The Effect of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - Coursework Example

Policy Process Table of Contents Introduction 2 Method 3 Initiation Stage 4 Formulation Stage 5 Parliamentarian Stage 7 Power Theory 7 Decision Making Theory 8 Lukes Theory 8 Implementation Stage 8 Top-Down Approach 9 Outputs/Outcomes Stage 9 Conclusion 12 References 14 Introduction The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced by the parliament of UK. This act was introduced by the UK parliament in response to the several incidents of death and serious injuries resulting from the attacks by uncontrolled and dangerous dogs, specifically on children. However, these particular incidents received huge media attention. In addition to this, these media attentions helped the public of the United Kingdom to become concern not to keep uncontrolled, aggressive and dangerous dogs that have resulted effective legislative response. The parliament of UK developed several sections under this act in order to maintain the safety aspect of children along with the common people from the attack of dangerous dogs. However, the government of UK took some initiatives to create significant awareness among the people of UK regarding the keeping of dangerous and aggressive dogs that can attack the common people and children within the society or community. The development and implementation of this particular act has bought huge success in UK. In addition to this, government, police and city councils of UK desperately and effectively follow the sections under this act to make the society and community safe from the unwanted attack of dangerous dogs. Under the sections, the parliament of UK established several types of possible dangerous dog offences. Possession of prohibited dog, dog aggressively out of control, and dogs aggressively out of control and resulting injury can be considered as the dangerous dog offences. The parliament along with the government of UK tried to reduce these offences by developing acts and policies. This report will analyze the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In addition to this, this report will highlight initiation process, formulation process, parliamentary process, implementation process and output process of the policies under this act. Method Several important theories and facts have been considered in this study to analyze this particular act. This analysis has involved the application of several theories, such as Easton’s model and PESTLE analysis. First of all, this report will analyze the initiation stage of this act. The initiation part will discuss about how the parliament of UK initiated this act and the findings of this initiation stage. Then this report will analyze the formulation stage of this act. This part of the report will discuss about how the parliament of the United Kingdom formulated this act and the findings of formulation stage. This formulation part of the report will provide some suggestions based on the conducted analysis and attained findings. Parliamentary stage and implementation stage will follow the same method and the report will also provide some suggestions in these stages based on the conducted analysis and attained findings. Finally the report will highlight a policy outcome or output stage by determining the effect or impact of the policy on the people within the society or community. Lastly, the report will summarize all the important factors of the report. The implementation section of this report will analyze whether extra funding were provided by the agencies to overcome the problem of dangerous dogs. On the other hand, the policy output or outcome section will include the measurement of policies. This part of the report will determine the impact of the policy on the society. PESTLE analysis has been incorporated in this report in order to determine this act on the external environmental factors. Several statistics have been included in the policy outcome part in order to determine the impact of the policy on the culture of UK. Initiation Stage It is true that several households used to keep dogs in their home as their pet. These households generally treat their pet dogs as the family members. However, parliament of the United Kingdom tried to introduce this act in order to overcome the rising social issue related to the attack of the dangerous and uncontrolled dog. During the early 1990s, people of UK within societies and communities were attacked by several uncontrolled and dangerous dogs. These issues forced the parliament of the United Kingdom to initiate this act. According to a survey report, it has been found out that the Pit Bull Terrier is the most dangerous dog among all pets in terms of behaviour and attitude (Keogh, 2012, p.73). Under the dangerous dog act 1991, four different dog breeds were prohibited for the purpose of keeping them as pet in house. The Pit Bull Terrier, The Fila Brasileiro, The Dogo Argentino and The Japanese Tosa were prohibited under the Dangerous Dog 1991 act. According to the developed act, it also can be considered as an offence if an individual keep these dogs in their home as their pet (Barker, 2010, p.72). People can keep the dog based on the persecution of court. The behaviour and attitude of dogs needed to be considered before keeping them (Gray, 2004, p.32). In the year 1992, the court has stated that all the information about controlled dogs and their owners need to be added in the Exempted dogs’ index. In the year 1997, the parliament and the court in the United Kingdom made some changes in the dangerous Dog Act. However, this particular act also covered the cross breeds of the above mentioned four dog breeds (Dorey, 2005, p.309). Dogs can be considered as dangerous dogs based on the classification of types. Generally, breed label does not indicate the aggressiveness and dangerousness of a dog. The parliament of the United Kingdom judged several types of dogs as the dangerous dogs based on physical characteristics and behaviour of these dogs. In addition to this, the parliament passed that the assessment and judgement of the behaviours and physical characteristics should be made by court. This analysis is suggesting that some serious injuries and growing issues forced the parliament of the United Kingdom to initiate this strategy (Archbold, 1991, p.2501). Formulation Stage It was highly important for the parliament of the United Kingdom to formulate the initiated strategy in an effective way so that the communities and societies can get effective and valuable advantages through the developed act (Naylor, 2012, p.41). The parliament along with the legislative bodies in the United Kingdom understood the significance of the development and formulation of this act. First of all, the regulatory bodies categorized the dangerous dog offences into three categories, such as ownership of a prohibited dog, dog aggressively out of control, and dog aggressively out of control that can cause death and injury (Turner, 2013, p.17). It is true that the politicians love to announce several new initiatives for the society and community in order to get the support of common people. This Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was introduced by the parliament of the United Kingdom in the year 1991. Most importantly, this initiative was required to maintain social and communal stability of the United Kingdom. Government of the United Kingdom tried to increase awareness about the sections and policies under the developed act to reduce the possibilities of injuries by the uncontrolled, dangerous and aggressive dogs (Clayden, 2011, p.417). Effective social awareness programme helped the common people of the United Kingdom to stay safe from the dogs who are aggressive, dangerous and harmful (Carter, 2001, p.29). In addition to this, these social awareness programmes create significant awareness among the people about not to keep these kinds of dogs or dog breeds that can be considered as the dangerous dogs (North, 2012, p.185). Government of the United Kingdom, city councils, courts, polices and state governments are highly responsible to maintain and follow each and every policy developed under this law. However, this analysis is suggesting that parliament of the United Kingdom took the help of several ministers and regulatory bodies of the United Kingdom to formulate the developed policies under the dangerous Dog Act 1991 quite easily (Cullingworth, 2004, p.140). During the early 1990s, some communities and societies were really shaken by the constant attack of uncontrolled and aggressive dogs. The government of the United Kingdom were highly concerned over this matter. After a long and in-detailed discussion with regulatory bodies and several injured people, the government of the United Kingdom banned the import of the dangerous dogs and dog breeds in the mid night. Soon after, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom introduced the bill of Dangerous Dog in the parliament (Ormerod, 2011, p.998). Kenneth baker was the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom during that period of time. After the introduction of this bill, several ministers along with the court of the United Kingdom discussed over that matter that which dogs and dog breeds can be considered as the dangerous dogs. After long discussion, it has been decided that a dog can be termed and defined as a dangerous dog based on the type of the dog rather than then breed of the dog. According to the Dangerous Dog Act 1991, in case of violation of the policies and laws, the dogs should be captured and destroyed. In addition to this, the owners of the dogs should face six months jail (Glazebrook, 2007, p.134). Moreover, the parliament of the United Kingdom also has banned the keeping of cross-breeds. At last, the parliament made some changes in the act in the year 1991. Parliamentarian Stage It is clear from above discussion that the dangerous Dog Act 1991 was passed in the year 1991 by the parliament of the United Kingdom by understanding the significance of the introduction of this act. However, another parliamentary act had amended the law in the year 1997. This newly amended parliamentary act removed the obligatory destruction order (Parkinson, 2009, p.1). This parliamentary act gave the court several discretions over the policies under the developed act and over the sentencing of the dogs’ owners. It is true that each and every death and injury can be considered as terrible aspect. Despite the legislations and developed policies, young people in the United Kingdom started to buy and keep the dogs looking like similar to the pit bull dogs (Britain, 1991, p.65). However, some spokesmen have seriously criticized the steps that had taken by the parliament of the United Kingdom. According to some people, even after the development of this act, the scenario and environment of the United Kingdom did not improve at all (Aspinall, 2011, p.89). Power Theory Power theory can be categorized into three categories, such as Pluralism, Marxism and Elitism. The parliament of the United Kingdom considered pluralism power theory during the development of the Dangerous Dog Act. The parliament developed the policies and sections under this act based on the request of the common people and several political groups. These can be considered as the characteristics of the pluralism power theory. In terms of findings, each and every individual within the community had to follow the rules, policies and regulations under the Dangerous Dog Act. Decision Making Theory The parliament of the United Kingdom adopted and implemented “The Rational Comprehensive Model” as the decision making theory during the development of the Dangerous Dog Act. The principle of the model is to develop goals, objectives and strategies based on the identified problem. In this case, the parliament developed the policies and implementation strategies based on the identified problems and issues. Lukes Theory Steven Lukes introduced the concept of three dimension of power. The development and introduction of Dangerous Dog Act can be considered as the one dimensional view of power under the Lukes theory in which the parliament of the United Kingdom made decision to introduce the act only based on the behaviour of key issue. Parliament did not criticise whether the policy can affect the external environment of the country. Implementation Stage In spite of development of acts and strategies several young individuals in the sub-urban areas from the United Kingdom started to buy and keep pit bull like dogs. Most importantly, these dogs are also dangerous and aggressive in nature. But, the parliament of the United Kingdom failed to incorporate the name of this dog and their breeds under the category of dangerous dog. However, the parliament of the United Kingdom took outside help from state agencies to arrange extra fund in order to overcome the issues and problems related to the dangerous dogs in UK. Adoption and integration of multi-agency approach helped the parliament to introduce the act and policies relating dangerous dogs quite successfully (Defra, 2009, p.9). State police, city police, city council and the ministers were considered as the external agencies of the parliament of the United Kingdom in this act development process. Police and city councils supported the government by providing effective services that enhanced policy formulation and implementation process. These can be considered as expected impacts. In the year 2000, 439 UK adults were sentenced for several types of dangerous dog offences. In addition to this, 1192 adults were sentenced for same reason in the year 2010 (Judiciary, 2011, p.2). It is clear from the provided statistics that these offences increased over the last 10 years at a rapid pace. These impacts can be considered as unexpected impacts. Therefore, several critiques have stated that the government failed to get success through the developed policy and act. Top-Down Approach Development and implementation of Dangerous Dog Act can be considered as the implementation of Top-Down Approach. The parliament of the United Kingdom considered clear system of control and power in the policy development process. In addition to this, entire community members and other individuals had to maintain the hierarchical structure according to the mentioned policies in the sections under the Dangerous Dog Act. Therefore, these characteristics of the policy development and implementation process can be considered as the consideration of Top-Down Approach. Outputs/Outcomes Stage The policy outputs or policy outcomes have several important impacts on various UK external environmental factors. A PSTLE analysis has been implemented in this part of the report in order to determine the impact of the developed Dangerous Dog Act on the external environmental factors. Political UK is politically stable. However, the Dangerous Dog Act was initiated by the parliament with the help of several political individuals. It helped the parliament to introduce and pass the bill regarding the dangerous dog act in parliament in order to get valuable support from the common people in UK who are beaten or injured or harassed by these dangerous dogs. Therefore, it can be stated that the development of this act and policies had huge impact on the political environment of the United Kingdom. Economical Recent financial crisis and global economic recession affected the economic environment of the United Kingdom. In addition to this, investment behind the pet dogs affected the purchasing power and disposable income of people. However, it can be stated that the introduction of this dangerous Dog Act somehow has helped UK to maintain economical stability as strict policy on keeping prohibited dog helped people to stop investing behind the pets. Therefore, it can be stated that the introduction of this act helped UK economy during the economic slowdown. Social Buying and keeping pets can be considered as the old tradition and social trend in UK. Therefore, it was quite difficult for the government to make the owners of the dangerous dogs understand about the challenges and issues regarding keeping these dogs. In addition to this, it has been identified from the above discussion that the constant attack by the dangerous and aggressive dogs forced the Home secretary of the United Kingdom to pass the bill regarding the dangerous Dog Act. On the other hand, common people also have demanded to introduce this law. Therefore, it can be stated that the introduction of this act helped the government and regulatory body to meet the social demand. Technological It is true that the introduction of the Dangerous Dog Act has several valuable impacts on the external environmental factors. But, this particular act did not have any impact on the technological environment of UK. Environmental Similar to the technological environment, this act also did not have any kind of impact on the environmental factor of the United Kingdom. Legal The introduction of this act has both negative and positive impact on the legal environment of the United Kingdom. Several individuals within the United Kingdom were really happy with the developed policies and acts. But, there were other people too who were unhappy with the developed policies. According to several critiques, this policy development process forced the government of the United Kingdom to make some unnecessary investments that affected the economic growth of the country. Therefore, it is clear that the developed act has both intended and unintended impact on the legal environment of the United Kingdom (Wignall, 1998, p.169). Easton’s Model Easton Model helps a country to determine the interaction of the country’s political system with the environment. Considering the application of the Easton’s model in this case, it can be stated that the decisions that have made by the parliament with the help of political bodies are strongly based on the perception of the people in UK as the people of UK were constantly getting injured by some dangerous and aggressive dogs (King, 2010, p.99). Therefore, this particular demand of several common people forced the parliament to introduce the bill and pass the act name “Dangerous Dog Act 1991”. Conclusion Dangerous Dog Act 1991 can be considered as the introduction of an act or policy by the parliament of the United Kingdom to give response to the increasing number of deaths and injuries by the attacks of the uncontrolled and dangerous dogs. However, it is true that growing issues and casualties forced the parliament of the United Kingdom to pass the bill. Several external agencies, ministers, political bodies, regulatory bodies, courts and integration of multi-agency approach helped the parliament of UK to pass the bill and introduce the Dangerous Dog 1991 Act. According to this act, the owners of the dog have to surrender their dangerous dogs to the police. In case of violation of the policies and regulations, the owners of the dogs can be sentenced to six months of jail term. Despite these initiatives and formulation plans, several people used to criticise that the developed policy is not realistic as it affected the economic environment of the country due to huge investment of government behind the act development, formulation and implementation process. Most importantly, the parliament of the United Kingdom failed to gain success through the developed act and policy as the number of sentenced for dangerous dog offence increased at a rapid pace over the last 10 years. References Archbold, J., 1991. Criminal Pleading. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Aspinall, V., 2011. The Complete textbook of veterinary Nursing. London: Elsevier Health Science. Carter, F., 2001. The Education of Little Tree. London: UNP Press. Clayden, P., 2011. The Dog law handbook. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Cullingworth, N., 2004. BTEC national Public Services. London: Nelson Thornes. Defra., 2009. Dangerous Dogs law: Guidance for Enforces. [PDF]. Available at: . [Accessed on February 21, 2014]. Dorey, P., 2005. Policy making in Britain. London: Sage. Glazebrook, P., 2007. Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal law 2007-2008. London: Oxford University Press. Gray, D., 2004. Public Services. London: Heinemann. Great Britain., 1991. Current Law Statues. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Ibarker, T., 2010. Biker gangs and Organized Crime. London: Elsevier. Judiciary., 2011. Overview of Dangerous Dog Offences. [PDF]. Available at: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Dangerous_Dog_Data_Bulletins.pdf. [Accessed on February 21, 2014]. Keogh, A., 2012. Blackstone’s Magistrate’s Court handbook 2013. London: Oxford University Press. King, S., 2010. Cujo. London: Hachette. Naylor, P., 2012. Shiloh. New York: Simonand Schuster. North, P., 2012. Civil Liability for Animals. London: Oxford University Press. Ormerod, D., 2011. Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2012. London: Oxford University Press. Parkinson, J., 2009. Pledge watch: dangerous Dogs. [Online]. Available at: . [Accessed on February 21, 2014]. Turner, C., 2013. Unlocking Torts. London: Routledge. Wignall, G., 1998. Nuisances. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Read More