EA - New Jury Analysis of the Smithfield Piglet Rescue Trial by JLRiedi

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: New Jury Analysis of the Smithfield Piglet Rescue Trial, published by JLRiedi on August 31, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.Faunalytics analyzed transcripts from interviews with jurors of the Smithfield Foods criminal trial - in which two animal rights activists were found not guilty of "stealing" two piglets from a factory farm in Utah. This qualitative analysis will help advocates understand why jurors sided with the defense, how to potentially apply these findings to future trials, and what forms of animal activism are most convincing.Key Findings:The "not guilty" verdict hinged, in part, on the monetary value of the piglets to Smithfield, which was argued to be less than zero. The piglets required veterinary care that exceeded their value to Smithfield. The jury was initially hesitant to say the piglets had no worth because they saw them as having inherent worth as living beings, however they ultimately decided the theft charges hinged on monetary value only.The jury members believed the defendants, Wayne and Paul, did not have the intent to steal. Before their investigation of the Smithfield facility, Wayne said on video "if there's something we'll take it." The jury interpreted the "if" as meaning the two activists did not enter the facility knowing they'd have the opportunity to take piglets. However, one juror noted that if the defendants had a pattern of doing this in the past, the jury might have been more likely to find them guilty.The participants all reported being more receptive to animal advocacy and animal welfare after the trial. One participant reported that they no longer eat ham. Another reported that while they still believe that pigs are here to be eaten, as a result of the trial they now believe that pig welfare should be improved. Another was even inspired to pursue animal activism.Despite what media coverage indicates, the "right to rescue" was not a major factor in the jury's decision. Some media outlets (such as The Intercept and Democracy Now!) have characterized this trial as a test case for the "right to rescue" argument - the idea that one should be able to rescue animals, sometimes farmed animals, from distressing conditions. However, only two jurors mentioned this concept at all, and no jurors mentioned this idea as critical.BackgroundThe Smithfield Trial refers to the prosecution of two animal advocates who were charged with felony theft and burglary after they removed two piglets from a Smithfield Foods facility in Utah, United States.Wayne Hsiung and Paul Darwin Picklesimer, a co-founder and member of Direct Action Everywhere, respectively, are activists "working to achieve revolutionary social and political change for animals in one generation." In 2017, Wayne and Paul entered the Circle Four Farms facility in Milford, Utah, and removed two injured piglets (later named Lily and Lizzie). Circle Four Farms is one of the largest industrial pig processing facilities in the United States and a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, which is the world's largest pork producer. Once rescued, the piglets were provided with veterinary care and relocated to a sanctuary where they currently reside. The removal of the piglets was filmed and posted on social media under the title "Operation Deathstar."In September 2022, Wayne and Paul went on trial in Washington County, Utah on charges of felony theft and burglary for removing the piglets. They were acquitted (i.e., found not guilty) by a jury on both counts.This trial may interest animal advocates because it provides potential guidance for future trials and investigations. Additionally, this analysis provides insight as to which pro-animal arguments are more persuasive more generally.In this study, we analyzed themes from interviews with five Smithfield Trial jury members (referred t...