Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
Maybe I should have been clearer. I left my statement open. I said within 1 hour, but I didn't mean within 1 hour of death, I meant within 1 hour of discovery.
As far as your example above, time of death can be proven by the coroner. So if a child died in their sleep and is found at 9:00 in the morning (which is reasonable), the coroner can prove how long the child has been dead (along with the cause of death). So if the coroner says the child has been dead for 8 hours, we could assume the child died at approx 1:00am. If the coroner says the child has been dead for 36 hours, then there is a problem.
I think you're examples are a little far fetched. The law is intended to prevent cover-ups as in the Caylee case, not to punish the parents/care givers of a child that dies of natural death.
I agree...it should just be common sense to report a child's death within one hour of discovery. But it wasn't in this case.
Edited to add: I guess the whole point behind this is that the prosecution couldn't prove how Caylee died. Had the authorities been notified right away (as the intentions of this law), cause of death wouldn't have been an issue. Whether she was murdered or it was an accident, it was definitley covered up. This law can't prevent cover ups, but it can certainly make them punishable by not reporting the death right away.
|
I can see that the proposed law covers some circumstances that probably should be covered.
But the problem with it is the same as with many new laws. They're proposed as a knee jerk reaction to a bad situation. And passed with little thought to the details.
In an urban area or even most suburban areas yes, an hour is plenty of time after discovery to report a death. But there are situations where it's unrealistic. And there's the problem. Most laws eventually get enforced literally or not at all. Any slack in charging is up to a DA, who may be up for reelection or just has a "tough on crime" stance.
So if someone goes hiking with their teenage kid and something bad happens?
sure, many people have cell phones, but some don't. And there are areas where there's poor coverage. My cell phone won't recieve calls in the stamp shop I go to, in Connecticut. And the appalachian trail is fairly close to that. As a scout I went on many overnight hikes, and if you're 5 miles into the woods with no phone, contacting anyone within an hour just isn't happening.
And the concept of someone living in a very rural area and deciding not to have a phone isn't uncommon.
A reasonable person wouldn't press a charge under that sort of circumstance, but if someone has reason to take it literally or if the law requires a charge be filed it's just adding one injury to another if the person isn't the cause of the death.
Steve B