"Caylee's Law" *updated OP with text of law*

[Zorkorist]

It's a mistake to pass legislation based on an emotional reaction to an injustice in a single case. Just like it was a mistake to pass the Polly Klaas law here in CA because people were outraged that Richard Allen Davis had been let go so many times prior to murdering Polly. The law was ill considered - has filled our prisons with numerous non-violent offenders - but nothing was going to stop the passage of that law because opposing the law sounded too much like siding with the heinous criminal.

I don't know about this particular law. Suppose the parent honestly believed that the child was with a non-custodial parent or other guardian? I guess I'd have to see how it's written, but historical patterns suggest that laws written in these kinds of circumstances tend to overreach. We can't convict Casey Anthony ex post facto with this new law. Nothing will make this injustice go away any more than passing a bad law in CA made Polly Klaas return to life.

- wolf

Great Post, Wolf.

It makes my argument seem insignificant, in the logic, laws, humanity, and judgement that some like yourself, argue today.

I'd argue that a two year old girl, is not a person. She has no thoughts and feelings. She's little more than a wildebeast calf on the Serengeti plains. If her Mother wants to off her, to partake in the party life. So be it.

-John

 

[BoomerD]

You guys are nuts.

Your child goes missing you call the police.

If you don't call the police you can face criminal charges. If you don't call the police and the child dies then you go to jail.

Comparing this to the Patriot Act is asinine.

So...make up your mind...do you want MORE government intrusion in your life...or less? You can't really have it both ways.

IMO, this is just another stupid knee-jerk reaction to her being found not guilty even though many people THOUGHT she should have been found guilty.

I DO NOT want to see a myriad of new laws being passed over stupid things like this.

Did it look bad for her? Hell yes. Nancy Grace already had her electric chair warmed up...

Was there evidence that she committed the murder? Apparently not enough to convict.

Had she been found guilty, I'd be one of the first to support the death penalty for her...but since she was found not guilty...
I can only hope that the charges were filed in such a way that IF more/better evidence comes to light, she can be charged again. (I know double jeopardy will prevent her from being charged for the same charges...but there may be other serious charges that can be proven)

 

[ProfJohn]

Turning this into an argument against big government is stupid.

1. Missing is typically defined as a 48 hour period.

2. You can write the law to state something along the lines of if a child is missing and there is a reason to believe that said child was abducted or is endangered then failure to report that to the police within said period of time is a crime.

A two and a half year old was missing for 31 days (according to her mom) and it was never reported to the police. That should be a crime.

The point of the law is to give law enforcement another tool to use against people who kill their own children and then hiding their actions by burying the bodies and claiming the child is off with grandma or something.

 

[ProfJohn]

So...make up your mind...do you want MORE government intrusion in your life...or less? You can't really have it both ways.

If a two and a half year old is missing for 31 days and the mother doesn't report her missing to the police do you think that is acceptable? Or should it be against the law?

 

[KK]

If a two and a half year old is missing for 31 days and the mother doesn't report her missing to the police do you think that is acceptable? Or should it be against the law?

she wasn't missing, she was dead.

 

[Schadenfroh]

In some jurisdictions, if you fail to report a handgun missing / stolen, you can get in quite a bit of trouble, yet you can party while your child is missing, apparently...

 

[fskimospy]

Ahhh Pro-Jo. You constantly rail about how the government should stay out of people's lives, then you argue for a law that requires people to report to the government every time they haven't seen their kid for 48 hours or go to jail.

Truly, the health care individual mandate was a communist-fascist-blackist crime against liberty. Jailing people because they don't report to the authorities that their kid ran away? No problem!

 

[Atreus21]

NM.

 

[QuantumPion]

If a two and a half year old is missing for 31 days and the mother doesn't report her missing to the police do you think that is acceptable? Or should it be against the law?

Isn't depraved indifference / criminal negligence / child abuse already against the law? I don't see the need for a new law to make it even more illegal. Same logic as hate crimes.

 

[airdata]

Reactionary laws that have to be named after dead kids to gain popular appeal are usually not a good idea.

I notice that the amber alert system is rarely used for a legitimately kidnapped / missing child.

Most of them are custody disputes or a family member has the kid, or it's missing elderly people.

 

[yllus]

If your 16 year old runs away you call the cops after a few days and file a report and you are off the hook.

I don't feel comfortable with the thought of having it be mandatory to report my family's internal problems to the state. I also don't like the guilty before presumed innocent implications of it. It sounds like a bad idea.

 

[Atreus21]

Great Post, Wolf.

It makes my argument seem insignificant, in the logic, laws, humanity, and judgement that some like yourself, argue today.

I'd argue that a two year old girl, is not a person. She has no thoughts and feelings. She's little more than a wildebeast calf on the Serengeti plains. If her Mother wants to off her, to partake in the party life. So be it.

-John

Um...anybody got the "Not sure if serious" graphic?

 

[DirthNader]

Problem with these namesake laws is that the emotions behind them typically lead to bad law with unintended consequences. Too many comprimises are made to try to shove the bill through while emotions are running hot.

Take a recent one... "Malorie's Law". Teenage girl gets on the back of her teenage boyfriend's motorcycle, tragedy insues. There was an attempt to pass a law that would require riders to meet certain criteria to carry a passenger. Sounds good in theory, but the reality was that to get it through the state legislature, it created a new definition of "sportbike". Lawmakers were worried about pissing off middle-aged guys on their cruisers. Law opened the door to legislatiing against one type of motorcycle and not the other (unintended consequence), caught the attention of the AMA, and died in committee.

 

[kotss]

Is it also assumed that when a law is passed, that now we never have anyone who acts against it. Since Murder is against the law, it has stopped everyone from committing it. Laws keep people with a good moral balance from committing them along with their own self restraint, in most cases. A decent parent would have reported their child missing within 48-72 hours, if they were clearly unsure of the child's status. It is the people who have something to "hide" who will not, regardless of a law or not. Plus, they could also lie to the authorities and be in compliance. We have enough laws to cover the aspects of everything that went wrong in this case. The facts have to be presented and a decision made by the jury. Personally, I think the wrong decision was made, but I did not hear everything and make that remark more as off the cuff than anything else, but I was also not a juror and not responsible for the outcome, directly. There does not need to be another law, based on the emotional outcome of this case.

 

[Genx87]

I am still trying to find out how what she didnt doesnt fall under the current child neglect laws of the state. The fact she didnt report her child missing for 30 days tells me she neglected her.

 

[Thump553]

PJ has now become a classic liberal. Every social ill must be addressed by passing a new law.

This trial was OJ Redux. The effects of massive publicity on a wall to wall televised trial presided over by a judge angling for a big money TV contract causes the jury to misinterpret the standard of "no reasonable doubt" to "no doubt."

If you really want to pass a new law to improve the administration of justice and feel compelled to retain TV cameras in court, at least allow either side to veto the TV cameras.

 

[fskimospy]

I am still trying to find out how what she didnt doesnt fall under the current child neglect laws of the state. The fact she didnt report her child missing for 30 days tells me she neglected her.

I'm not sure exactly how the law works in this case, but she was already acquitted of aggravated child abuse, which might make it impossible to try her for a lesser child abuse/neglect law.

 

[fskimospy]

PJ has now become a classic liberal. Every social ill must be addressed by passing a new law.

This trial was OJ Redux. The effects of massive publicity on a wall to wall televised trial presided over by a judge angling for a big money TV contract causes the jury to misinterpret the standard of "no reasonable doubt" to "no doubt."

If you really want to pass a new law to improve the administration of justice and feel compelled to retain TV cameras in court, at least allow either side to veto the TV cameras.

You don't think a reasonable person could have doubted OJ's innocence based on the evidence at the trial? (and ONLY the evidence at the trial) I mean the prosecution's star witness was found to have lied under oath, when asked if they planted evidence the same star witness pleaded the fifth, the defense was able to cast considerable doubt as to the police's handling of the evidence, and it appeared that the murder glove didn't fit the defendant.

I personally believe that OJ absolutely did it, but the prosecution's case was so bad (and the defense so good), that I think there was absolutely room for a reasonable person to doubt OJ's guilt in that trial.

 

[yllus]

I'm not sure exactly how the law works in this case, but she was already acquitted of aggravated child abuse, which might make it impossible to try her for a lesser child abuse/neglect law.

Yeah, I think it comes back to one of the aspects of double jeopardy. You can't try someone for murder, have them acquitted and then re-arrest them and try them for aggravated assault. I think you have to go with your best bet of conviction as your first shot. However, IANAL.

 

[BeauJangles]

Exactly. Passing a law because of ONE isolated, emotionally charged incident doesn't make any sense. The fact that psycho-mom was let off with a slap of the hand is disgusting but she had her trial and she was found not guilty by a jury. So was OJ. So was Robert Blake. It's awful but it happens.

Let it go.

We don't need another law.

This. People should be upset at the prosecution, who went hell-bent for first degree murder + death penalty, rather than using the evidence they had to get a conviction on lesser charges.

 

[Genx87]

This. People should be upset at the prosecution, who went hell-bent for first degree murder + death penalty, rather than using the evidence they had to get a conviction on lesser charges.

She was also charged with manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. First degree murder is what the media focused on.

 

[Macamus Prime]

If you don't feed your child for 30 days - you are charged with neglect and endangerment.

If you don't watch / or know where your child is for 30 days - you get a slap on the wrist, an offer to do porn, book deal(s), more time to party, national exposure, etc. etc.

Yup - no need to pass this law.

/eye roll

For fuck's sake guys, are you THAT afraid of the big ol' gubnament that ANY law is something you wish to fucking oppose? Holy shit guys, remove your diseased brains already; they are not out to get you! They do not want your shitty farm land. They do not want your 45 hand gun and 15 rifle collection. They do not want your white women. Give it the fuck up already.

Holy fucking shit! A little defenseless girl is swept under the God damn rug, and laws like this will punish monsters like this asshole - yet, it's an awful idea to those who think Obummer and his crew of Black Panthers are all out to "get you".

Your government is not the enemy. The enemy is those who have entered the government to manipulate it to their will; the rich. Go after your capitalist overlords, leave the process, of punishing the criminals of future victims like Caylee, the fuck alone.

 

[KGB]

Ahhh Pro-Jo. You constantly rail about how the government should stay out of people's lives, then you argue for a law that requires people to report to the government every time they haven't seen their kid for 48 hours or go to jail.

Truly, the health care individual mandate was a communist-fascist-blackist crime against liberty. Jailing people because they don't report to the authorities that their kid ran away? No problem!

I thought Republicans only cared about unborn kids.

 

[Pens1566]

Emotion takes over yet again.

 

[Tom]

Seems like a reasonable idea, I'm pretty sure there are states with a law something like this.

Also seems like existing child neglect laws could be applicable.