Rabbit Advocacy Animal Matters

Janet Olson, dog thief and animal activist, given 90-day conditional sentence

February 24, 2015 CBC News

A woman who pleaded guilty to stealing three dogs from Surrey backyards has been given a 90-day conditional sentence and 30 hours of community service, which means she will not serve any time in jail.

Janet Olson admitted to stealing dozens of dogs while she worked with the group "A Better Life Dog Rescue," but said it was to prevent the worse crime of animal abuse. "Our animal cruelty laws in Canada encompass one paragraph, and even those laws are not enforced. So my defence is I'm not intentionally breaking the law, I'm intentionally enforcing it," she said at her sentencing hearing.

The judge, however, said Olson took the law into her own hands and her vigilante act was unjustified. The judge also said Olson is not a threat to the public anymore but she was also not remorseful.

During her sentencing hearing last month, both her lawyer and Crown lawyers agreed she was acting out of compassion, but Crown prosecutors argued her actions still need to be condemned. Olson's sentence is less than the 12 to 18 month conditional sentence that the Crown prosecutors had wanted. Her lawyers had requested a conditional discharge.

Comment: Jan Olson, who rescued, or stole (depending on one’s viewpoint) neglected and/or mistreated dogs for several years was eventually charged with theft, but argued in court that “ animal cruelty laws in Canada encompass one paragraph, and even those laws are not enforced. So my defence is I'm not intentionally breaking the law, I'm intentionally enforcing it."

So, does one have a moral duty to act in situation where there’s suffering and neglect? I believe so, regardless of the law. And throughout history, many others refused to stand by and do nothing.

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”  Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts. Mahatma Gandhi

Necessity: A defense asserted by a criminal or civil defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law. The necessity defense has long been recognized as Common Law and has also been made part of most states' statutory law. Although no federal statute acknowledges the defense, the Supreme Court has recognized it as part of the common law. The rationale behind the necessity defense is that sometimes, in a particular situation, a technical breach of the law is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law. The defense is often used successfully in cases that involve a Trespass on property to save a person's life or property. It also has been used, with varying degrees of success, in cases involving more complex questions.  

Comment: If the law doesn’t respond to changing societal values & those charged with enforcing the law fail in their duties, one could argue that a person has an obligation to step in.

Civil disobedience involves intentional violation of the law to achieve a result the law-breakers believe is in the public interest. It is a form of protest intended to draw attention to a wrong or injustice which the protesters believe is sufficiently serious to morally justify violation of the law.

Trespass can, and is, used as an act of civil disobedience.

Volunteers threatened if they speak publicly about "shelter" conditions; never be silent!

Visit our Animal Law, Animal Welfare/Advocacy & other pages!