Click the Disaster
Tired of the way the left runs our country?
Donate Monthly
A sponsoring Freeper will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 07/17/2011 9:37:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was once suggested, as a general rule of staying alive, never to fly on an airline named after a state or the owner. As a general rule of sound government, it's also a good idea never to enact a law named after a person. Personalizing criminal law usually stems from fruitless outrage at a freakish event.
Plenty of legislators are ignoring that risk. Their proposals, all going by the name "Caylee's Law," are an understandable response to the acquittal of Casey Anthony of killing her 2-year-old daughter. Swearing when you stub your toe is also understandable, which doesn't mean it will do your toe the slightest good.
It remains an open question whether Anthony committed murder, but even if she didn't, she was guilty of shocking malfeasance. What mother who had nothing to hide would fail to report her toddler missing for 31 days? The sponsors think that alone constitutes criminal neglect.
So in some 20 states, bills have been introduced making it a felony not to report a child's disappearance within a given time -- eight hours, 24 hours or 48 hours. Some would also make it a crime not to report a child's death within one or two hours. If such a law had been in effect in Florida three years ago, Anthony might have gotten a lengthy sentence despite the murder acquittal.
It seems to have gone unnoticed that she did get a lengthy sentence -- one year each on four counts of lying to law enforcement officers, almost all of which (with credit for good behavior) she had already served. Florida can blame itself for leniency on that offense. If she had given her false statements to a federal investigator, Anthony could have incurred five years in prison per lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
How about a statue, not another meaningless law?
Yes, indeedy. While we’re working on tort reform, we can subsidize the disaffected law firms with Caylee’s-Law cases. Only the just are likely to take the law seriously, and the just are the least likely to need it. It’s a burden for prosecutors and courts and a boon for defense lawyers, one more tax burden for all of us. All because a JURY apparently reached the wrong conclusion. It makes me wonder why we haven’t come up with a speeding-after-a-felony-murder offense (named the Nicole-Ron Law).
Against what felony would Casey Anthony have committed misprison?
We talk everyday around here about how the left has permeated every aspect of life in America.
The court system has also been fouled. It became noticeably fouled with the OJ trial and has only gotten worse.
We have a problem that won’t be solved with any new law.
If you sit back and think about it. You can see what is happening.
Would it bring the child back to life? Would it actually prevent the deaths of any other children?
One major problem with statutes that would require someone to notify the police within a certain period of time of discovering something is that they put anyone who discovers something which perhaps should have been discovered earlier in a very bad position. Suppose someone discovers that their child is missing and reckons that a prosecutor would regard the child as having been missing for 25 hours (when the statutory limit is 24). If the person doesn't notify the police but the child shows up anyway, all is good. If they do notify the police, however, then they would risk being prosecuted for having failed to do so in a timely manner, even if the child shows up unharmed.
To be sure, courts have let the government get away with a lot of Fifth Amendment violations, by limiting people's Fifth-Amendment claims to situations in which the claimants explicitly know the statements will be incriminating. A better policy would be to provide that delay in notifying the police could only be regarded as a potential criminal or civil offense in cases where it can be shown that either (1.1) harm befell the child which the police discovered, would have discovered, or should have discovered, without the person who should have notified the police having done so, and (1.2) such harm was likely a foreseeable consequence of the failure to notify the police; or else (2.1) the failure to notify the police was motivated by a desire to conceal other criminal activity, and (2.2) it demonstrated a wanton disregard for the safety of the child.
Note that in the scenario (1), the sooner the parent tells the police, the better; if notifying the police at some particular time helps them recover the child unharmed, it won't matter whether the police "should" have bee notified earlier. In scenario (2), charges could be filed even if the child ends up unharmed, but only if the caregiver's conduct rises to the level of wanton disregard for the child's safety. If a caregiver who discovered a child was missing were to e.g. spend a few hours disposing of a pot-growing operation before calling the police, even if the person should expect that delay might possibly cause the child to come to harm, such behavior would not constitute a level of wanton disregard sufficient to justify charges. On the other hand, if the person declined to call police and had no clear plan to ever call them, that would likely constitute reckless disregard.
Posters claiming that this law is unnecessary are apparently immune to the fact that in the past no one believed such a law was necessary, because no one ever believed that an idiot jury would find that failure to report a toddler missing for a month is evidence of felony neglect, per se.
It is.
Since a whole new generation of FReepers, defending the morons on this jury, apparently believe that jurists are permitted to be nothing but automatons, we must now spell out the meaning of each and every law in excruciating detail. [And apparently also instruct supposed "conservatives" on the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt.]
No ... good for one little girl, bad for 360,000,000 "free" individuals that don't need more government in our lives. The libs LOVE for us to legislate with emotion ... don't fall for it. This was a terrible thing that happened, but we don't need the government to stop "bad behavior" ... we need something far different.
This is exactly the kind of proposed law that separates the RINOs from the Conservatives. A great test.
PS—If I had my druthers, such legislation would also explicitly make clear that a person who reports a child missing does not thereby waive any Fourth-Amendment rights; a missing-child report, in and of itself, shall not constitute probable cause for a search of the caregiver’s property. If the caregiver refuses to allow a search that would have given the police evidence that would have been useful toward finding the child, the refusal to allow the search may regarded in much the same way as a failure to report the missing child. On the other hand, if the caregiver believes that a search of part of his/her property would not yield anything that would help find the child, the caregiver has the right to refuse.
No, the author is correct. She did get four years for lying However they were reduced to time already spend. She was fined to $4,500. However her lawyer has the audacity to appeal the sentence
This jury, God himself must be baffled how, actually could not understand how lying with material specificity is evidence of wrongdoing! They actually could not understand how, when the purported motive for killing your daughter is that your various and sundry boyfriends want her dead, that partying non-stop with your gaggle of screwbuddies while your daughter continues to be missing actually reinforces the evidence of the motive.
Instead, they listened to nonsensical arguments like "She's a liar, but that doesn't make her a murderer." Ummm, DUH: when the lies impinge directly on the question of your guilt, yes, it DOES reinforce the evidence that you're a murderer. "She's a slut, but that doesn't make her a murderer," Again, DUH: It does when you've been told by the man you're sleeping with tonight that having a daughter makes you a less attractive slut than you would otherwise be.
Why do we have the charge of aggravated manslaughter? Or the charge of negligent homicide? These laws did not exist throughout all antiquity. They came into existence because at some point juries could not find everyone guilty of capital murder, so finer gradations in the law were needed.
The reductio ad absurdum of Chapman's thesis is to have no laws at all, because good people don't break them, and criminals don't obey them. This is nonsense pretending to be reasoning.
All of our justice occurs after the fact, it is wrong not report a child missing for a month, so there should be a way to punish someone who has failed to do so. If a jury cannot see that this was evidence of negligence per se (it is to all but twelve complete morons) then unfortunately, we must have laws that spell out quite clearly what constitutes negligence, and why.
Casey's Laws are a sad commentary on the state of reasoning among our population. Unfortunately, as this case and the silliness of posters commenting on this thread have made clear, they're also necessary.
The problem is, the law already exists to catch her for neglect. But the prosecutor could not convince the jury that it happened. The problem isnt the law, which is just a statement written on paper. The problem is with the enforcement/prosecution of the law. If we create another law, we dont fix the actual problem.
Nothing to tie Casey to anything.
1. No cause of death
2. No location of death
3. No believable motive
4. No believable physical evidence
5. No murder weapon
6. Dubious murder finding by medical examiner with no cause of death
7. PHONY prosecution testing
This case was a NO BRAINER! And I mean the prosecutors had no brains. They had NO CASE. Even after keeping her in jail for 3 years trying to “fabricate” a case, they failed.
I have actual “PROOF” of my position. A jury verdict of NOT guilty. Hardly “innocent”, but definitely not guilty.
Excellent analysis. Thanks! I so agree.
“This jury, God himself must be baffled how, actually could not understand how lying with material specificity is evidence of wrongdoing! They actually could not understand how, when the purported motive for killing your daughter is that your various and sundry boyfriends want her dead, that partying non-stop with your gaggle of screwbuddies while your daughter continues to be missing actually reinforces the evidence of the motive.”
You make an excellent point. The cumulative weight of the evidence was very strong. Her lies were powerful evidence against her. She told so many lies for a sustained period. Her words, actions, reported death smell, condition of the body, and chloroform (search and trace evidence) together were overwhelming evidence of her guilt.
The suspicion on her father was a side show. Even if he was involved, it did not diminish her guilt. However, I saw no evidence that he had any involvement with the death.
Weighing evidence is difficult human judgment. This case lacked the compelling physical evidence linking her to the death so the jury needed to carefully weigh the other evidence. The jury was swayed by hypothetical arguments put forth by the defense to diffuse some pieces of evidence and disregard other strong evidence. The jury also fell prey to the argument about general uncertainties in criminal cases. There are almost always unexplained elements in any crime. The prosecution can never explain all elements of a crime scene.
I think you’re the one with no brain, just like the jury. Her little girl is dead and she killed her. I hope the rest of her life is as miserable as she made her little girl’s life.
However, I don't think the law goes far enough.
Everyone should have their own personal commissar that they would report everything they did or witnessed each day. If they report everything truthfully; they would receive the appropriate fines and be allowed to sleep in their own homes. If not, the local gestapo will arrive to take them off to reeducation camp.
Only by following our leaders blindly and doing everything they say can we truly be free.
Wow. Someone gets it. Putting on my illegal asbestos flame retardant suit and you should too. What’s not to understand about this? You don’t report your child missing , you are NEGLIGENT and should be held accountable
Kidnapping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.