You are absolutely correct that the definition of those terms is of legislative importance. Rather than offer my opinion regarding specific definitions, I want to highlight the complexity of your question.



I don't claim to know anything about the legal system in Norway; however, as a lawyer in the United States (NC)I have a pretty good idea of how things work here.



Over the years, various U.S. courts have been forced to determine the definition of terms such as "animal" in interpreting legislation. This matter of statutory interpretation often arises in the context of cases involving poaching, animal cruelty / neglect, illegal possession, etc...when the accused claims that the "living organism" does not fall within the meaning of "animal" (or insert other appropriate term) as intended by the statute.



In the U.S., a statute will typically include a section defining terms used throughout. When a term is not defined, or is vaguely defined, significant problems can arise. Often, the court will look at the historical context in which the statute was drafted to define the term. Or, it might find an enumerated list elsewhere in the statute, and from the type of items on that list derive some definition. Some clue may be found in the legislative record.



Often, the legislators will confuse the issue by drafting numerous statutes. For example, one statute referring to the abuse of horses, and a separate one for domesticated animals, etc... Once the legislature set out specific classes of animals, courts are quick to say that something not specifically included is not covered, or that it would have been specifically mentioned. I could go on and on about this, but it gets quite complicated.



These problems of statutory interpretation have lead to bizarre results over the years, in various jurisdictions, where courts have allowed cock fighting because it determined that "cocks" were not animals within the meaning of an anti-cruelty statute. (This has since been overruled in that jurisdiction) There was another case where a court was forced to determine whether a goldfish was an animal in the context of a statute that made it illegal to offer a live animal as a prize in a contest of chance or skill (win a goldfish by throwing a ping-pong ball into a jar of water). There numerous similar cases.



The area of "animal law" is both fascinating and disturbing. A quick read of a few cases makes it clear that, historically, the courts and society have define "animal" in a manner that best serves economic and entertainment needs, with very little regard to common sense or decency.



Adios,





Prosecutor / RWK




-----
Information contained in this post is not intended as, and should not be taken as, legal advice. The use of the information provided in these pages should not be taken as establishing any contractual or other form of attorney-client relationship between the writer and the reader or user of this information.

[ Show Entire Thread ]