to human law. This irrational absurdity is hard to understand, but as early as 824, in Europe, animals were bound by the same moral standards as humans, and endured the death penalty and "imprisonment" until the mid-18th century.
In 864, a swarm of bees was sentenced to death by smoke for stinging a man to death. And in the 11th century, a swarm of flies broke into the church, cursed and expelled. Any animal will "break the law", caterpillars, snails, and those four-hoofed animals. Of course, the animals that have been tried the most often are the larger ones.
Pigs, the largest group of animal "defendants"
In 1379, 3 pigs of the French monastery went on a rampage and killed a man. According to the custom of the time, these pigs, both those who killed and those who did not kill bystanders, would all be sentenced to death for their terrible crimes. Look at the constantly howling, aggressive "murderers", and the cold-eyed, indifferent bystanders, "the evidence is conclusive."
The pigs that kill people are damned, but by killing all the pigs, the monastery will surely suffer heavy losses. So for financial reasons, the abbot wrote a letter to the duke in charge, asking him to forgive the "ignorant bystanders". And the Duke heeded his advice, showed mercy, and released the poor pigs. There is no record in the historical record of how people finally handled the 3 pigs that killed people, but at that time, it was very common to hang or burn the guilty animals alive, so the fate of the 3 pigs can be imagined.
The most notorious "habitual offender" in Europe is the pig. During that period, because pigs had a great degree of freedom, they could roam the streets at will, and their number was also very large, so they became "regulars" in court. Pigs have committed a variety of crimes, such as biting a child's ear, biting a child's nose, killing a child, and some even daring to "defy the wind" on a holy Friday. According to the laws of the time, pigs that attacked humans on Friday were judged to be extremely bad. In France in 1394, a "milder" pig was summarily hanged for stealing holy bread.
In fact, many members of the animal kingdom have tasted the power of ancient European law. In an appendix to the history of animal trials, the authors cite more than 200 related cases. The animals executed included cattle, horses, weevils, dogs, sheep, etc., the most rare of which was the dolphin. But the book only says that the dolphin was tried in Marseille in 1596, and no other information is given, so we have no way of knowing what crime the dolphin committed.
The fury of judgment burned
Animals on trial are subjected to many types of punishments, not just the death penalty. There was a pig that was initially sentenced to death, but after the second trial, it was exempted from the death penalty and sentenced to "knocking on the head". For example, if the appearance of the rat is offensive, the rat will receive an "eviction notice" to leave the house.
However, animal death penalties are often very cruel, hanging is a small meaning, and even some innocent animals face the "anger of judgment". At the end of the 16th century, a moose was donated to a small Swiss town as a reciprocal gift. But the townspeople didn't buy it, seeing the strange animal as a dangerous "demon." In order to help the town completely eradicate this ugly-looking "demon", a "pious" old woman broke the life of a moose with an apple full of broken needles. Humans are so creative!
Sometimes, animals themselves are victims, especially in bestiality, where they are often sentenced to terrible death along with the human who committed the crime. In one case, a mule was burned alive by fire along with its rapist. Before the execution, the mule was brutally cut off its hooves, because the court believed that it could have "warned" it with both hooves.
At the time of sentencing, Europeans at the time often "turned a blind eye" to the animals on which they depended so much, which were indispensable for their livelihood. For example, in a case of bestiality in 1750, the victim was a donkey, who was pardoned for "showing that he was the most honest donkey in terms of words and deeds and habits of life.". This is also a touching moment in the history of animal welfare.
Rats with "defense lawyers"
In human society, for the sake of fairness, the court often arranges lawyers for the defendant, and this situation also occurs from time to time when the animal is the defendant. Some animals are quite fortunate to have their own "defense lawyers.".
In the 16th century, Bartholomew Shasse was the most famous public defender for animal defense, and he was the first to defend rats. Once, a rat in the French province of Orton had committed a felony for a felony and "deserved" to go to court, but Chassey said that because of the long distance and the rat's natural enemy cat, which was always peeping on the street corner, the road was dangerous, so his "furry defendant" could not appear in court on time and asked the court for forgiveness. Thanks to the lawyer's successful defense, the rats escaped the fate.
Why did this Barthromus Shasse go all out to defend rats? For he believed that the power of the curse was enough to punish animals.
During that period, animal trials were conducted in the Inquisition. The authority of the courts is expressed in the power to expel the Church, that is, to dissolve the relationship between the offender and the religion, so that it can no longer enjoy the protection of the Church, and the curse is a well-known method of detachment from religion. Many people thought that bringing rats to court would be cursed, including Shasse himself, who had no doubt about the power of the curse. He once said that a priest had caused the fruit of the garden to "seduce" children and teenagers, cursing the orchard into a barren place, and the spell was not lifted until the duchess spoke.
Because the power of the curse is considered to be very powerful, the curse is often used as a punishment for people and animals. For most pests and rodents, the curse is an extremely serious punishment.
Cursed weevil
In 16th-century France, the most severe pest was the weevil, and the worst affected area was the small town of St. Julian in the Alps. In 1545, weevils invaded the vineyards and threatened the local economy. So the farmers sought the help of the church, and the grape growers demanded a trial of the weevils. After receiving the indictment, the judge advised everyone to pray for their sins and, following a complicated schedule he had proposed, to bring the holy loaves to the infested vineyards, saying that the weevils would automatically leave. The trick was pretty clever, and soon after the weevil flew away. In the following 40 years, the harvest and vinification of the vineyards returned to their previous rhythms.
However, in 1587, the weevils made another comeback, and they were again taken to court. The trial began on 13 April 1587, and the court arranged for a lawyer named Antony Firoll as the public defender of the weevil. Apologists argue that it is God's will for the weevil to reappear, and that God will not allow the inferior animals he created and blessed to starve, but that the weevil happened to nibble on the crops. However, the judgment affirmed the town's dominion over the weevils, "though God created the animals before the humans," "but they are subordinate to the human, to the human, which is why God created them earlier." According to the outcome of other similar cases, if weevils are found guilty, they will be expelled and cursed.
Finally, the inhabitants of St. Julian's outside the court were ready to compromise, and they were willing to cut off a piece of land for the weevils, the location had been chosen, and it was officially recognized. However, although nominally ceded to the weevils, people can still pass through here and use the water resources here, as well as the spring water "exclusively" for the weevils. In court, however, the weevil defense counsel did not approve of the plan to cut the land, which was so poor that it could not provide enough food for the weevils, and appealed. But later, the appeal was dismissed because the court found that there were enough trees and shrubs on the ground to meet the weevil's requirements.
It took about 8 months for the weevil case to be finalized, but unfortunately, there is no historical record of the final detailed results, because the last few pages of the trial results were eaten by moths! Of course, we can also imagine that this may also be the case that the weevils may have been dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial and sent "squads" to destroy the trial report.
Judging animals is "God's business"
In ancient Europe, the act of treating animals as human beings and judging them continued for centuries. The synod of the Episcopal Court is open to indictments of animals, reflecting the Catholic tradition of solving difficult problems through open debate. Even if it is only a theoretical limitation, the ecclesiastical court will do it very seriously. In 1587, Pope Siscote V also created a devil's spokesman who would be responsible for proposing all the arguments that Satan might use against future saints. For the general public, the episcopal courts have a pro-people character that the Inquisition and the secular interrogatory courts do not have, where they can go to sue the animals.
In fact, the use of law to judge animals was also felt inappropriate in ancient Europe. For example, some European thinkers and theologians believe that innocence and guilt depend on the rational application of free will, but animals have no free will and should not morally obey laws made by humans. And if God's idea of creating man and animals is correct, then man had better not meddle in the management of animals, for the thinker Thomas Aquinas said that it is God's duty to manage animals, and it is blasphemous for humans to do so.
In the late 13th century, European jurists had discovered that "punishment does not work for animals" because animals do not understand the letter of the law and are incapable of making rational choices of action, and that the law should "apply only to rational animals." What a wise realization!
Of course, we already know today that animals do have emotions and can feel pain, but Europeans have known this for a long time. But this does not mean that animals are rational animals that can understand the provisions of the law, at least not at least the scientific community has no supporting evidence for this. So of course it is inappropriate to impose the law on animals.