1991 Dangerous Dogs Act Case Study

1. The most striking similarity between the three texts is a call for further legislation on the subject of dangerous dogs in the UK; they also all share the sentiment that dogs can be dangerous to humans if not properly raised and should therefore be controlled only by cunning hands. The first text and the third text both address the need for revision of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which is classified as lacking, well illustrated by the first text "[The death of Ellie Lawrenson] also highlighted serious flaws in the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (...) does not cover many similarly aggressive breeds." The three texts are all of the opinion that the blame has been wrongfully shifted from the owners to the dogs themselves and now want the owner of the dog to be held responsible in case of any wrongdoings done by the dog.
The author of the second text thinks that parents in general have become way to comfortable in leaving their children unsupervised together with dogs and to put this in to perspective says "You would not leave your baby alone with a stranger - so why a dog?" Here the blame also lies partially on the parents, yet the owner should still be held liable and the law should treat it as manslaughter committed

This would surely create equal opportunities for raising dogs for all and education and increased learning will nearly always be helpful in solving societal problems; on the other hand, it would be very difficult to implement in a real-life scenario. It would be expensive and hard to enforce.
Introducing negative consequences i.e. legal punishment for the owner of the dog in case of an attack could also prove successful in getting the owner to take responsibility of the dog and raising the dog. It must be considered more justifiable than punishing the dog itself.
As to summarizing this, the problem can be solved by incentivizing and easing a good raising of a dog whilst punishing ones who fail to do