[datalist]

First, there are plenty of example where other animals do grasp these concepts very well.

Second, as I have shown earlier humans already do "prosecute" animals for such behaviour. So why would argue that "absurd hubris" should be applied in these cases?

Third, my point was not to start "prosecuting" other animals, but that humans do not follow their own standards.

[Nasrudith]

Said humans were giving the elephant more than the standard technically given that death to an animal that kills a human was a longstanding standard and would be mocked as absurd hicks even in their day. A monkey was hanged as a possible French spy and again regarded with mockery for being so stupid to think it was possible or mistake the poor creature for a cabin boy. The precedent of animal trials indicates it doesn't help the animals or justice and usually indicates a profound detachment from objective reality. Judging ideas on human precedent alone isn't a good idea. Even precedent by all judges in the 20th century.

[datalist]

You addressed my second point but not the first nor the third.

Mockery or not, it happened and still happens. Only two years ago in Cincinnati. That was technically not "punishment" but the result was the same.

My main point is not whether or to prosecute other animals, but that humans live double standards.