Jack Smith, 45, and Crystal Watson, 27, residents of Stephens County, Texas, have been arrested for the death of Tanner Monk, 7. Their pit bulls allegedly killed the boy.

Smith and Watson are charged with a dog attack resulting in death, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. The law went into effect in September 2007. Bail for each person was set at $250,000 each and both remain in custody.

Texas criminal law is extremely harsh when dangerous dogs injure a person. It should be, because Texas was the nation's leader in fatal dog attacks in 2007. It makes no sense to own a dangerous dog in Texas. Take note.

Felony charges were filed this week against the owner of the pit bull that attacked an animal control officer visiting her home. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Antoynette Michelle Jenkins with one count of owning mischievous dogs causing bodily injuries for a May 7 pit bull attack on Southeast Area Animal Control Authority officer Vince Hernandez. (To read the article, click here.)

I am in favor of prosecuting the owners of clearly dangerous dogs. In this case, the danger involved the so-called "pack mentality" and local laws. Ms. Jenkins had agreed to give up three of her five dogs to comply with a city ordinance permitting up to two dogs per address. More than two dogs is one of the danger factors on my Dog Bite Danger Scale. It is well established that docile dogs often become uncharacteristically violent and vicious when they are in a pack. (To read more about the scale, click the "Dog Bite Law" button, above, and see the topic about halfway down the page.)

What I see, however, is that prosecutors do not aggressively file charges on dog owners unless an officer is involved or the case makes the news. This is a nationwide phenomenon that repeats itself every day. Just today, for example, there is a report of a family in Fremont, California, who had a known dangerous dog which has now almost killed their son. Authorities are mulling over the possibility of filing charges. At the prosecutor's office, a kid who is injured doesn't get the same vim and vigor, it seems, as an officer.

I am often asked whether a person can defend himself from an attacking dog. The answer is generally yes, but the the dog must be in the process of attacking and the defensive actions must be defensive not vindictive.

Patrick Walker, 36, of Brighton (a city on the south coast of England) has been convicted of animal cruelty because his actions appeared to be vindictive. He grabbed a hunting knife upon hearing that Catherine Stevenson, 17, was attacked by a pit bull in the park. He then proceeded to stab it 55 times.

He explained, "Catherine was crying. I got hold of the dog, took it to the bushes, and stabbed it as much as I could in the throat. I didn't want him attacking anyone else." (To read the article, click here.)

None of us wants a vicious dog to attack anyone. However, we cannot tolerate people grabbing hunting knives and killing dogs in the park, either. Yes, this dog seemed to deserve to die, but no, Mr. Walker was not authorized to administer frontier justice in the park. If the dog WAS attacking Catherine, that would have been one thing. But since it "HAD" attacked her, Mr. Walker was required to behave in a safer, less theatrical, more civilized fashion.

Six-year-old Enzo Dallaglio (pictured, right) is recovering after being mauled by the family's Rhodesian ridgeback, Como. His father, the well-known rugby star Lawrence Dallaglio, had the pet destroyed following the attack. (To read the article, click here.)

This dog was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is widely considered to be a powerful, aggressive dog. England is a one-bite country -- it is where the infamous one-bite rule was devised. I have shown a connection between the one-bite rule and fatal dog attacks upon humans. (See the home page of Dog Bite Law by clicking the link, above.) The UK should replace this antiquated law of non-responsibility with one that would require dog owners to shoulder the burden of injuries inflicted on innocent people.

An Orlando Florida youngster was horribly disfigured by a pit bull that attacked him on school property. The State of Florida now has agreed that the child should receive a total of $1.8 million in addition to what he already received. Total payments will come to $2 million. (Click here to read the article.)

This is not the first time that a young man has been disfigured by a dog to this degree. But this is news because of the settlement. The sad fact is that a great number of dog owners have no insurance and no assets. So when their dogs bite or maul or kill, the victims and their families have to bear the entire burden.

Until proof of insurance is required for dog ownership, people will own dogs without the means to make good the damage that the dogs cause. And that means that innocent victims will have to bear the burden of terrible injuries. Which is very unjust.

On April 28, 2008, Abraham Jonathan Tackett, a 23-month-old boy, wandered into a nearby "dog lot" when his father left him alone. A Husky on a chain killed the child in short order. The accident happened in Fort Yukon, Alaska. This is a one-bite state.

The boy's death should result in criminal prosecutions against his father and the landlord of the "dog lot." I base this upon the following article in the Anchorage Daily News:

"The boy wandered into a neighbor's back yard about 50 yards away, where there were a number of dogs - all chained - that had recently been fed and were still eating...." There was no fence around the chained, eating dogs.

"...they always kept their dogs chained..." according to the boy's grandmother. Why were they chained? It is now abundantly clear that chaining or tethering dogs makes them vicious toward humans (click here to read more about the danger of chaining).

"The child approached a 3-year-old husky mixed breed and the dog attacked, apparently protecting its food...." Was the child trying to eat the food? I doubt it.

"He was actually a pretty friendly dog," the police are saying. "As of right now, we're calling it an accidental death."

But it wasn't an accident. The boy's father left him alone in an area adjacent to an unfenced lot containing a pack of chained dogs that were eating. That was reckless on the part of the father. The dogs were chained and unfenced. That was reckless on the part of the dog owner and landlord.

The death of Abraham Jonathan Tackett can be viewed as either a negligent homicide or a reckless homicide. The latter is frequently referred to as second degree murder. It resulted from child endangerment and from either unreasonable or conscious disregard for the safety of human beings. Let's see what the prosecutors decide to do with this.