caylee's law

[AshleyMarks]

For those of you that think the verdict was unjust and that the law should be changed, please go to this link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

The law should be changed that it is a Felony to not report a child missing right away. She got off Scott-free. Thank you for reading this in advance. For more about this petition, go to this link:
http://www.news9.com/story/15034710/okl ... aylees-law

 

[AngelAndrea]

If everyone can please take 3 seconds to do this I know that this issue will be important to me forever, let's make it important to the rest of this country.

 

[AshleyMarks]

Thank you guys for signing this petition. It is a very important issue.

 

[Eva_ChangeN]

I signed up and shared with friends....Thanks for posting!

 

[Jupiter551]

I tried to sign it but couldn't because it required a US state.

So I kind of lost touch with this story, have the father and stepmother finally been charged with her murder? It was all so weird they really both looked guilty as hell.

 

[ElaySmith]

Jup, I have to do my research on the case because I didnt follow it but I am an avid true crime reader/junkie so this will be one of the books I read at some point.

Mom was found not guilty and given credit for time already served so she is or maybe has already been released, not entirely sure.

 

[lordmagellan]

Jup, I believe you're referring to another case. Are you thinking of the little girl from Aussieland who was murdered in North Carolina? The name escapes me now, as does any proceedings with the father and step-mom. I'll have to look into that one to clarify. I want to say the step-mom was charged but I'm not certain.

 

[lordmagellan]

As to Caylee's law, I thought that was a law?
I haven't really followed the case and I keep trying to figure out why this has made so many headlines with kids being killed every day. I mean I'm glad the media is taking an interest in a child murder case, I'm just surprised it's so wrapped up in someone who's not a celebrity.

Or at least wasn't.

 

[Jupiter551]

Ahh yeah that's who I was thinking of LordM. This one reminded me of it because I think in the other case it was weeks before they reported her missing as well, really made evidence a problem.

I always loved true crime stuff too Elay..I need to get me some more books thanks for the inspiration
Oh and if it's the murdered aussie child you're thinking of...I hope someone gives that woman some real justice if she got off without a charge

 

[Eva_ChangeN]

The Mom is due to be released July 13 or 17, and I think the reason they are in such a tizzy is that she not only had the child die (or killed her), but she lied about it, as did the rest of the family. Then AFTER the search parties searched for her in the area of woods around the house, the girls body was dumped during a flooding season, and was discovered 5-6 months later...no person, family or not, would wait that long after an accident....and what about the duct tape found encasing her skull? Well, who knows since the bitch was found not guilty of anything other than lying about where her daughter died, when and what happened to the body. Maybe someone else found the girl, and decided it would be fun to duct tape a corpse...


edited to add the Wiki page link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee_Anthony_homicide

 

[AngelAndrea]

The Mom is due to be released July 13 or 17, and I think the reason they are in such a tizzy is that she not only had the child die (or killed her), but she lied about it, as did the rest of the family. Then AFTER the search parties searched for her in the area of woods around the house, the girls body was dumped during a flooding season, and was discovered 5-6 months later...no person, family or not, would wait that long after an accident....and what about the duct tape found encasing her skull? Well, who knows since the bitch was found not guilty of anything other than lying about where her daughter died, when and what happened to the body. Maybe someone else found the girl, and decided it would be fun to duct tape a corpse...


edited to add the Wiki page link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee_Anthony_homicide

Defense attorneys are evil... They pretty much implied the bolded was not only possible, but CLEARLY that is what had happened. Someone just had a roll wandering through the swampy woods.

 

[Bocefish]

For those of you that think the verdict was unjust and that the law should be changed, please go to this link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

The law should be changed that it is a Felony to not report a child missing right away.

That may unconstitutional or I would think there would all ready be some sort of law governing that due to all the unscrupulous scumbags that house troubled children for the cash, but keep cashing the state's checks after they run away. Interesting idea though.

 

[AshleyMarks]

I am mostly enraged because of how the child welfare systems handle child abuse. it seems as if they send children back home, or just ignore the fact that there is something wrong altogether. They take kids away that have a safe and loving home and make up bullshit lies just to keep them. Here are a couple child welfare fails:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsey_Smith-Briggs
Numerous reports were filed on these parents of child abuse,neglect, and drug use. Yet child welfare did nothing.
http://www.news9.com/story/14222544/pol ... e-30-times
http://www.koco.com/r-video/26369577/detail.html

 

[AlexLady]

I am mostly enraged because of how the child welfare systems handle child abuse. it seems as if they send children back home, or just ignore the fact that there is something wrong altogether. They take kids away that have a safe and loving home and make up bullshit lies just to keep them. Here are a couple child welfare fails:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsey_Smith-Briggs
Numerous reports were filed on these parents of child abuse,neglect, and drug use. Yet child welfare did nothing.
http://www.news9.com/story/14222544/pol ... e-30-times
http://www.koco.com/r-video/26369577/detail.html

I'm not going to bother clicking the links just because I hate hearing about child abuse, but you got it girl. That's exactly how it is.

 

[SatanJonez]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

 

[AngelAndrea]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

:lol: Read it... It's not a "bad idea" per se. Arizona has a law that requires deaths to be reported in a certain amount of time and this is BEFORE this case. I don't think the time limits are "idiotic" unless you're a person who would look at your dead child for over an hour, or let them be "lost" for over 24 hours. I really don't see any legit reasons for someone to NOT comply. Unless they want to kill their child and avoid an investigation for as long as possible... Maybe there's another reason. Maybe people want their dead children in their trunks or in the living room , but I know if my child so much as stopped breathing FOR A SECOND I would be in a hospital, and if my child wasn't in eyesight or earshot I'd CALL THE POLICE! I really can't see someone thinking that's idiotic???

These time limits are no where near "constructed by idiots" so much as "constructed by those who realistically think about a human reaction to a death or disappearance of a child".

Out of curiousity... What would be a reason to not report a child's death in less than an hour? What would be a reason to let your child be in danger for over 24 hours?

 

[SatanJonez]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

:lol: Read it... It's not a "bad idea" per se. Arizona has a law that requires deaths to be reported in a certain amount of time and this is BEFORE this case. I don't think the time limits are "idiotic" unless you're a person who would look at your dead child for over an hour, or let them be "lost" for over 24 hours. I really don't see any legit reasons for someone to NOT comply. Unless they want to kill their child and avoid an investigation for as long as possible... Maybe there's another reason. Maybe people want their dead children in their trunks or in the living room , but I know if my child so much as stopped breathing FOR A SECOND I would be in a hospital, and if my child wasn't in eyesight or earshot I'd CALL THE POLICE! I really can't see someone thinking that's idiotic???

These time limits are no where near "constructed by idiots" so much as "constructed by those who realistically think about a human reaction to a death or disappearance of a child".

Out of curiousity... What would be a reason to not report a child's death in less than an hour? What would be a reason to let your child be in danger for over 24 hours?

I (thankfully) have never experienced a child missing or near death/dead, but everyone reacts to situations differently. I honestly think mine would be disbelief and rage/panic. But...since you asked, I'll just quote the article.

There are myriad other problems with the one-hour requirement. What if a child dies while sleeping? When would you start the clock on the parent's one-hour window to report? From the time the parent discovers the child is dead, or from the time the child actually dies? If it's the former, can you really believe what a parent tells you if he knows a felony charge hinges on his answer? What if a parent or babysitter missed the deadline because she fell asleep at the time the child was playing outside and suffered a fatal accident? You could argue this is evidence of bad parenting or inattentive babysitting, but under those circumstances, do you really want to charge a grieving parent or heartbroken babysitter with a felony?

Here's another: You're camping with your family when your son goes missing. One of your other children says she last saw him swimming in a lake. You spend several hours frantically looking for him before discovering that, tragically, he has drowned. You call the police. Under Caylee's Law, is this a "missing child" case, or a "dead child" case? Do you get charged with a felony for not notifying authorities within an hour of your son's drowning, or are you afforded the 24-hour window from the time you noticed he went missing? Is this really the sort of thing we want parents to be considering while they're trying to find their child? What if your kid gets lost hiking on a camping trip where there's no cell phone reception? It could take a few hours to notice your kid is missing, another few to look for him before you begin to panic. In some cases, it may be best to keep looking than to abandon the area to notify authorities.

Also...

How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

There have even been recorded cases of a child dying via an accident & the parent completely breaking down and KEEPING the body around for years on end. I'll run to the internet & go find some links if you want. The point is: people ALL respond differently to death & this law is born out of the media highly publicizing a trial that didn't go the way it should due NOT to the people on the jury, but the prosecution not having enough evidence and this this law is NOT going to stop this from happening again.

 

[MadisonLeigh]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

Thanks for posting this article, I found it interesting and enlightening.

 

[SatanJonez]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

Thanks for posting this article, I found it interesting and enlightening.

Thank you for not taking it as a personal attack, lol.

 

[AngelAndrea]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

:lol: Read it... It's not a "bad idea" per se. Arizona has a law that requires deaths to be reported in a certain amount of time and this is BEFORE this case. I don't think the time limits are "idiotic" unless you're a person who would look at your dead child for over an hour, or let them be "lost" for over 24 hours. I really don't see any legit reasons for someone to NOT comply. Unless they want to kill their child and avoid an investigation for as long as possible... Maybe there's another reason. Maybe people want their dead children in their trunks or in the living room , but I know if my child so much as stopped breathing FOR A SECOND I would be in a hospital, and if my child wasn't in eyesight or earshot I'd CALL THE POLICE! I really can't see someone thinking that's idiotic???

These time limits are no where near "constructed by idiots" so much as "constructed by those who realistically think about a human reaction to a death or disappearance of a child".

Out of curiousity... What would be a reason to not report a child's death in less than an hour? What would be a reason to let your child be in danger for over 24 hours?

I (thankfully) have never experienced a child missing or near death/dead, but everyone reacts to situations differently. I honestly think mine would be disbelief and rage/panic. But...since you asked, I'll just quote the article.

There are myriad other problems with the one-hour requirement. What if a child dies while sleeping? When would you start the clock on the parent's one-hour window to report? From the time the parent discovers the child is dead, or from the time the child actually dies? If it's the former, can you really believe what a parent tells you if he knows a felony charge hinges on his answer? What if a parent or babysitter missed the deadline because she fell asleep at the time the child was playing outside and suffered a fatal accident? You could argue this is evidence of bad parenting or inattentive babysitting, but under those circumstances, do you really want to charge a grieving parent or heartbroken babysitter with a felony?

Here's another: You're camping with your family when your son goes missing. One of your other children says she last saw him swimming in a lake. You spend several hours frantically looking for him before discovering that, tragically, he has drowned. You call the police. Under Caylee's Law, is this a "missing child" case, or a "dead child" case? Do you get charged with a felony for not notifying authorities within an hour of your son's drowning, or are you afforded the 24-hour window from the time you noticed he went missing? Is this really the sort of thing we want parents to be considering while they're trying to find their child? What if your kid gets lost hiking on a camping trip where there's no cell phone reception? It could take a few hours to notice your kid is missing, another few to look for him before you begin to panic. In some cases, it may be best to keep looking than to abandon the area to notify authorities.

Also...

How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

There have even been recorded cases of a child dying via an accident & the parent completely breaking down and KEEPING the body around for years on end. I'll run to the internet & go find some links if you want. The point is: people ALL respond differently to death & this law is born out of the media highly publicizing a trial that didn't go the way it should due NOT to the people on the jury, but the prosecution not having enough evidence.

To be honest, should that happen, I consider that a crime. Yes it is grieving, but that child cannot be lain to rest. I do think that this would be considered a crime BEFORE this law, not just the act of not reporting a death, but concealing a body. That isn't exactly an argument against this law as those cases those people are breaking laws in their actions anyways. This protects those that aren't loved so well as those cherished children of which their parents cannot let go. Honestly they might not even charge those involved in these rare, few and far between cases with this specific crime of not reporting a child's death within an hour. Tampering with evidence or concealing a body would most likely be the extend of this. I guess the point being, that what they are doing is already a crime and if this law will help prevent the ability of a guilty party to go free after the worst crime known to man, then the sacrifice would be that those who may be convicted of other crimes MAY be brought up under this law, and I understand how those reactions can come about in a loving mother but I think it's an injustice to the child.

And, (lol?)?? I didn't consider that a personal attack just an opposing opinion, maybe you took that personally??. lol?

 

[MadisonLeigh]

I do not think this woman is innocent, but the person who decided to construct the time limits of this law is an idiot. See this link. That's it.

Thanks for posting this article, I found it interesting and enlightening.

Thank you for not taking it as a personal attack, lol.

Nah, I didn't sign the internet petition in the first place, I just saw this thread in my unread posts.
I did not follow the case at all, but it's certainly become a hot topic of conversation recently.

 

[SatanJonez]

People have taken this case to heart (all around the U.S. at least). A lot of people have taken it personally whether by blaming the jury, the judge, what have you. I expected not just you (although you did take it well) but almost anyone else stumbling upon this take the opposing opinion as personal. And no, I did not. I just think it's really stupid to think a law that in the end will end up punishing more innocent people/parents than guilty ones, is going to stop this from happening again.

One more thing from the article I found to ring true, at least with me.

If medical science can't pinpoint the time of the child's death to the minute, how else are authorities going to determine it? They can't ask the parent. A guilty person isn't going to give you an honest answer, and even an innocent parent may lie if they fear the truth could land them in prison. It also seems safe to assume that a parent's first instinct upon witnessing the death of a child isn't to look up at the clock to take note of an official time of death.

 

[SatanJonez]

Again. Another article I think makes it pretty clear why this one hour time limit is bogus.

Further, consider the bureaucratic nightmare of reporting child deaths in hospitals when time of death may not be clear, or in chaotic accidents, or during natural disasters.

Source

In the end the people running the show will wait til something else that grabs the public attention comes up & sweep this law under the rug/repeal it soon after because of how many holes are in it. It's so hard to pin point the exact MINUTE of death, even in our advanced age, that this part of the law at least is rubbish.

However, I will agree that a missing child going unreported for 24 hours, let alone a fucking MONTH is bullshit.

 

[Mikeythegeek]

The problem here is not the jury. It is that the prosecution overreached on their case. Remember, juries are told that the prosecution must provide evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. The prosecution, in their race to get a case against Casey Anthony, failed to gather any evidence that met that standard. There were just too many hypotheticals in their case for it to succeed.

To be honest, I read the final verdict as the jury saying "we think she did something and was at least involved in Caylee's death. However, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was responsible for her child's death."

Do I think she killed Caylee? Yes. I think it's obvious that she did. But it's like the OJ Simpson trial: everyone is pretty sure he killed those two people, but the prosecution failed in their efforts to prove it.

As for the proposed law, 1 hour is too narrow a time frame. The Arizona law referred to earlier states:

11-593. Reporting of certain deaths; failure to report; classification
A. Any person having knowledge of the death of a human being including a fetal death shall promptly notify the nearest peace officer of all information in the person's possession regarding the death and the circumstances surrounding it under any of the following circumstances:

Circumstances omitted for space saving.

It should just say that the death report or a missing persons report should be filed as soon as reasonably possible. Yes, that's pretty open ended but in this case, Casey Anthony would've ended up in jail for that too.

 

[Bocefish]

Laws do not allow for dimensional reasoning.

 

[Jupiter551]

There have even been recorded cases of a child dying via an accident & the parent completely breaking down and KEEPING the body around for years on end. I'll run to the internet & go find some links if you want. The point is: people ALL respond differently to death & this law is born out of the media highly publicizing a trial that didn't go the way it should due NOT to the people on the jury, but the prosecution not having enough evidence and this this law is NOT going to stop this from happening again.

You have a point, but perhaps a law should state that someone who doesn't report a death within a certain timeframe, and doing so has interfered with the investigation of a suspicious death/disappearance, MAY be prosecuted/charged/held accountable/have their shit searched/whatever - and discretion should and would be used whether or not a grieving parent would come under the jurisdiction of such a rule. :dontknow:

I don't actually know the specifics of this case, but in general I do think there's a place in law for discretionary powers - and judges to stop meathead cops from abusing them.

 

[spikyhaired]

Remember, juries are told that the prosecution must provide evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt....

My $0.02. The key idea for me is that we have a trial system using juries, and the jurors can take into account facts such as time before involving police, if a glove fits the defendant's hand, etc.

Will prosecutors lose trials against defendants who, in the mind of members of the public, are guilty? Yes. But I'd rather let a guilty person go free than imprison (or, in some states, put to death) an innocent person.

I think trying to add so many new laws to cover every possible eventuality just leads to every person being guilty of something in the eyes of the law. What, you raised your voice in an argument? Guilty of inciting a assault! You own encryption software? Guilty of conspiracy to (<insert an actual crime>)!

In trying to protect ourselves, good-intentioned people can deliver us all into the bondage of a police state.

 

[Jupiter551]

Remember, juries are told that the prosecution must provide evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt....

My $0.02. The key idea for me is that we have a trial system using juries, and the jurors can take into account facts such as time before involving police, if a glove fits the defendant's hand, etc.

Will prosecutors lose trials against defendants who, in the mind of members of the public, are guilty? Yes. But I'd rather let a guilty person go free than imprison (or, in some states, put to death) an innocent person.

I think trying to add so many new laws to cover every possible eventuality just leads to every person being guilty of something in the eyes of the law. What, you raised your voice in an argument? Guilty of inciting a assault! You own encryption software? Guilty of conspiracy to (<insert an actual crime>)!

In trying to protect ourselves, good-intentioned people can deliver us all into the bondage of a police state.

Well what you should remember about "reasonable doubt" is that the definition of it in layman's terms is, would your average John or Mary Citizen believe the defendant innocent or guilty if they were sitting there perusing the evidence and hearing both sides of the story?

That's all the jury system really is - an attempt to get a sample of Mr and Mrs Publics to decide if they believe someone.

Would you believe that the mother concocted some story about Zanny the nanny who never existed kidnapping a daughter, after evading questions on her daughter's whereabouts for months, then said daughter's bones were found dumped with duct tape attached to the skull but no foul play was involved?

I can't answer for you, but I sure as fuck wouldn't lol.

 

[RainbowBryte]

I like the idea of this law but after reading everything I would have to sa that the time limits are messed up.