At last, sociologists have something relatively new over which they can stew: the use of facility dogs (‘comfort dogs’ doesn’t sound quite right) in court. The dogs seem to have originated about 20 years ago in the US and were first used to help young children cope with courtrooms. Now there are various strands of dog, some specially trained for the court itself and some who stay in the corridors, so to speak, trying to calm those who are stressed waiting to give evidence, or for verdicts.
Research papers are now beginning to appear discussing whether dogs are an influence on juries any more than teddy bears. In fact one, albeit limited, paper claimed that it was the latter which had more effect on a mock jury. More alarmingly, what another showed was that over 50% of those involved in court case – dog or no dog – were dissatisfied with the whole process.
Efforts by defence lawyers in America to overturn convictions when a support dog has been in court with a witness seem generally to have come to nothing. There are suggestions that all people under stress should be allowed facility dogs in court. That raises all sorts of problems. First, what are the basic requirements to qualify for a facility dog? PTSD or another such complaint? Should the person have to produce a doctor’s note? What training will be required?
And as the practice spreads, what sort of dog will be allowed in court ? Will fee-paying clients be allowed to bring their own dog? Will there be enough trained dogs to go around? Will they be ones who started life as potential guide dogs, but didn’t pass the finals?
And what about jurors? Will they have to be questioned about their attitude towards dogs and, in time, particular breeds? A docile, court-trained black Labrador lying peacefully listening to every word of evidence is one thing, but a yapping (or even silent) Yorkshire terrier may be quite another.
Research, research, appeal. Oh what fun we shall have.
James Morton is a writer and former criminal defence solicitor
6 Readers' comments