Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Suggest to your state - Caylee's Law Proposal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:37 AM
Original message
Suggest to your state - Caylee's Law Proposal
Interesting. I am going to send this idea to my State Rep today. This isn't a fed issue, but this woman has the right idea IMO.

Many avid followers of the trial of Casey Anthony, the Florida woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, were incensed by Tuesday's not-guilty verdict. Unlike most others, though, Michelle Crowder did more than just fume about it.
By dinnertime, Crowder had hopped on the social-change site Change.org and launched a petition, aimed at President Obama and members of Congress, calling for a federal law that would make it a felony for parents to fail to notify police within 24 hours of a child's disappearance or within an hour of a child's death.

Casey Anthony waited 30 days before reporting her daughter, Caylee, missing — one of several bizarre behaviors to which many pointed as evidence of Anthony's guilt.



Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/07/petition-for-caylees-law-goes-viral/#ixzz1RQyepKtX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thats a knee-jerk reaction if I ever saw one. I can't support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Agreed.
In fact, any law named after a victim worries me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Agreed...pointless legislation that would be difficult to enforce...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hifiguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SusanaMontana41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
128. Neither can I. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. What if your child were kidnapped and one of the demands was that
you don't contact the authorities upon the risk of the life of your child? Wouldn't you be convicted of the proposed felony for choosing to obey the demands in order to get your child back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. Color me a kook, but if my child was abducted
my first call is to the authorities (instinct would be federal with their call on jurisdiction, not the local boys in my small town) regardless of the demands.

I would think (hope) they know a tad more about negotiation in that circumstance than I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
72. DING!!!
I can't do the search, but I remember hearing that after 24 hours a non-family related abduction is more than likely going to end with the death of the child and that after that 24 hour period is when they start looking for a body.

But...no...don't call the cops 'cause the bad guys said not to. They told you your kid would be okay if you handed over your stash, why wouldn't you believe them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. No way. If we were out in the woods and my kid fell and died, I might not be able to notify...
police that quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. Common sense is a lost art
First, this is a suggestion for lawmakers to address for child protection. Secondly, how many children die, and how many parents are actually charged and/or prosecuted for those deaths?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's already against the law.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM by lumberjack_jeff
But it's not necessarily murder in the first degree.

The prosecutor fucked up. He charged her with a crime he couldn't prove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
26. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
28. Reporting a disappearance?
I am not talking about the charges. The issue this woman was looking to address was the lack of reporting a disappearance. If that were a crime in itself, those considering hiding a disappearance in the hopes of getting out of greater charges may think twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
75. It already is a crime
no need to make it a federal offense...good lord, the federal docket is full enough as it is & CPS already has too many ways to torture families.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. Per title and comments - state, not federal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. and in most states, it already is a crime
no need for a new one.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Apparently not Florida. LOL!
Seriously, can you give me links or verbiage to search? I would like to see if this is law in my state given that I have already written my Rep to ask her to consider introducing something along these lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. It's called "child abuse" or "child neglect"
but the State only wanted "Aggravated child abuse" on the jury charge.

So once again, your anger at the outcome of this case falls back on the State not doing its job.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. But the jury was given 'child abuse' as a lesser option. Not that it was proven either.
They fucked up and overreached in their arrogance. I *get* that.

What I am asking is what laws are on the books (any searchable verbiage appreciated) that says a parent/guardian must report a missing child within x hours/days?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. No, they were only given "Aggravated Child Abuse" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #98
109. No, they weren't. Instructions also included § 827.03(1) Child Abuse as a lesser count
CHILD ABUSE

§ 827.03(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Child Abuse, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Casey Marie Anthony

a. intentionally inflicted physical or mental injury upon Caylee Marie Anthony

or

b. committed an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to Caylee Marie Anthony

2. The victim was under the age of eighteen years.


http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #109
129. so they were limited to intentional acts
and the State didn't prove the death happened intentionally.

dg

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
86. Actually, there's already a federal law covering that. CAPTA
The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

CAPTA makes "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm", an illegal act anywhere in the United States.

If your toddler vanishes and you fail to report it, you've just performed a "failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm".

CAPTA can't be prosecuted federally, but instead sets minimum standards that states must implement for their child abuse and neglect laws. That means, in all 50 states, that failing to report your missing child to the authorities is a crime.

Her prosecutor just didn't bother to charge her with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #86
95. Thank you for the answer.
Do you know where I can look up to see what my state's "minimum standards" are on this given that I have already written my rep to ask they initiate a Jessica/Megan type protection law? I would like to know if those standards include language on prudent behavior and timelines deemed within the boundary of common sense.

Thanks for any help you can give me and thanks for the reference to the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #95
105. The current system, without timelines, is superior.
As written, CAPTA laws allow prosecution at ANY time interval, if it was possible to report it and you didn't. The OP proposal suggested 24 hours for disappearances, but Caylee Anthony was only two when she vanished. I would argue that anyone who waits 20 hours, or even TWO hours, to report a missing 2 year old is neglectful. By putting a fixed time limit on it, you're simply providing cover to those who wait until they very end of that time period. If someones young kid vanishes, and they have a cellphone in their pocket, I don't want them getting off simply because they called it in 20 hours later..."within the 24 hour window". I want them prosecuted for failing to report it immediately.

As for the links to your own states laws, you'll need to look those up yourself. CAPTA set minimum standards for child abuse and neglect laws, but each state implements them differently. Here in California it's spread out over a dozen different laws. Some states have even more. Others condense it into a single law. Everything that's illegal under CAPTA is illegal under your state law, but you may have to do some digging to determine exactly which state law covers which behavior.

By the way, in Florida it's defined in Chapter 39 of the Statutes. "(2) “Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions."

The "acts or omissions" is the kicker. By failing to report her disappearance to the police, Casey Anthony committed an act of omission (defined here as an act of abuse) that resulted in her daughters physical harm. "Act of ommission" means "failing to take action to stop" in this sense.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS09/CH0039/Section_0039.01.HTM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. I agree that way is superior
I see too many potential problems with arbitrary time frames.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. Thank you - that makes sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #86
121. Can they still charge her on the lesser crimes
they didn't before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #121
126. No.
Double jeapordy applies. They could have charged her with it the first time around, but because the prosecutor chose not to, they now can't re-file against her at all. You cannot be tried more than once for the same alleged action, even when that action may be covered under more than one law. The prosecutors only option was to charge her with both crimes during the first trial.

The Anthony verdict isn't a failure of our legal system, or a gap in our laws, but was a failure of the prosecutors to do their jobs correctly. They COULD have locked her away for 20+ years under our current laws, but screwed up big time and set her free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
67. +1...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #67
81. Glad to see you weigh in
and thank you for the education in law during the Anthony case. You changed my outlook before closing arguments even began.

What IS the referenced 'law on the books' referenced above that you +1 and is it state or federal?

I wrote my state rep today and asked that she consider a child protection law along these lines - was that moot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. please take this rage you feel and direct it at the Florida prosecutor who dropped the ball
and not on kneejerk law proposals because of one bad day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. Sorry, but a child missing for 24 hours and not being reported will never be OK
They specifically stated that the length of time it took to find the body was the issue in determining the cause of death.

You have a better solution of how to try to stop this kind of crime (tossing a dead baby in the woods and not reporting the 'accident/death' for weeks) in the future? What deterrent do you suggest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. then blame it on the orange county deputy
who didnt want to get his feet wet in august when the body was first reported
"length of time it took to find the body was the issue in determining the cause of death" if this is true and it likely is
then full blame goes to this deputy
had he searched properly he would have had the body within 30-60 days of death
tissue would likely have still been present instead of bare bone
need a scape goat its the lazy cop who valued dry shoes more than justice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Dear friend, I am blaming no one. I am merely suggesting something forward
that may prevent this from happening again. Not unlike Jessica’s Law and Megan's Law.

To your point, I couldn't agree with you more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
69. First....
...fire all prosecutors that over charge for bullshit reasons like love of publicity.

That IMO is a far better solution than that proposed legislation ~~ unbelievable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #69
88. +1
You called that one last week. Well done, Counselor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillStein Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. Many bad laws are made ad hoc nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here's my idea
calling for a federal law that would make it a felony for parents to obtain a tattoo within 24 hours of a child's disappearance or within an hour of a child's death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Che bella!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
47. Well done...
:thumbsup:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
70. Trumad...
...I think you got it! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #70
108. It's a slippery slope when you knee jerk laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
76. Or go party & be photographed smiling
within a month of the child's death/disappearance.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
132. And partying! Don't forget partying! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. OK. I have no problem with such a law.
However, it cannot be a federal law. Federal laws have to do with federal issues and issues that cross state boundaries. Laws like the one you suggest are reserved to the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Why my title said "state"
and explanation said it wasn't a fed issue (and that I was contacting my state rep to suggest something along these lines), but thanks for at least not biting my head off about it.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
12. If the child dies in their sleep and you don't notice until you check on them when you wake up
two hours later - congratulations, you are a felon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. Use some common sense here
What DA is going to waste money prosecuting a non-criminal case for a legitimately explained (via autopsy or whatever) death.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. the same ones we have now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
74. Hundreds if not thousands of them...
...welcome to the criminal non-justice system. Nothing is legitimately explained to most of those assholes. When is the last time you were in a "let's make a deal" conference with one of those-who-have-chosen-up-sides-and-they-took-gawd assholes?

Who the hell do you think are sitting on the benches in most jurisdictions? That should give a clue about the problems with the CJ system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
77. Don't make me laugh
were you watching the Casey Anthony trial at all?

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xphile Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
14. No good every comes from a law named after someone. It's always a knee jerk reaction
with no thought put to it.

I will NOT be asking my state to support any such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. I disagree with that sentiment
The Amber Alert system is excellent and named after a child that was abducted and killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
43. Ah, but see, it isn't a law
it's an alert system. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Per below - Jessica’s Law, Megan's Law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
33. Jessica’s Law, Megan's Law
You're right - those were really BAD ideas and should be repealed immediately. IMMEDIATELY!

I didn't get a harrumph outta that guy

*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
58. Actually, yes, they are bad laws that should be repealed.
Recidivism rates for sex offenses are actually less than other crimes.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates

A 2002 study by the United States Department of Justice indicated that recidivism rates among sex offenders was 5.3%; that is, about 1 in 19 of released sex offenders were later arrested for another sex crime. The same study mentioned that 68% of released non-sex offenders were rearrested for any crime (both sex and non-sex offenses), while 43% of the released sex offenders were rearrested for any crime (and 24% reconvicted).

A collection of official studies spanning the years 1983 to 2010 across all 50 states and the federal government has been assembled. This URL provides a spreadsheet and .zip file containing sources supporting the DOJ study, where the average recidivism of sex offenders committing new sex crimes since 1983 is approximately 9%, compared to the 42% average recidivism rate for all felony offenders committing any new felony offense.

According to the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice,<3> in New York State the recidivism rates for sex offenders have been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder. Another report from the OJP that studied recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states accounting for two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year, reached the same conclusion.

In 2007, the State Bureau of Investigation in North Carolina made significant changes to its sex offender registration system, including new search criteria that include an "offender status" search, enabling an explicit search for convicted sex offense recidivists in the sex offender database. Manual searches by county using the new criteria yield some of the lowest recidivist percentages ever disseminated by any law enforcement establishment. In the entire State of North Carolina, there are only 71 recidivists shown on the registry, if incarcerated offenders are included. Per-county results for "Registered" status offenders compared against "Recidivist" status offenders on the North Carolina registry yield actual convicted recidivist percentages ranging from zero to fractions of one percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. You win.
I give up. You people have rendered me speechless on the lack of concern for the welfare of children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. What won't you do 'for the children'?
Is there anything? Any infringement that you won't tolerate 'for the children'?

Regardless of what the 24/7 news cycle spews up ("if it bleeds, it leads", "cute white girl missing? stop the presses!"), violent crime of all kinds is down. Your child is safer now than they would have been at any time since the 1960's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #61
92. I gave up, too.
I've been fighting for the rights of children most of my life. No one cares. Not even about the "pretty white" children that someone thought was a cute addition to their argument. Children have no voice. If they die, it's no big deal. There are always others.

No pretty ribbons for the abused children cover cars. No one wears the ribbons because it'll clash with the red, pink, yellow or black ribbons that are so important to them. Caylee's dead. We don't need to learn from her death. Let's just move on and wait until someone else learns from this story. That you can kill a child and get away with it if you just wait long enough to hide the evidence and come up with a bullshit excuse.

On second thought, Ruby...don't let them win. Let's just keep fighting. Those kids have tiny little voices that no one hears. They need louder voices to scream for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. I just feel sick
Just as with Jessica and Megan and Amber and and... They didn't die in vain, but because Casey Anthony's trial was a media circus, we need to now not address the holes in the case that were preventable?

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Ironically stated today as I feel like we are back in 1930 (or 1937).

Argh.

On too many fronts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. Yeah, you have to remember to breathe.
A close friend of mine got me involved with ChildHelp about 7 years ago. We help set up benefits and charity events locally. It is a Christian organization, and I'm far from Christian, but they're truly wonderful people and very open-minded. The stories they tell are horrifying, but with happy endings.

And, much really has changed over the years. The problem now lies with lack of funding, overload and the often poor (or dangerous) quality of foster care, not to mention the lack of adults willing to adopt older children.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #99
116. Reaching for the paper bag now.
Thanks for all of your input on this topic. I am stunned at the indifference I am seeing here in regard to child welfare protections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #116
123. I'm reaching for a bag, too.
To barf in. Seriously. Yeah, no one cares about child welfare here at DU :eyes:

I'll tell you what I care about. The damage such laws could do. It's bad enough a parent could be going through gut wrenching heartache when their child is missing, or God forbid turns up dead. But then the added potential grief of having to deal with a bloodthirsty DA armed with such a law? I can't even begin to think about it. I don't even want to think about it. I don't get the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #123
133. You and me both. This is basically Nancy Grace writing laws. That won't end well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #92
118. Oh FFS...
Yeah, no one on DU supports the rights of children because the majority wont get behind the absurd law the OP suggest...

If I get you a hammer and nails you can pound yourself to the nearest cross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
15. Oy vey...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. No. That's Just Dumb
I was often gone for over 24 hours as a kid, especially in the summer, without telling my folks where I was. They knew I was a pretty good kid and that I could take care of myself and would get in touch with them or another responsible adult if something bad happened. By the time I was 15 I had a hardship drivers license and a job. It wasnt unusual for me to work at a restaurant until the wee hours of the night, go to a friends house for the night, head out to the lake Saturday morning, hang out all day, and crash on the beach, go to work on Sunday, and come home Sunday evening. Don't think the local police station would have enjoyed fielding three phone calls a month from my parents to report me missing.

So if my child died in a tragic accident my first consideration shouldn't be grief but calling the cops so I can fill out paperwork? No.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. I'm a child of the 60s and used to be able to ride a bike without a helmet
and 'go out and play' without telling anyone where I was going.

Welcome to 2011. Whats yer point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
62. That 2011 isn't any different from the 60's except in the hysteria induced by the media
in people like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #62
96. BULLSHIT!
Do you want to know what's different? We no longer believe that child abuse is only an inner-city crime. We no longer allow children to go to school with bruises and cigarette burns without teachers getting involved. When the neighbors in an upper-class neighborhood are called for a domestic disturbance, they no longer just shrug their shoulders and walk out when they see a child hiding in a closet because the parents are "good citizens".

If we had had this "hysteria" in the 60's, a lot more children would be alive today and a lot more adults would be less traumatized. A lot more parents wouldn't be abusing their kids.

The media may sensationalize this type of story, but it's a story that needs to be pounded into our heads. We aren't going to fix the problems in this country if we don't protect our children. Children of abuse and neglect are far more likely to commit the same crimes against other children. They're more likely to be substance abusers, high school dropouts and criminals. I'm all for the media sensationalizing these types of stories if it makes one tired, overwhelmed, young mother think more clearly about her role as a mother.

We like to wave flags for civil and equal rights here, but I don't see anyone waving a flag for these kids. Sensationalize!!! Just like we sensationalize any of our battles!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. You used to believe that child abuse was an inner city crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. I'm 46 years old.
When I was a kid, growing up in an affluent white suburb, no one talked about abuse. It "didn't happen" in our town. It was a crime of the inner city. No, I didn't believe it because I knew better. But, that was the general attitude during the 60's and 70's. Teachers would look away when they saw bruises. Cops were distressed, but didn't want to "shame" a "good family". It was the "little white lie" of suburbia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #96
104. Caps Lock Aggression Aside
The law the OP wants us all to get behind wouldn't prevent anything from happening, it would just criminalize failure to report. MOSTLY what it would do is bog down both the police force and the court system with silly cases.

I have no idea what your three paragraph ramble has to do with with the OP's suggested law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Lack of reading comprehension aside...
I was responding to your claim that this is just "media hysteria". Exposure is the best form of prevention. And, as I mentioned, a child that is "safe" will be found within a short time and hopefully punished for not being responsible enough to contact the parents. To say that the law would bog down the system is ridiculous.

The proposed law would remove the window of opportunity for any parent to hide a heinous crime against a child. If the child is never found, or as in this case, found too late, there would still be a law on the books to convict that parent.

I apologize if three paragraphs is too long for you. It isn't a "hot topic" on DU so I get very little chance to express my feelings about the lack of coverage for abused, neglected or murdered children. I'm sure there are other subjects that you would approve of a three paragraph comment. I'll be sure to look for one of them next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #106
117. Not a hot topic on DU?
Shit, half the threads started over the last two days have been Caylee threads.

Yes, the Caylee case was one of media hysteria (or Cute White Girly Syndrome, if you prefer). Neither the OPs suggest law nor the resulting hysteria helps the cases of child abuse. If you think the overly dramatic, tabloid style "exposure" that resulted from the Caylee case is going to turn the lamp of justice onto this (non) issue.

The fact is that the chance of a child being murdered by a parent is so rare that mathmatically it approaches close to "never." Maybe if you and OP want to talk about addressing issue like children who are going hungry in the US tonight I might get behind it, but this is simply a knee jerk reaction to a media built sensation.

In a week, no one will be talking about it until the next Cute White Girl winds up snatched or dead. Of course the media knows they can get endless milage out of these stories (mostly thanks to folks like you and OP) so they're all chomping at the bit for it to happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
21. In other words, remove all human judgment from the equation,
and clog the police stations with reports of kids whose parents are reasonably sure they are safe, but who MUST report, because of fear of being labeled as felons.

Meanwhile, the child who was genuinely abducted gets lost in all the "required" cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
83. Damn your logic!
B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
100. Blame the parents, then.
If your kid can't be responsible enough to call before he/she is "missing" for 24 hours, that's the parents fault. Any parent who is "reasonably" sure the kid is safe is a lousy parent. "Reasonably" sure? Cool. "My kid is 'probably' safe and not dead in a ditch or being raped. I'll just wait a day or two to see if they check in."

Great parenting.

If the kid is safe, it will take an hour to find them, get them home and let the parents give a damned good, emotional lecture. If the kid has been abducted, you have less than 24 hours to make sure your kid is still alive. Where do you justify your comparison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
22. Hello, police? My child is missing.
Has s/he been missing for 24 hours?

No, not yet, but...

Well, then, I'm sorry sir, but there's nothing we can do.


And in some places it's 48 hours before someone can be termed "missing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
35. That was my first thought as well. Require them to file a report the police refuses to accept? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
25. Often times
after a tragedy people will say "let's make a law" and it is often a bad law. I could think of several scenarios where this law could cause problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. As stated - agreed.
Why I sent it as a suggestion to my Rep. I wouldn't have worded it that way myself, but believe she has a good point. No one should be able to conceal a missing child for weeks on end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
37. USA-PATRIOT law comes to mind.

And that was actually written in 1998. It was only enacting the law that got rushed after a tragedy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
31. Casey's MOTHER reported Caylee missing after Casey told her she was missing
After Casey's mother found her after a 31-partying binge.

Misinformation like this is exactly why she walked.

:mad:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. I hope you are snarling at Time and not me.
I know that, and am as frustrated as you that by law, this woman legally concealed a 'missing' child for weeks. Catch 22 was once found dead, child abuse was off the table as you can't be negligent to a dead child.

Just like Jessica’s Law and Megan's Law - something should be done at the state level to protect these kids from this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Yes, I was referring to the news story. Friends?
:toast:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Cheers!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #46
55. .
:beer: :beer:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
32. knee-JERK
reaction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
36. If they don't name it Caylee's Law, I'm all for it. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. I don't give a flying fuck what they call it
It addresses an issue of child endangerment that should be on the books IMO.

Sorry for the snark. Shaking my head as how I have been sawed in half here, on a liberal board, for even making the GD suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
59. They ought to call it Nancy Grace's Law
Knee-Jerk reaction in the extreme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #59
102. They should call it Nancy Grace's Face...
...and use it to scare people who are so scared of anything they see on TV that they want a new law to protect them from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
45. No - Reactive law is bad law. Witness the Patriot Act and others of that ilk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. So we should repeal the laws that were in reaction to Jessica Lundsford and Megan Kanka?
I will email my rep now to demand that our state's Megan's Law Sex Offender Registry be pulled off line immediately. I'll let her know that someone on DU is offended by it because, although a child protection law, it was "reactionary".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #50
97. I'm not "offended". I stand by my statement that reactive law is generally bad law.
:eyes:

Get a grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
112. I apologize
I was a little overwhelmed about the vitriol here in regards to child protection laws. I shouldn't have laid that snark on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #112
130. Stuff happens.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
49. Oh boy
Here we go again. Another law named after somebody proposed in the heat of an emotional firestorm. Laws can often have unintended consequences and should be the product of rational, thoughtful debate and examination, not the result of shrieking and hair pulling in the wake of a heated and highly publicized event. Please, find something else to name after her....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
51. I approve, 100%
There is no logical reason to not know where your child is within a 24 hour period. With technology giving us cell phones and the internet, how hard is it for your kid to say, “I’m here...will be home at...”. Don’t give me this crap about how “responsible” your kid is. Mine had more freedom than most and was still fanatical about making sure I knew where he was and what time he’d be home. He didn’t want me to worry. It’s called respect. Also, use common sense when weighing the possibilities of this proposed law. If your 16 year old is not home and hasn’t called for over 24 hours, do you NOT want to know where he is? Even better, if your 2 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER is missing for 24 hours and you don’t want to know where she is...odds are you already know and have a reason for not calling the cops.

That 24 hour period is not to punish the responsible parent but to remove the time to concoct bullshit excuses and hide bodies. If this “mother” had reported her daughter missing within that 24 hour period, what do you think the outcome may have been? Yeah, pretty sure she was thinking that, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. Thank you for your comments
I thought I fell into the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole for a while there.

Thank you for stating this much better than I could ever have. This isn't about a name, or someone being prosecuted whose child died overnight in their sleep from leukemia - it is about child protection from those who would intentionally harm them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wait Wut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #57
66. I feel that way every day, here.
The number of times "knee-jerk reaction" has been used in this thread is amusing. What better "knee-jerk" than to not use common sense and instead base your opinion on paranoia and illogical scenarios? There is never any real debate on here. No real discussion. "What if..." is used as an attack and not a genuine hypothetical question.

Bleh. Gonna go read something funnyish now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
52. This seems like it could become a government intrusion into family business
Criminalizing family problems. Most sensible people will report kids missing. Anthony potentially got away with something because of the circumstances of this situation. There are already adequate laws in place to deal with these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
53. Already happening in OK
http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-plans-introduce-caylees-law-064155287.html

An Oklahoma lawmaker said on Wednesday he planned to introduce a "Caylee's law" in his state requiring parents to swiftly report the death or disappearance of a child in the first legislation stemming from the death of the Florida toddler.

A jury found Casey Anthony not guilty on Tuesday of murder in the death of 2-year-old Caylee, whose skeletal remains were found in woods near the Anthony family home with duct tape dangling from her skull.

Casey, who was convicted of lying to police, had initially said Caylee had been kidnapped by a nanny, triggering a nationwide search before her remains were found six months later.

"It is unconscionable for a parent to delay notifying the authorities of the death of their child. Most parents would immediately notify authorities if their child had gone missing," state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft said, adding he planned to introduce the law in Oklahoma's 2012 legislative session.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
54. Lol, yeah, like nothing could go wrong with that kind of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuckessee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
56. More knee-jerk garbage from law crazed fascists.
Is a child anyone under 18? So if someone's 17 year old son goes out partying and stays a day late the parents should go to jail if they fail to call the cops?

Ridiculous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. If he shows up 2 days later, no one would know. If he is found dead 2 days later,
then yes - they should be charged for not notifying authorities.

Thats why they call them "minors" in that someone is responsible for their care and they have protection from the law while under age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #60
79. That's absurd.
And exactly why laws like this are ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xphile Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #60
85. That kind of non-thinking logic is exactly why I will NOT be notifying my state representative.
Like I said laws named after people are ill thought through, they over reach and they don't really do nearly as much as the people who propose them say they will. Nothing good comes of them. But I'm sure that it makes some people feel like they've accomplished something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
64. Absolutely NOT.
1) Permanent paws should never be crated to 'remedy' individual cases

2) A parent may not know their child is missing for 24 hours or more

3) in some places, 24 hours must pass before a person can be declared "missing"

No, no, and no. This is a very bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. I have apparently lived a sheltered life where as a child, I have never been placed
under the care of someone who wouldn't notice if I had gone missing for 24+ hours.

Amazing given that my first cell phone was the size of a concrete block when I was 23 (day and age reference to communication capabilities).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #65
87. Apparently you have indeed.
Kids go on camping trips, especially teens, where it's hard for information to move that quickly. Also, kids and teens are notorious for doing sneaky things--for example, Kid A tells his parents that he's spending the night with Kid B, and Kid B tells HIS parents the opposite. In reality, both kids are actually sneaking out, or spending the night with Kid C and trying to keep their parents from knowing about it. If Kid A comes up missing, his parents might not know that anything's wrong until more than 24 hours have passed. Kids DO this stuff--that's not conjecture, that's fact. There are plenty of times and circumstances that are NOT necessarily murderous in which a parent might not know that their child is missing within that time frame, especially if the kid was doing something naughty and trying not to get caught.

Make the time frame at LEAST 3 days, and preferably a week, and I might support it. But 24 hours is just not long enough to avoid punishing innocent people who've done nothing wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #87
114. Like I said, it was the concept that I support
I did not suggest any specific legislation. We pay them to come up with the guidelines.

All I am saying is that if a child is under your care, and they disappear, and you don't give a shit enough to notify someone - that should be a crime. Hell, string it out for age brackets if you want, but a toddler missing for 3 days without raising an eyebrow is not appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
68. Thank gawd for checks and balances... /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
71. Another stupid law will not help. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
73. Bad facts make bad law
There are already crimes on the books that the State *COULD* have charged her with, AND gotten a conviction on, but they didn't.

Coming up with a knee-jerk law when everyone's at the height of the MSM-manipulated emotional outrage isn't the solution.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
82. I'd rather support a law that made it criminal for a grandstanding prosecutor
to take a case to trial without evidence to advance his own political career and trying to bully other citizens into judging someone else s life with pure emotion and innuendo and nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. Well, that would put a complete end to most, if not all, criminal prosecutions
:)

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dembotoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. but the prisons are too full already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
111. Extreme cases make bad laws.
No need to write any tailor-made laws to address what was, after all, an atypical case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #111
115. Lemme guess, you are another one here that wants to repeal Jessica's Law and Megan's Law
Seeing as how those were 'atypical' cases as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick-ass-bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #115
124. Anything done in quick fashion in a reactive state is bad law.
If a law should be made, it should be well thought out and without heightened emotions.

That has nothing to do with repealing laws. If we think, a year down the road, that it is still a good idea, then yes, it should be. But to create a quickly written law and pass it with emotion flowing is a horrible precedent that we have already seen occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
113. Uh boy, here come the Nancy Grace watchers.
All those fat soccer moms outside the court yelling Off with head crap. Reminded me of the Terror in France somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
119. Um, no. I won't.
Why does our country think the automatic answer to any perceived injustice is a bunch of laws named after a white kid?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
120. I think proponents of knee-jerk legislation should keep themselves busy using masturbation.
Leave the rest of us alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. Your welcome.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
125. No way, no how...forget about it. It's already neglect. Pity the state
didn't include that charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
127. No. Wrong. Harmful reactionary advice. I will write my legislators AGAINST such thoughtless panic
There's PLENTY of existing laws that are appropriate. The place where there AREN'T existing laws are the ones that provide appropriate mental health treatment (individualized, oriented towards long-term success, and not medication-based).

But there's
A. no way punishment is going to help this person in any way whatsoever
B. no way punishment is going to make anyone but sadists feel better
C. no way punishment is going to deter other potential violations
D. no way punishment is going to decrease the odds of her doing something similarly inappropriate in the future

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
131. I oppose laws made from knee-jerk reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
134. There aren't any child neglect laws where you live? Who told you that? Nancy Grace? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lightningandsnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
135. There are far too many ways that this could go wrong.
What if a parent delays reporting a child missing because of a situation with a severely abusive partner or ex-partner? What if they didn't know their child was dead or missing at all until later? (For example, if a child is abducted by a non-custodial parent, or a teenager runs away).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
136. The most ridiculous law I have ever heard proposed.
What parent would not report a missing child in 24 hours? None. We don't need a law to force parents to do what all would do anyway. Those who are going to murder their children are not going to be put off by a law requiring notification of them missing. How ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cereal Kyller Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
137. Now I know what you meant!
Sheesh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
138. At least you admit
That you do this as "an avid follower" of a tabloid TV story.

If only you knew how ridiculous that sounds to normal people who went about their lives for the last month.

How about this: You are talking about changing laws. This country has managed to survive so far without this law. Just wait a few months until your emotions cool down and you can get caught up in some other story, maybe when Pippa gets engaged or something. Then we'll talk about it. ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC