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

[werepossum]

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!"

This is true. Far too often we demand a new law in response to some perceived miscarriage of justice and we get yet another perversion of justice, only institutionalized with the force of law. I think there may be some net value to the concept, but we need to proceed very cautiously lest we get the cost and loss of freedom without much actual benefit in return.

Any new law needs to proceed slowly, with lots of analysis, but doubly so for a new law driven by emotion.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'd love to see an explanation of when it's acceptable for a parent to not report a missing child.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Yes, double jeopardy would apply. You can't be tried again either for the same crime or some other crime based on the exact same set of facts.

 

[yllus]

I'd love to see an explanation of when it's acceptable for a parent to not report a missing child.

It isn't, but that's not what anyone is arguing. The issue is with what this new law would achieve.

If you're going to harm your child, you're not going to care about this.

If you care about your child, you're going to file a report anyways, or handle it without involving the state by driving to each of your kid's friends' houses to fetch them.

What have you actually achieved? To me, it's more data about my family's private life in a computer and more taxes to pay for the extra staff each police station is going to have to hire.

 

[werepossum]

I'd love to see an explanation of when it's acceptable for a parent to not report a missing child.

At some point, perhaps 12 to 14, a child has substantial capability to fend for itself. The potential in lives saved and additional criminals jailed is arguably not worth putting every such runaway into the system. For instance, a 16 year old who runs away in rural South Dakota (at least in summer) is not nearly as much at risk as a 10 year old who runs away in Hells's Kitchen or downtown Detroit. A 14 year old who runs away in a large housing project may well be with friends with a responsible parent - although this is surely a judgment call. There is also considerable potential for law enforcement abuse; for example, police using the new law to jail (and therefore pressure) a parent who honestly believed the child was safe with another adult but who chose to run off with someone met on the Internet rather than walk to Daddy's apartment. I think there is potential for some net good, but it's not a slam dunk either way.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, double jeopardy would apply. You can't be tried again either for the same crime or some other crime based on the exact same set of facts.

In the same jurisdiction; she could still be tried in federal court for a civil rights violation. That won't happen in this case as there is no victim in a protected class, but it is possible.

 

[thtadthtshldntbe]

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

This is pretty much the issue here.

The police and the prosecution dramtically overinflated the events here and were basically trying a Hail Mary endzone bomb with this case, the same as for the OJ case.

(I still laugh out loud when I see Mark Furhman on tv for any reason, remembering his statements about OJ's magic ninja leap over a 6 to 8 foot high fence that left no footprints in the leaf bedding on either side, yet left a blood soaked glove on said leaves with no blood underneath it).

As in the OJ case, here the prosection made up a movie scenario and tried to prove that in court that this woman basically drugged and suffocated her daughter to death with duct tape or something to that extent, all so she could go out and party. From the little bit that I followed this case, it seems that the prosection was obsessed with an over the top horror movie version of events and not trying to prove something more like what is most likely to have occurred... that this mother wes negligent, maybe resulting in the death of her child and that rather than come clean, she, probably with the parents help, covered it up.

-----------

As to the law in question, it would be a good law IF AND ONLY IF, it was stated in such a way that, that harm resulting to the child in question, is a requirment for prosecution under that law.

 

[disappoint]

I just have to shake my head when I hear that the kid was missing for what -- 30 days -- before she reported it? And somehow, that doesn't get her convicted of something other than lying to the cops?

Something like this law definitely needs to happen, and something like an 18-wheeler definitely needs to happen to Casey.

Seriously. Child endangerment? neglect? are these not against the law?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I'd love to see an explanation of when it's acceptable for a parent to not report a missing child.

It's never acceptable. But people are running with this concept that "Oh if only" there were some kind of law in place to act as a backup to a MURDER charge so even if she's found not guilty on that, we can still throw her bony ass in jail for SOMETHING...

The reality is, even if there was a law requiring you to report a missing child, her child wasn't missing. Her crime was lying to the police about what happened to Caylee. And she was found guilty for that. Unfotuneately that crime is a misdemeanor that carries little if any (none in this case) jail time with it.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to a singular incident. We don't need a law for it. If the prosecutors had done their jobs better we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Please, everyone, remember... Caylee wasn't missing. Her mom knew exactly where she was. Her crime was lying to the police. She was found guilty of that.

 

[ProfJohn]

It isn't, but that's not what anyone is arguing. The issue is with what this new law would achieve.

If you're going to harm your child, you're not going to care about this.

If you care about your child, you're going to file a report anyways, or handle it without involving the state by driving to each of your kid's friends' houses to fetch them.

What have you actually achieved? To me, it's more data about my family's private life in a computer and more taxes to pay for the extra staff each police station is going to have to hire.

Really?

So you have children who are dead or missing and you haven't called the police yet?

 

[senseamp]

Nothing good is going to come out of passing stupid laws.
The kid's legacy will be unleashing more stupidity on society. It's better to die for nothing.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am really surprised at how many oppose this law.

The law is nothing more than another tool to give law enforcement when dealing with cases like this. It is not intended to punish people because their child ran away.

 

[yllus]

Really?

So you have children who are dead or missing and you haven't called the police yet?

Nyet comrade, I filled out form KID-2894 right after my child's birth and the state took over all responsibility for them. And what a relief that was!

You're not much for critical thinking, but I suppose we knew that.

 

[sportage]

New law? Sounds like more scary BIG GOVERNMENT to me...?

 

[shortylickens]

WE DONT NEED MORE LAWS!

We need to enforce the laws we have, BETTER!

 

[nonlnear]

I am really surprised at how many oppose this law.

The law is nothing more than another tool to give law enforcement when dealing with cases like this. It is not intended to punish people because their child ran away.

And NCLB was intended to improve school quality.

 

[Throckmorton]

WE DONT NEED MORE LAWS!

We need to enforce the laws we have, BETTER!

"Enforcing" laws doesn't help when you don't have enough evidence to prove guilt. But it's self evident that Casey Anthony didn't report her child missing/dead.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This law is not only a bad idea, it would be near impossible to enforce.


The first obvious problem with this is how do you prove when a child went missing if the family doesn't report it ?

 

[senseamp]

I am really surprised at how many oppose this law.

The law is nothing more than another tool to give law enforcement when dealing with cases like this. It is not intended to punish people because their child ran away.

There are a lot of laws that end up doing a lot of things they weren't intended to do. We have already given law enforcement plenty of tools. It's not like they have problems overfilling jails with the tools they have already.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

stupid knee jerk laws ....go back to watching dancing with the stars you sheeple.

 

[BeauJangles]

I am really surprised at how many oppose this law.

The law is nothing more than another tool to give law enforcement when dealing with cases like this. It is not intended to punish people because their child ran away.

We don't need another law. There are plenty of laws that already cover the crap this emotionally-charged bill would theoretically address. Fewer, more effective laws are better for the police and for the citizens of this country.

 

[actuarial]

I am really surprised at how many oppose this law.

The law is nothing more than another tool to give law enforcement when dealing with cases like this. It is not intended to punish people because their child ran away.

So charge the parent with neglect. That's certainly what I would call Caylee's mom for not reporting her missing. Or child endangerment. (assuming of course that the jury was right and she did not in fact kill her kid). Hell, I don't even think that would fall under double jeopardy at this point anyways and they probably could charge her.

Also: have fun proving the exact day a kid went missing.

 

[her209]

Fl. Rep. Scott Plakon introduces "Caylee's Law"
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Caylees-Law-0707.pdf

 

[mcmilljb]

Fl. Rep. Scott Plakon introduces "Caylee's Law"
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Caylees-Law-0707.pdf

After reading the law, I was right. This guy is a newbie law maker. He creates a new section for the failure to report and updates the false information to law enforcement to make it a possible 1st degree misdemeanor. It's a 3rd degree felony if nothing happens to the child at all. If this guy wasn't such a newbie, he would gather support from other law makers and update the child abuse statutes instead of this failure to report crap. Good luck getting people onboard with more nanny state policies.

 

[Lithium381]

Seriously. Child endangerment? neglect? are these not against the law?

i think you're missing the point. we have a golden opportunity here to take advantage or a horrific event to make sure that parents everywhere are now responsible for their own kids


OH WAIT