Caylee's Law: 700K Sign Petition For New Federal Law: Good Idea Or Bad?

30 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I should have known...

In response to the verdict in the recent Casey Anthony trial, some activists have proposed a new federal law.

It would be called Caylee's Law.

It's a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if...

- they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours,

- if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour.

What's very surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral.

The petition now has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site Change.org's history.

For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level.

According to the Associated Press, at least sixteen state legislatures are now seriously considering some version of the law.

It seems like common sense to require parents to report missing children asap and to report a deceased child quickly.

I'm amazed that these holes in our system existed in the first place - in any state.

Get the full story plus pros & cons here...

Why 'Caylee's Law' Is A Bad Idea

Is it??

Laws named after persons...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...law/index.html
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I think this falls under political.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244520].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I think this falls under political.

      I don't know why since this has nothing to do with dems, repubs or independents.


      But we'll see...

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244679].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        On a federal level very bad idea.
        On a state level very good idea.

        EDit after a cup of coffee bad idea on state level also
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244722].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I don't know why since this has nothing to do with dems, repubs or independents.


        But we'll see...

        TL
        If ONLY it were that easy!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244760].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          There is a lack of respect for law in our society that has grown to ridiculous proportions. People no longer just disagree with a verdict - they insist they must "do" something about it. That's where stuff like this comes from.

          It's a reactive proposal - and not a good idea. Most parents quickly report a missing child...we know that. A law on the books that is a result of ONE incident is never a good idea. Can thoses activitists list any other times a similar case has happened? I doubt it.

          This is not activism as much as right fighting. People are angry - and the media doesn't help with the continuous coverage of the "facts". The trial is over - it's done - we have a jury system and we need to respect it even when we don't agree.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4245822].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            If a law like that was passed a parent would have to be with their child 24/7 and never sleep.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246035].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              If a law like that was passed a parent would have to be with their child 24/7 and never sleep.
              I never thought about that! There are probably a LOT of kids that get cut, bruised, poisoned, or are merely sick, and their parents tell them to go to bed early. That would likely be between 2PM and 8PM in the US, and the next morning they could be DEAD! The parent reports their death perhaps NINETEEN hours after they died!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, at least this only affects the parents. A child COULD be missing for a WEEK before you know about it. I mean what if they stay with someone else, or are in a foreign exchange program? A federal law that FORCES you to confirm that they are there and doing OK is pushing it a bit. And what if you leave the home for 3 hours, they are old enough so you leave them alone, and something kills them soon after you leave? NOW, you are a FELON! OK, WHO here calls their kid to talk to THEM every 30 minutes?

    As for it becoming law, right NOW, the US has more important things to worry about, but there HAVE been laws that were ESASIER to brake that were declared felonies! Just yesterday, I watched a show where a couple people almost WENT TO JAIL for catching 10-15 fish over their limit! ONE could have gone to jail for the other deciding to catch another 30 fish! The officer said that they didn't know the law, were polite, and commended her on her job, that she had been doing for a while, so she cut them some slack. They STILL had 6 months probation, and a $400 fine, etc...

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244530].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Good or bad, right or wrong:

    Here is the point I see - the reason there was no forensic evidence to convict a guilty party is largely because of the length of time before they even knew to look, let alone found the body.

    Therefore not reporting it may be seen as obstruction of justice. For this reason there should be some deterrent to making it easier to get away with.

    They couldn't convict because for one thing they don't know the cause of death -- if she was drugged or drowned - they just know her bones did not suffer injuries - and coupled with no past reports, they deduced there was no 'child abuse'.

    We don't know who touched the body - but if you can believe Casey, she drowned -- and since her body was found dumped in the woods, you would have to figure it was Casey with or without somebody to help her that put it there.

    Had she not offered that then we would also not know if Kaylee was kidnapped by a completely 3rd party - or etc.

    If a law could be made without (a) loopholes and (b) reasons why they would hurt innocent people - then I do think there should be some way that we don't 'make it so easy for criminals to find loopholes.

    p.s. Has there ever been another case where 2/3 or 3/4 of the American public disagreed with the verdict and felt she was guilty? - (or so I read - nobody asked me so not sure where they put me in that equation).
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246271].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Pat - That's just arguing the case again.

      I've heard several legal experts refer to this as the "CSI syndrome" - where people have watched TV shows where fancy machine spit out instant results and the forensics seem magical. They seem magical because much of what you see is fiction!

      The legal eagles were saying how many times their own clients had referred to things seen on tv as "why can't you do that"? They said people confuse TV shows with reality and juries expect to have that same level of "exact forensic evidence" they see on TF. Seldom happens that way.

      As for the 75% - I expect many of them came to their own judgment after watching nancy grace or judge jeanette. I actually overheard someone this weekend saying "well, nancy grace explained that" - actually grace postulates and nothing more.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246431].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        All this caylee law would do is further erode state rights and give the feds. more power over us.
        Like I said are parents suppose to be with their children 24/7 and never sleep?
        At what age does that end, when the child turns 18 and leaves home?
        What about kids that stay at home longer then that?
        What about a child that dies from SIDS in the night while the parents are sleeping?
        If the child was put to bed and died at say midnight and the parents didn't know until the morning, by that proposed law they would be guilty of a felony simply because they where asleep. Now you have innocent people becoming a felon and having their life ruined more simply because people weren't happy over the verdict in one case.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246523].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Why 'Caylee's Law' Is A Bad Idea

          It's a knee-jerk proposal based on emotion, not reason.
          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246595].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

            Why 'Caylee's Law' Is A Bad Idea

            It's a knee-jerk proposal based on emotion, not reason.
            Exactly my sentiments but I am still afraid this will turn political. I hope I am wrong.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246726].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Patrician
          Yes Thom the 'hour' thing is ridiculous - 24 hours is another story.

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          What about a child that dies from SIDS in the night while the parents are sleeping?

          If the child was put to bed and died at say midnight and the parents didn't know until the morning, by that proposed law they would be guilty of a felony simply because they where asleep.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246672].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

            Yes Thom the 'hour' thing is ridiculous - 24 hours is another story.
            OK let me pop this scenario at you.
            When my oldest step-daughter was around 14 her and her friend would both tell their parents they where spending the weekend at the others house and then going off and partying all weekend. They did that twice before we caught on.
            If something happened to them on a friday or saturday night we wouldn't know till sunday night. that would of been over 24 hours before we knew they where missing.
            The way they got away with it twice was by actually staying at each others house a few times till we all trusted them and stopped calling the other parents, thinking they where telling us the truth. We learned the truth when I called the other house to as Sarah a question.
            So where we all bad parents because we trusted them after they gave us a reason to trust them or should we have never trusted them. If we never trusted them in the first place, what does that tell the child? If a child believes that you won't trust them even when they deserve it how does that motivate the child to be trustworthy.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246780].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              they all felt she was guilty as sin - but just didn't have the evidence and had no choice but to 'err on the side of caution' -
              I think that was exactly the case.

              I can't stand nancy grace and her ilk and quickly change a station if she appears. But I've learned from co-workers and friends that many people do watch her. Her "status" as a former prosecutor make some people believe she knows what she is talking about.

              The "CSI syndrome" has been discussed for quite some time - it's thought by some legal people to be the reason "reasonable doubt" is being given more leeway than normal. It's an interesting theory to me that the definition of "reasonable doubt" may be changing where "absolute proof" is now required no matter how convincing the circumstantial evidence.

              I know I would hate to have been one of those jurors as they are taking a lot of grief and I'm sure they did what they thought was best - for the evidence they were allowed to see.

              It was reported today that one juror has moved out of Florida because she fears for her life. That's just wrong.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246882].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Patrician
              Thom - the key here is KNEW -- you did not KNOW until Sunday night - then you have 24 hours - They (I don't think) are saying you are supposed to report something you didn't know yet. LOL

              I hear you though - and I remember all the sneaking I did as a teenager because my mother was so strict. I remember also being resented by the other kids because my mother would actually call people's parents 'pat is invited to bob's party and i just want to be sure that there are going to be adults there' - Even the parents thought she was weird.

              ... and the times she hid in the bushes at junior high to see where I went BEFORE school in the morning. Funny how nobody likes her not even her own kids.

              So basically you are 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' -

              I still think whatever form there should be karma for not reporting a crime against a child or anyone else = ASAP.

              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              OK let me pop this scenario at you.
              When my oldest step-daughter was around 14 her and her friend would both tell their parents they where spending the weekend at the others house and then going off and partying all weekend. They did that twice before we caught on.

              If something happened to them on a friday or saturday night we wouldn't know till sunday night. that would of been over 24 hours before we knew they where missing.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247185].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

                Thom - the key here is KNEW -- you did not KNOW until Sunday night - then you have 24 hours - They (I don't think) are saying you are supposed to report something you didn't know yet. LOL
                So Pat - how does someone prove in court that they didn't know? And will the law allow for them not to know? Most likely all that will result in is children being taken away from parents if they don't know where that kid is 24/7 - what are parents to do have the kid chipped?

                This is just another attempt at usurping just a little more freedom that would produce no real results. People are mad about something that happened and ready to completely screw themselves looking for MORE safety, MORE security -- and the only thing it will accomplish in the long run is more ways for parents to have to fear going to jail and having children taken from them.

                I'd say people need to stop looking at this case and start thinking about where that new law could lead to more federal control of how they raise their kids before each parent is assigned a gov agent who will have the control of how people raise their child.

                People need to stop thinking with their emotions and start using some objective logic.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247467].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

                Thom - the key here is KNEW -- you did not KNOW until Sunday night - then you have 24 hours - They (I don't think) are saying you are supposed to report something you didn't know yet. LOL

                I hear you though - and I remember all the sneaking I did as a teenager because my mother was so strict. I remember also being resented by the other kids because my mother would actually call people's parents 'pat is invited to bob's party and i just want to be sure that there are going to be adults there' - Even the parents thought she was weird.

                ... and the times she hid in the bushes at junior high to see where I went BEFORE school in the morning. Funny how nobody likes her not even her own kids.

                So basically you are 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' -

                I still think whatever form there should be karma for not reporting a crime against a child or anyone else = ASAP.
                Pat I do understand your concern is for the children.
                But how far into our lives do we really need big brother to be.
                There will always be bad parents, nothing can be done about that.
                But the good parents shouldn't be punished or subjected to restrictive laws because of them.
                I used to 'spank' my kids. Now I never did it in anger nor did I ever hit them hard enough to hurt them. But they knew when I tapped their butt that there where no more chances to continue their bad behavior (the spanking always came after two verbal warnings.) If I was seen doing that today I could be arrested for child abuse.
                Now I understand there are people who actually beat their children and the laws where designed to protect those children and that is a good thing. But it can turn into a bad thing real quick when a parent who understands that a physical action is sometimes needed to reinforce the verbal actions and you can't always escort the child to its room.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247481].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Kay - I don't watch CSI and those shows that 'dramatize' crimes at all. I do watch the real forensics programs with actual real cases and real cops/investigators/results/cases - 'docudramas'

        But I do admit I don't understand this case because those real cases have plenty of instances of very old evidence being used in cold cases decades later and they were able to find DNA, etc.

        I think people are making too much of Nancy Grace and the media - they don't decide jack. Yes they may sway public opinion - For me I have always thought she was a bigot - but she does know more about law than I do being a former prosecutor, so I may consider her opinion.

        I think people get sick of the subject and will say anything to just change it. I think a lot of people play 'shoot the messenger' for this and other reasons.

        It's not fricking about Nancy Grace - it's about Casey Anthony and what we have all witnessed her saying and doing - although we do not know what actually happened and probably never will.


        I see how the system worked - their hands were tied. I have watched a few interviews with the jurors - can't blame Nancy Grace for that - and they all felt she was guilty as sin - but just didn't have the evidence and had no choice but to 'err on the side of caution' -


        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


        I've heard several legal experts refer to this as the "CSI syndrome" - where people have watched TV shows where fancy machine spit out instant results and the forensics seem magical. They seem magical because much of what you see is fiction!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246738].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Pat - That's just arguing the case again.

        I've heard several legal experts refer to this as the "CSI syndrome" - where people have watched TV shows where fancy machine spit out instant results and the forensics seem magical. They seem magical because much of what you see is fiction!

        The legal eagles were saying how many times their own clients had referred to things seen on tv as "why can't you do that"? They said people confuse TV shows with reality and juries expect to have that same level of "exact forensic evidence" they see on TF. Seldom happens that way.

        As for the 75% - I expect many of them came to their own judgment after watching nancy grace or judge jeanette. I actually overheard someone this weekend saying "well, nancy grace explained that" - actually grace postulates and nothing more.
        Give me a break! There are just as many people convicted on practically NOTHING as there are that apparently have open/shut cases on TV. Matlock often hinges on ONE fluke piece of evidence! And you could probably come up with OTHER reasons for it. And OJ was a MIX! It APPEARED to be good evidence, except it was a place HE had a right to be at and frequent, and there was NO real chain of custody.

        If you think that the average jury expects every case to be presented with PERFECT evidence, EVEN if they believed 100% in the whodunits, etc... you are DREAMING! If that were true, NOBODY would be convicted, and lawyers would be OUT OF BUSINESS! In fact, lawyers exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect! Juries exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect!

        Ever see Judge dred? It is a show about how EVERYTHING is near perfect, and the police can be JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER! Judge Dred is one of those, and the "perfect" system finds HIM(effectively the PERFECT, and fully HONEST, judge ) GUILTY! It turns out that he had a TWIN who, though they didn't look alike(it was the movies after all. 8-(), had the SAME DNA! So HIS gun could shoot for the other guy, and HE was the recorded shooter. A movie, YEAH, but that stuff DOES happen! Remember the evil twin verdict that happened over about a decade ago? A woman killed her identical twin to steal her life!

        Han twins murder conspiracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247364].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Give me a break! There are just as many people convicted on practically NOTHING as there are that apparently have open/shut cases on TV. Matlock often hinges on ONE fluke piece of evidence! And you could probably come up with OTHER reasons for it. And OJ was a MIX! It APPEARED to be good evidence, except it was a place HE had a right to be at and frequent, and there was NO real chain of custody.

          If you think that the average jury expects every case to be presented with PERFECT evidence, EVEN if they believed 100% in the whodunits, etc... you are DREAMING! If that were true, NOBODY would be convicted, and lawyers would be OUT OF BUSINESS! In fact, lawyers exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect! Juries exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect!

          Ever see Judge dred? It is a show about how EVERYTHING is near perfect, and the police can be JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER! Judge Dred is one of those, and the "perfect" system finds HIM(effectively the PERFECT, and fully HONEST, judge ) GUILTY! It turns out that he had a TWIN who, though they didn't look alike(it was the movies after all. 8-(), had the SAME DNA! So HIS gun could shoot for the other guy, and HE was the recorded shooter. A movie, YEAH, but that stuff DOES happen! Remember the evil twin verdict that happened over about a decade ago? A woman killed her identical twin to steal her life!

          Han twins murder conspiracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Steve
          That twins "attempted" murder case is stunning. I never heard about it before.

          That Judge Dred movie was hilarious. ( I am the law )


          You said...

          Juries exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect!

          Maybe you got a little excited but...

          Juries exist because we use the jury system in our legal system.

          Something about a jury of our peers to judge us.

          Some cases are settled by judges alone but we also have a jury system.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247435].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            That twins "attempted" murder case is stunning. I never heard about it before.

            That Judge Dred movie was hilarious. ( I am the law )


            You said...

            Juries exist ONLY because the evidence is imperfect!

            Maybe you got a little excited but...

            Juries exist because we use the jury system in our legal system.

            Something about a jury of our peers to judge us.

            Some cases are settled by judges alone but we also have a jury system.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            You are stating the LEGAL reason why we have juries. I am stating the reason why it is the law, As for judges, they can judge civil matters, SOME lesser criminal matters, and matters where the defendant gives up their right to a jury. Otherwise, they HAVE to have a jury. YEAH, it is in the law, but it is there because no evidence is perfect. YEAH, it limits favoritism and human error, but those are JUST as likely to happen elsewhere.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247529].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              You are stating the LEGAL reason why we have juries. I am stating the reason why it is the law, As for judges, they can judge civil matters, SOME lesser criminal matters, and matters where the defendant gives up their right to a jury. Otherwise, they HAVE to have a jury. YEAH, it is in the law, but it is there because no evidence is perfect. YEAH, it limits favoritism and human error, but those are JUST as likely to happen elsewhere.

              Steve
              I think we have a harmless diff of opinion.

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246722].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    This proposed law is just stupid. A person who would kill their child is not going to be concerned about getting busted for not complying with this.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4246806].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    I feared something like this would come about from the outrage (again, blood lust?) over the verdict in the case. Any law that further imposes limits or ridiculous restrictions on the American people is something I disagree with--and I'll make quite a bit of noise about it too.

    I agree with the article. This law's sole purpose would exist to convict someone of something that otherwise couldn't be proven. Additionally there are far too many variables with missing children that this law would be far too reaching.

    Creating new public policy based on reaction is one of the worse ideas ever--just take a look at the Patriot Act.
    Signature
    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Sal,Thom, I'm with you. This would be another chipping away of our rights,just like the patriot act does.
    Its being suggested out of emotion,not rationality.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247607].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    On the surface, a law as specified in the OP MAY seem like a good idea, but it really ISN'T! Heck, there have been times where my parents didn't know precisely where I was for more than 24 hours.

    One time, my mother was moving. I never really learned my father's address, and a friend was taking me to ANOTHER place where I didn't bother to learn the address. HECK, with most people, I would name the town, BODFISH, and they would say "WHERE?"! I would then say Near lake isabella, and they would say "WHERE?"! I would then say "In kernville", and they would say "WHERE?"! And then I would say "Near bakersfield". MANY got it by THEN! So would the address have helped? Maybe not!

    Anyway, I ended up in a town FAR away from where I lived and was to live! Nobody really knew me there, etc... I was actually in a local government area. I know they got a lot of stuff from Juvenile hall. I don't know HOW long I was there, etc... It was probably MANY hours before my parents knew that I was there with a broken leg! My friend DIED, and I could have ALSO! IMAGINE! I had NO id! I don't know if ANYONE there knew my last name! We crashed some distance away from his home, and his family had NO recorded relationship with mine. If I were dead, how long would it have taken my family to find out I had died? I didn't even have a social security card then! I don't think I went to school there before that time.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4247619].message }}

Trending Topics