[No, that is not a member of the Casey jury. He's got WAY too much brainpower to have cleared the voir dire.]
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 ...
Good for you! You are an excellent reason why we need this kind of law.
As to your pathetic "argument."
You perhaps lack the capacity to understand this, but for the benefit of those who have it, None of 1,2,4 or 5 is part of the burden of proof in a murder case. If you're literate go read some case studies. You will find that in circumstantial cases people are found guilty of murder all the time with none of these, and in many cases when there is no body whatsoever.
No believable motive? Egad! You should be a jury foreman! The month long Bacchanalia of this terribly concerned woman establishes that she was the very epitome of responsible motherhood, tirelessly sacrificing herself in the search for her child: I predict she will continue to comb every bar, club, tavern, and disco in Florida in the search for the real killer. Maybe she can take up golf so that she and OJ can help each other out. The idea, that a toddler would put a crimp in the social life of such a responsible parent is a rabidly wild speculation unheard of in the history of law enforcement!
To your other silly "points," 6 is just a repetition of non-requirements already demolished, and 7 is an incomprehensible fragment of thought.
The JURY was a NO BRAINER! Thanks for establishing your qualifications to serve! [And, as an aside: I do hope you haven't reproduced yet, and aren't planning to.]
You have proof of nothing but that the system failed. It's a human institution. Sometimes that happens.
Where was the kidnapping conviction? Did I miss it? You cannot find misprison of felony for the speculation of a crime.
This is insulting to the rocks.
I don’t see any problem with a requirement to report a missing child with 48-72 hours. The areas I’ve lived have always had a 24-hour rule before they became concerned with a missing child...with the exception of a clear case of abduction.
Regarding a child that has died, I don’t see any problem to require a report within 2-3 hours after the child’s death. I’d probably word that at within 2-3 hours of learning a child has died. Some crib deaths might go all night before the parent discovers the death. No sense putting an unreasonable burden on grieving parents. They don’t know til they know.
One more law will fix everything. Pass the Skittles.
Do you have to solve a felony and secure a conviction before you can prosecute someone for misprision of that felony? Finding a dead body with duct tape over its mouth dumped in the woods seems to make it pretty reasonable to conclude that a kidnapping had taken place. Just speculating, here...
What prosecutor would ever bring a misdemeanor case of misprison of felony to a jury if they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the original felony had been committed?
[No, that is not a member of the Casey jury. He's got WAY too much brainpower to have cleared the voir dire.]
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
§ 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
So. What.
This whole thread is about laws which didn’t exist or weren’t applied to Casey Anthony. No need to be a jerk about it.
So what?
My original point stands. Misprison of felony is applied in two cases 1) to extend the reach of corruption indictments to persons acting under color of law when they cannot otherwise be indicted or 2) as a threat against witnesses who refuse to come forward. Both uses imply either a conviction for the crime against which misprison has been found, or a credible threat that a conviction can be obtained without the witness's cooperation, which will then put the witness in some jeopardy of legal action. Misprison cannot be applied against the person who actually committed the crime. It also can't be applied when there is no crime to begin with.
No prosecutor would have brought a case of misprison against Casey Anthony, and no prosecutor will bring one now. There is no circumstance in which misprison could be used here, and simply quoting the definition of the statute doesn't imply one. Casey did not misprison the felony of kidnapping, because no kidnapping occurred. The prosecutor could not threaten her with misprison knowing full well that the kidnapping claim was a lie. Had he threatened Casey with misprison for kidnapping, she and her lawyer would have laughed in his face, knowing quite well that since the felony had not occurred, he would never be able to get a conviction for the active concealment of it.
What is striking to me is how many conservatives in general, and on this thread in particular -- including Mr. Chapman himself in the original blog -- rail against the dumbing down of America, yet apparently believe that wherever else in America [science, economics, etc.] making people stupid might have serious consequences, the legal system is somehow magically immune.
It's not. Stupid people make stupid jurors.
A jury that could not understand reasonable doubt is not going to understand misprison of felony -- even had a kidnapping actually occurred. And to the original point: a jury which cannot understand that the failure to report a two year-old missing is endangerment apparently needs to be smacked right in the face with a brand new law: "Hey YOU STUPID SH!THEADS! two year olds cannot survive more than a day [two at the most] on their own, even in a highly protected environment. A mother who allows a Toddler to wander around planet earth for a month without reporting it IS A NEGLIGENT MOTHER DO. YOU. TWELVE. DUMB. ASSES. GET. THE. PICTURE. NOW?!
If conservatives want to pretend that the negligence count with which Casey Anthony was charged -- and found innocent -- was a correct finding, then, fine. We will have to apparently spell out in gory detail every jot, tiddel, and flyspeck of the law to the poor victims of our public school system who man our juries. It might be true that intelligent, well educated people don't need "new" laws. But these twelve, incredibly dimwitted jackasses (and their supporters in the media and on FR) apparently do, and sadly, that means that people with intelligence and common sense will have a swarm of "new" laws. But understand this: those "new" laws will not empower the expansive state one iota more, those "new" laws will simply be necessary to fill in the intelligence and common sense gap left in the perfectly good "old" laws by our educational system, and by a voir dire process that is designed to empanel the twelve dullest knives in the drawer.
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.