When compassion becomes a crime: why rescuing animals should not be a crime
In California, a young activist named Zoe Rosenberg could face more than five years in prison for rescuing four sick chickens from a slaughterhouse. She went in, picked them up, and took them to receive veterinary care.
This case raises an important question: Why can an act of compassion be seen as a crime? And beyond that: what does this say about the way law, morality and the treatment of animals are connected?
Below, we explore several cases from different countries to show that this is not an isolated incident, and why animal rescue should not be considered a crime.
The case of Zoe Rosenberg
Zoe, in California, testified that her action — taking four sick chickens — was an act of ‘open rescue’, motivated by her belief that the animals were being mistreated or were going to die.
Prosecutors argue that she ‘entered without permission, took someone else's property, and therefore committed theft and conspiracy’.
On the one hand, we have an ethical obligation to intervene in the face of suffering. On the other hand, we have a legal obligation to respect private property.
But this criminalisation of an act of rescue is, at its core, a criminalisation of empathy. And a society that punishes empathy moves dangerously far from justice and the values that underpin our civilisation.
Piglet rescue by Wayne Hsiung and Direct Action Everywhere
In October 2022, a trial was held for the rescue of two piglets from a factory farm owned by Smithfield Foods in Utah. The activists had entered without permission, taken the animals, and released the videos.
Although the rescuers were ultimately acquitted by a jury, the fact that they could have faced up to ten years in prison demonstrates how seriously the system views such actions.
This confirms a pattern of inconsistency: those who rescue animals can be treated as criminals, while the facilities that exploit them remain largely protected.
The case of Anita Krajnc
In June 2015, Anita gave water to pigs being transported to the slaughterhouse. She was charged with ‘criminal mischief’ for interfering with the transport. Fortunately, in 2017 she was found not guilty.
But why is this case relevant? Because it reveals how such a seemingly simple gesture as giving water to a thirsty animal can trigger criminal proceedings, when the legal system considers animals to be property and that act is assumed to be an intervention in someone else's property.
‘Canada 11’
In Quebec, eleven activists entered a pig farm to document the conditions. They were subsequently prosecuted for trespassing and interference. Although not all of them were sentenced to prison, the message they wanted to send was clear: intervening is risky.
A conflict of values: property vs. life
When the authorities fail to act, many of us feel a moral impulse to intervene. Zoe Rosenberg did so after unsuccessfully attempting to alert state and federal agencies. What is at stake here is not just a court case, but a conflict of fundamental values. On the one hand, there is the right to property, historically protected. On the other, there is the right to life and well-being, still denied to non-human animals.
Some will argue that there is no conflict because animals have no recognised rights. But the law is not static: it evolves with social consciousness. In other eras, many acts now considered unjust were legal, and many rights—such as women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery—were born out of those who disobeyed unjust laws.
Today, our society faces a new moral frontier: recognising that non-human animals also deserve protection and legal consideration.
The problem is that, in the cases reviewed, the law protected only economic value, merchandise, and not the value of the life and freedom of a sentient being. Thus, when someone intervened to save a living being, the law responded automatically, protecting property over compassion and empathy.
The deterrent effect of the penalty is activated: rescuing animals can land you in prison. And the message? Do not stand between the law and custom, even if it means letting a sentient being die.
Some activists have attempted to justify their actions through the legal concept of necessity, arguing that their illegal action prevented greater harm: the suffering or death of an animal. However, the courts almost never accept this.
In California, for example, judges have even refused to allow juries to consider this defence, arguing that the ‘harm prevented’ (animal pain) is not comparable to the human harm traditionally covered by the exemption.
Furthermore, as documented in a study by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, courts often block the presentation of evidence of cruelty if the defence of necessity is not previously accepted.
Despite this, legal scholars such as Kristen Stilt (Harvard Law School) argue that this doctrine should be extended to animal rescue cases: the principle of preventing serious and imminent harm should not depend on species.
Judicial resistance only demonstrates how far we are from legally recognising what we already understand morally: that saving a life cannot be a crime.
Towards a new legal framework: recognising rescue as an act of public interest
Cases such as Rosenberg's and others may serve as a catalyst for reforming laws governing animal rescue. Some proposals:
Creation of protocols that allow citizens to intervene when animals are in imminent danger, without fear of criminal penalties.
Legal recognition of animals as sentient beings or subjects of rights.
Reforms that recognise that rescuing animals in situations of suffering is different from theft or vandalism.
At Animal Law Focus, we believe that...
The legal system cannot continue to defend suffering as if it were private property. Cases like Zoe Rosenberg's remind us why our mission is to make animal exploitation economically and legally unviable, and also why compassion—when it translates into action—should be defended, not punished.
Reforming legislation to recognise the moral value of these interventions and protect those who act in defence of animals is a matter of justice, consistency, and ethical conscience. Every time someone is prosecuted for rescuing an animal, human justice loses an opportunity to evolve.
Let's talk about these cases. Let's spread their stories. And let's remember a simple and powerful truth: Saving lives should never be a crime.