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

[IndyColtsFan]

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.

That is what I don't understand either. Why wasn't something like this covered under the neglect laws?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Thoughts?

We don't need more laws.

 

[BeauJangles]

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

First degree murder is also what the prosecution locked onto. They never presented a real case for any of the other charges. It was murder or nothing and the jury sided with nothing.

 

[Texashiker]

There is a big push going on in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony case for "Caylee's Law"

Both on a state and Federal level.

No more federal laws,,, please.

Stuff like this needs to be handled on a state level. The federal government needs to keep its nose out of what happens on the local level.

What happens on a local level needs to stay on a local level.

What happens between states and on the international level (interstate highways, pollution, drugs),,,,, needs to be on a federal level.

 

[werepossum]

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!

LOL So other people are responsible to provide for your child's well being, but you are not?

 

[Deeko]

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.

If you think this is so easy and obvious, please provide specific details for this law. For example, what age constitutes a child for the purposes of this law? What, specifically, constitutes missing? How long and under what circumstances, e.g., since you last saw him face to face, since you last had any contact, since you expected her to return? What if you have reason to think the child is with someone else, e.g., your partner or ex-partner, at a friend's house, on a trip, etc.? What extenuating circumstances are acceptable, e.g., the child has a history of disappearing for a couple of days to visit grandma, or your ex, or that boyfriend you forbid her to see? Do you call the police anyway every time, wasting their time on known false alarms?

The devil is in the details. The immediate issue I see with any law like this, especially one jammed through, is that it will fail to consider all sorts of real-world situations causing a lot of innocent parents to be unreasonably harassed when their children aren't actually in any danger whatsoever. But I know, Think of the Children (tm)!

These are the smartest posts in the thread.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL So other people are responsible to provide for your child's well being, but you are not?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[werepossum]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You are a big supporter of socialized health care - i.e. taking away other people's wealth to provide for your child's welfare.

You are not a big supporter of legal requirements forcing a parent to report a missing child. A child who is missing (i.e. not with a custodial parent or friend) can be presumed to be in need, at least until the age at which a child could be expected to provide for itself. This is the entire concept of classifying a child as a dependent - the child cannot provide for itself. If you do not know where your child is, you are no upholding your social contract to provide for your dependent.

Therefore you are in favor of using the armed might of government to force others to provide for your child, but not in favor of using the armed might of government to force you to provide for your child. It's a simple concept. If government has the moral right to force others to give up freedom in order to support your child, government must surely have the same moral right to force you, the parent, to support your child. If the child is missing, obviously you are not supporting it or providing for it. (This is obviously not you personally, but rather the parent of the missing child.)

At the very least, we need a law requiring anyone receiving government benefits for a child to report that child's absence, which has been a problem for some time in Florida. This is pure fraud, receiving benefits for a child you do not physically have.

 

[BoberFett]

If you think this is so easy and obvious, please provide specific details for this law. For example, what age constitutes a child for the purposes of this law? What, specifically, constitutes missing? How long and under what circumstances, e.g., since you last saw him face to face, since you last had any contact, since you expected her to return? What if you have reason to think the child is with someone else, e.g., your partner or ex-partner, at a friend's house, on a trip, etc.? What extenuating circumstances are acceptable, e.g., the child has a history of disappearing for a couple of days to visit grandma, or your ex, or that boyfriend you forbid her to see? Do you call the police anyway every time, wasting their time on known false alarms?

The devil is in the details. The immediate issue I see with any law like this, especially one jammed through, is that it will fail to consider all sorts of real-world situations causing a lot of innocent parents to be unreasonably harassed when their children aren't actually in any danger whatsoever. But I know, Think of the Children (tm)!

This. This x 1000. Bad law almost universally starts out with good intentions, but goes awry with the law of unintended consequences.

 

[uclaLabrat]

ProfJohn, why don't you try to be more consistent. You don't believe lots of regulations are good do you? Why is it okay in this kneejerk situation to have more laws and regulation? This is nanny-state nonsense.

precisely this.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Are you mentally challenged?

ProfJohn is arguing for the law. It's mostly the left leaning element here arguing against it.

You might be one of the worst posters we've seen in P&N in a long time. Even Spidey and Craig are more valuable human beings than you.

 

[Lithium381]

we don't need another knee jerk reaction law.....

 

[Throckmorton]

This shows how bad the anti-government hysteria has gotten... people on the left and right are both arguing against a common sense law.

 

[BoberFett]

This shows how bad the anti-government hysteria has gotten... people on the left and right are both arguing against a common sense law.

No, it simply shows how wrong you are.

 

[Bowfinger]

This shows how bad the anti-government hysteria has gotten... people on the left and right are both arguing against a common sense law.

With all due respect, the hysteria I see is from those crying for this law. "OMG, the sky is falling, Casey Anthony got off! The government should do SOMETHING!"

 

[fskimospy]

You are a big supporter of socialized health care - i.e. taking away other people's wealth to provide for your child's welfare.

You are not a big supporter of legal requirements forcing a parent to report a missing child. A child who is missing (i.e. not with a custodial parent or friend) can be presumed to be in need, at least until the age at which a child could be expected to provide for itself. This is the entire concept of classifying a child as a dependent - the child cannot provide for itself. If you do not know where your child is, you are no upholding your social contract to provide for your dependent.

Therefore you are in favor of using the armed might of government to force others to provide for your child, but not in favor of using the armed might of government to force you to provide for your child. It's a simple concept. If government has the moral right to force others to give up freedom in order to support your child, government must surely have the same moral right to force you, the parent, to support your child. If the child is missing, obviously you are not supporting it or providing for it. (This is obviously not you personally, but rather the parent of the missing child.)

At the very least, we need a law requiring anyone receiving government benefits for a child to report that child's absence, which has been a problem for some time in Florida. This is pure fraud, receiving benefits for a child you do not physically have.

That's one of the silliest arguments I've heard in a very long time.

Just because you are for the government regulating one action by a parent doesn't mean that you support regulating all actions by a parent. This should be a no-brainer. People can support a health care requirement for children without desiring to insert the government into internal family disputes.

By your logic if anyone supports laws that prohibit parents from neglecting their child, they must support notification of the police within 48 hours of a runaway or face jail time. Actually, my example makes way more sense than yours, and even my example is bullshit.

EDIT: If it weren't for strawmen, you wouldn't have any positions at all.

 

[Munky]

Knee-jerk reaction, nothing good can come from it. Just like every time a nutcase goes on a shooting spree, these morons try to ban guns even more desperately.

 

[werepossum]

That's one of the silliest arguments I've heard in a very long time.

Just because you are for the government regulating one action by a parent doesn't mean that you support regulating all actions by a parent. This should be a no-brainer. People can support a health care requirement for children without desiring to insert the government into internal family disputes.

By your logic if anyone supports laws that prohibit parents from neglecting their child, they must support notification of the police within 48 hours of a runaway or face jail time. Actually, my example makes way more sense than yours, and even my example is bullshit.

EDIT: If it weren't for strawmen, you wouldn't have any positions at all.

Once more, but this time with comprehension.

First, I took no position. I'm still undecided about the relative merits of the law, except as I pointed out for children who are already receiving government benefits.

Second, taxing strangers for the child's benefit is NOT "one action by the parent". Making all members of society responsible for a child's welfare is arguably a good thing, but the child's parents or guardian must surely be held to a more stringent level of responsibility, unless you want to go fully communist and assign all children to the state.

Third, a missing toddler is an "internal family dispute"? Seriously?

 

[fskimospy]

Once more, but this time with comprehension.

First, I took no position. I'm still undecided about the relative merits of the law, except as I pointed out for children who are already receiving government benefits.

Second, taxing strangers for the child's benefit is NOT "one action by the parent". Making all members of society responsible for a child's welfare is arguably a good thing, but the child's parents or guardian must surely be held to a more stringent level of responsibility, unless you want to go fully communist and assign all children to the state.

Third, a missing toddler is an "internal family dispute"? Seriously?

The law under debate is all missing children, not just a missing toddler.

I don't care if you took a position or not, you made a stupid argument. Some areas of parent/child interaction should be regulated, some shouldn't. In this case the cost/benefit analysis is bad in my opinion. It's simplicity itself.

 

[WHAMPOM]

There is a big push going on in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony case for "Caylee's Law"

Both on a state and Federal level.

Under the law a parent who fails to report a missing child could be charged with a crime.
This could serve as a back up in cases where children go missing and the parents fail to report them missing until it is too late.

Had the law existed already Casey Anthony could have been charged with that crime and could be looking at real jail time.

In theory you could write the law so that if a unreported missing child is found dead the parents could face jail time similar to what they would face if they had killed them themselves.

I could see putting Casey away for 10-20 for failing to report her daughter missing.

Thoughts?

Child neglect laws already cover this. Over react much found here in(limelight seekers) lawmakers.

 

[ProfJohn]

They had charged her with child neglect, but they dropped those charges when the body was found.

BTW here is one example of what the law might look like.

the law should give a parent 24 hours to report the death of a child and 48 hours to report a child under age 12 as missing.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[BoomerD]

They had charged her with child neglect, but they dropped those charges when the body was found.

BTW here is one example of what the law might look like.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The laws that make murder, theft, robbery, and many other crimes illegal are also reasonable...how much good do they do at preventing such crimes?

Nancy Grace must really have you all hopped up over this.

 

[BeauJangles]

They had charged her with child neglect, but they dropped those charges when the body was found.

We don't need more laws, we need prosecutors that don't suck at their jobs.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Are you mentally challenged?

ProfJohn is arguing for the law. It's mostly the left leaning element here arguing against it.

You might be one of the worst posters we've seen in P&N in a long time. Even Spidey and Craig are more valuable human beings than you.

Lol. All I ever see from him is: Republicans are inbred hillbillies, they cling to guns, hate minorities, do what their God tells them to do, etc. and then he believes the Democrats are pure as snow. He is a living cliche.

 

[werepossum]

The law under debate is all missing children, not just a missing toddler.

I don't care if you took a position or not, you made a stupid argument. Some areas of parent/child interaction should be regulated, some shouldn't. In this case the cost/benefit analysis is bad in my opinion. It's simplicity itself.

The law under debate does not yet exist, so there's no valid reason to assume that toddlers and teenagers will be treated as the same thing. Not every law is crafted by one-size-fits-all progressives.

Hopefully everyone will evaluate the cost/benefit of the concept as well as of the particular bill should it come to fruition. However, it's always worth pointing out the progressive tendency to demand additional collective responsibility whilst rejecting any personal responsibility. Whatever responsibility society has for a child must be less than that of the child's parents, if individuals are to have any freedom and any worth. If I as a member of society have a responsibility to provide for Caylee food, housing, medical care, education, and safe day care, surely her mother has at least the responsibility to keep Caylee physically safe and to seek help for Caylee when she cannot verify that Caylee is in fact safe.

I'm undecided if the potential for unwarranted meddling and abuse will be worth the additional safety and justice, and I'd probably have to read a specific bill to make that decision. But certainly such a concept shouldn't be rejected out of hand.