Earlier this summer, Stephen Levine, a public defender in Poughkeepsie, New York, appealed his client's conviction of raping and impregnating a fifteen year old girl - who, according to the whtc.com article, is the accused's daughter - because a dog comforted her during the trial. With Rosie, a golden retriever that had worked with emotionally troubled children for many years by her side, the girl testified.
Levine was quoted as saying: ''The stress witnesses feel when they have to testify at trial tends to undo falsehoods. Removing the stress deprives the defendant of a fair trial.''
It's truly difficult to decide what might be more heinous - the case itself, or the fact that anyone would even suggest denying a person comfort during what might be one of the most stressful events in his or her life. Add to that many of the people being comforted have been victims of violent crimes, and that many of them are children, and this author's bite gets worse than her bark.
According to the whtc.com article, Levine is concerned that the ''dogs could subconsciously sway'' a jury and/or judge. As he put it, just the fact that the dog is in the courtroom could give the impression that a witness is being truthful, ''because you don't need to be comforted when you're giving false testimony.''
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, for someone who may or may not have ice water in his veins.
Perhaps the court system would be better served by offering sensitivity training to Levine. One also has to wonder if perhaps Levine is seeking some type of notoriety by pursuing such an appeal; the question one has to ask is, is this the legacy one wants to leave behind? Is this how a person would choose to - and it quite possibly could - define his career? As the guy who denied traumatized children access to dogs that might comfort them so they could, hopefully, get through their testimony? Really?
The job of an attorney is without a doubt tough, fraught with long hours, heavy workloads and thorny moral dilemmas. Raising difficult questions, often at the expense of his or her popularity, is often his or her job, and I applaud the effort. But it seems in this case, both the human, and the canine, factors are being disregarded. The therapeutic value of dogs to humans is widely known and established.
My opinion is that using comfort dogs in the courtroom is one issue that could, and should, be left alone. Frankly, it seems ridiculous to even debate the issue at all. It is also my opinion that far more harm than good would result by removing comfort dogs in courtrooms. Period.
At one point, Vachss gave a German shepherd to an advocacy group in Mississippi. In 1992, the dog was the first in the country permitted inside ''a courtroom to comfort a witness.''
Per the article, Vachss said Levine is ''grasping at straws'' with his appeal, and that he feels strongly the court will take the side of courtroom dog advocates.
Many of the non-profit groups which provide the comfort dogs' services work diligently to ensure the animals do not create disruptions while in court.
Ellen O'Neill-Stephens, a Seattle prosecutor and founder of the advocacy group Courthouse Dogs, was quoted as saying: ''Generally we recommend they not be cute and cuddly and sit on the witness' lap.''
In addition, Florida Four Legged Advocates (FLA) is a charitable organization which, according to information at its website, ''uses an innovative method of Victim Assistance Coordinators with canine partners providing assistance to victims of sexual assault and other crimes,'' follows a policy that dogs not ''join witnesses on the stand,'' and that they not be seen by a jury.
FLA founder Andrea Cardona was quoted as saying: ''My priority is the child, and I would never want to do anything that puts a case in jeopardy.''
Levine was quoted as saying: ''If you want to use these dogs, go to your legislature, hold public hearings and then determine what's in the best interest of all the parties concerned.''
Oh, the humanity!
