After reading about “the capital punishment of the dog Provetie” respond to any one of the following questions: ( CHOOSE ONE ONLY. 50 WORD)
1. What is strange about the courtâ€™s treatment of Provetie? How does it differ from the commonplace practice of punishing dogs? Donâ€™t people commonly punish dogs to change their behavior? Is this case really any different? (At least Provetie had due process of law!)
2. Was Provetie morally responsible for its action? Why or why not? Suppose Provetieâ€™s human owner had bit the child instead. Would the owner be responsible? Would he be more or less responsible than Provetie was? Why?
3. Could the execution of Provetie be justified on the grounds of social protection? Is the courtâ€™s interest in deterring bad behavior of other dogs justification enough for the hanging of Provetie?
4. When (if ever) would you consider a human criminal defendant to be not responsible for his or her acts? Under what circumstances?