Support for the Recognition of Animal Sentience

SUMMARY

The Animal Law Committee issued a report in support of Assembly Bill No. 107 (the “Bill”), which would add a new section 386 to the Agriculture and Markets Law to establish that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear, and that animals shall be considered the victims of animal cruelty crimes and be treated as such in a court of law. The concept of animal sentience has existed for hundreds of years and is currently well established and recognized scientifically. At law, there have been promising developments in a number of jurisdictions including the European Union, France, New Zealand, Peru, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, which have explicitly recognized animal sentience in their legislation. Although these legal developments are considered symbolic in most cases, they nevertheless provide the necessary basis for an increased public awareness and stronger advocacy on behalf of animals. The United States currently does not have any federal regulation that explicitly recognizes animal sentience. Since the law still categorizes animals as property, it is believed that the recognition of animal sentience in legislation is unlikely to result in a significant change for the legal treatment of animals. However, such recognition is important for further development of animal protection laws towards shifting the status of animals from the objects to the subjects of such laws.

BILL INFORMATION

A.107 (AM Rosenthal) – Establishes that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress, and fear; establishes an animal can be a victim of a crime (NYS 2025).

REPORT

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE

A.107 (AM ROSENTHAL)

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to establishing animals as sentient beings

THIS BILL IS APPROVED

I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Assembly Bill No. 107 (the “Bill”)[1] would add a new section 386 to the Agriculture and Markets Law to establish that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress, and fear; in order to protect animals from experiencing pain, stress, or fear at human hands, animal are to be treated humanely; and for that reason, animals shall be considered the victims of animal cruelty crimes and shall be treated as such in a court of law.

II. THE RECOGNITION OF ANIMAL SENTIENCE

The concept of animal sentience has existed for hundreds of years[2] and is currently well established and recognized scientifically.[3] At law, there have been promising developments in a number of jurisdictions including the European Union, France, New Zealand, Peru, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, which have explicitly recognized animal sentience in their legislation.[4] Although these legal developments are considered symbolic in most cases, they nevertheless provide the necessary basis for an increased public awareness and stronger advocacy on behalf of animals.[5]

The United States currently does not have any federal regulation that explicitly recognizes animal sentience. It is generally considered that various existing laws that contain language about animals’ pain and suffering implicitly recognize animal sentience.[6]

At the state level, Oregon was the first, and remains the only, state that explicitly recognizes animal sentience statutorily. ORS 167.305 stipulates that “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,” and “should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress, fear and suffering.”[7] “Whereas courts in other states may cite scientific studies or even common sense to establish that animals are sentient beings and that it is their interests that animal protection laws primarily concern, the Oregon Legislature affords its courts a statutory foundation to ground such determinations.”[8] In fact, in State v. Newcomb, the Oregon court stressed that the law affords animals additional considerations in that they are the actual subjects of animal protection laws.[9]

Since the law still categorizes animals as property, it is believed that the recognition of animal sentience in legislation is unlikely to result in a significant change for the legal treatment of animals.[10] However, as aforesaid, such recognition is important for further development of animal protection laws towards shifting the status of animals from the objects to the subjects of animal protection laws. One important practical implication of animal sentience recognition is that it provides a basis for giving animals the legal status of crime victims, as discussed below.

III. CRIME VICTIM STATUS

The legal treatment of non-human animals as property has translated into the denial to them of legal rights and protections as sentient beings. Animal protection laws have shielded animals from cruelty in some respects; however their anthropocentric foundations have shaped animals into objects rather than subjects of legal protection. As a result, “even more modern laws passed to promote the welfare of animals fail to truly centre their interests.”[11]

The status of crime victims is important because it can provide non-human animals with legal protection and considerations similar to those afforded to human crime victims within the criminal justice system, which ensure crime victims are acknowledged, respected, kept safe, and able to have a voice in the criminal justice process.[12]

At present, no federal law recognizes animals as crime victims. At the state level, Oregon is the only state to do so as a result of a ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon in State v. Nix[13] reaffirmed in State v. Hess[14] that each animal qualifies as a victim of cruelty.[15] Notably, State v. Nix was likely influenced by ORS 167.305, which recognizes animal sentience, even though the Supreme Court of Oregon specified that its opinion was not based on the changes in the animal protection framework introduced by ORS 167.305 as the law was enacted after the facts at issue.[16]

Connecticut’s Desmond’s Law (Public Act No. 16-30) is often cited as another notable development in advancing the legal protection of animal victims. Even though this law does not grant animals crime victim status, it allows advocates like volunteer lawyers or supervised students from Connecticut law schools to monitor cases and assist the court in gathering information from animal control officers, veterinarians, and police officers.[17] In practice, this leads to better investigations of cases and provides victim-like representation of animals in court.

The proposed Bill follows the wording of the Oregon law that “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear.” However, it goes further and specifically gives animals the legally enforceable status of victims of animal cruelty crimes. If the Bill is enacted into law, New York will be the first US state to statutorily recognize animals as crime victims.

This codification is expected to lead to overall greater accountability for perpetrators and better outcomes for animals. Notably, the need for stronger protection of animals is also discussed in connection with human violence. There is a strong correlation between animal abuse and interpersonal violence where animal cruelty is a predictive or co-occurring crime with violence against humans (including intimate partners, children, and elders).[18] Research shows that offenders may start with animal abuse and graduate to human violence.[19] In domestic abuse cases, abusers may explicitly threaten to harm a companion animal if their victim reports or flees. Even without those explicit threats, victims often do not want to leave their companion animal behind in a violent household.[20] Recognizing the enforceable interest of an animal victim of abuse through crime victim status will allow law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim advocates to better serve both animal and human crime victims.

Further, crime victim status for animals is significant for sentencing purposes when a crime results in multiple victims. In State v. Nix, despite the fact that the law classified animals as property, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that the animals were the victims of the crime and that, therefore, the defendant was guilty of 20 separately punishable offences. While State v. Nix was vacated on procedural grounds, its rationale was affirmed in State v. Hess, which ruled that each animal qualifies as a victim of cruelty. As a result of this approach, defendants are not able to avoid accountability by merging convictions in a crime that involves multiple animal victims. The proposed Bill will make such approach statutory and thus provide greater accountability for perpetrators.

Additionally, recognizing animals as crime victims will allow recovery of medical care expenses and other expenses related to care for animals during litigation, improving such care and alleviating the burden on cities and counties that must provide care during enforcement.[21]

IV. CONCLUSION

The Committee supports the Bill without reservation. The Bill places New York at the forefront of animal-protection jurisprudence by linking the existing consensus on sentience with a practical, rights-based framework for crime victims. Codifying animals as sufferers with legally cognizable interests closes a critical gap that has long allowed animal abuse to be minimized, sentences to be merged, and restitution to fall short of actual harm. The Bill not only promotes accountability – especially in multi-victim cruelty cases – but also strengthens public-safety outcomes by addressing the well-documented link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. In doing so, it aligns New York with forward-looking jurisdictions worldwide and creates a statutory foundation for more humane, evidence-driven enforcement. Passage of the Bill would therefore represent a decisive, system-level advance for both animal welfare and broader community protection.

Animal Law Committee
Martha L. Golar, Co-Chair
Sherry L. Ramsey, Co-Chair

June 2025