On treating the symptoms and not the cause: reflections on the Dangerous Dogs Act

The experience of saving a dog that later turned out to be a Pit Bull and therefore banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, made me investigate the Act and its implications. The Act is not built on evidence and by compiling results from different studies on dog bites and breed‐specific legislation in different countries the conclusion is that there is not much empirical support for breed bans either. ‘Dangerous breeds’ do not bite more frequently than German Shepherds and directing legislation towards certain breeds deemed as ‘dangerous’ cannot therefore be seen as justified. The strength of the label ‘dangerous dog’ seems to rule out policies that follow the facts and there is more treating of symptoms than causes. [From the Author]

When deterrence works - and when it doesn't: a comparison of Sweden's prostitution law and UK's Dangerous Dogs Act

Many pieces of legislation have been implemented with the anticipation - or justification - that they will have a deterrent effect. Deterrence was clearly argued in the debate preceding the Swedish prostitution law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, but less so regarding the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was a very rapid response to a particular moral panic. As it turned out, the Swedish law has had a deterrent effect on street prostitution in that 'respectable' buyers were deterred. It will be argued that it is this very 'respectability' that makes deterrence work in this case. Regarding the Dangerous Dogs Act, the owners of Pit Bulls and other banned breeds are not considered 'respectable' and the banning might have had the reversed effect - increasing the attraction of these dogs, rather than deterring the ownership. Apart from deterrence and its consequences, the rendering invisible of key actors - buyers and owners respectively - and the use of symbolic legislation to promote moral messages will also be considered. [From the Author]