Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

p.s. some politician is trying to exploit this by creating "Caylee's law". IMO he is just trying to get re-elected or something. We need more common sense in America not more laws.

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day? What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before? Its just another law. I understand it has good intentions, but it has to be proven that the parent knew of the death and didn't report it. Just like in this case, could the mother be proved to show (beyond all reasonable doubt) that she knew of the daughters death? I thought she claimed she thought she was missing? I understand that the law has a good intention but its a common sense law. It'll go thru a million people to sign off on and debate on and more tax dollars and chances are that if the death went unreported then there was malicious intent anyway and we don't have to worry about that law.

What if some people who decide to live in the woods (they exist) have a child that dies for whatever sudden reason and they don't have access to a phone within an hour and they have a burial etc and the next day they go to town and report it? BAM! felony! go to jail!

I dunno, i guess i just hate more laws haha. Maybe its a good one and i'm looking at it from the wrong angle. If so, my apologies.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day? What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before?

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.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This law can't prevent cover ups, but it can certainly make them punishable by not reporting the death right away.

well put. I hope it does punish those trying to cover up a death. I just hope that it doesn't punish someone who's intent wasn't ill-conceived.

[Leon]

Unfortunately, after more thought on my part, and watching what has gone on, I think the jury got it right. I still think she is guilty but there were just too many loose ends to have a "beyond all reasonable doubt" guilty verdict. The law has to be that way....now, maybe if they could have tried her civilly then that would be another story. Also, the judge should have fined here 2 million dollars on her offenses of lieing so she couldn't prosper from the little girls death. Maybe he thought that would be a punitive action and didn't want to do it though?

Regardless of anything, I can't imagine a parent partying like she did only days after the death of their child. I still think a child abuse case almost could have been made.....at any rate, such is life. When OJ walked from trial I lost faith in the system. This case, the right decision was probably made, unfortunately. And I still think she did it, it just couldn't be proven.

[steve B]

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

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

It amazes me why people are so angry about the verdict. I hate a little kid dying just as much as anyone, but why would I want that to happen to another person as well?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

It amazes me why people are so angry about the verdict. I hate a little kid dying just as much as anyone, but why would I want that to happen to another person as well?

What's so ignorant about a law that would require a parent/caregiver to report a missing child within 48 hours, or a dead child within 2 hours? I think you're missing the point of the law. It's not to punish good people, it's to prevent cover ups. Again, whether you believe Caylee's death was a homicide or some tragic accident, it was definitely covered up. Caylee's Law is gaining a lot of momentum and will be passed whether you think it is ignorant or not. I suppose you also think Jessica's Law (another Florida law) is ignorant too?

[Leon]

Brendan, it's only fair, and is in the rules, that if you want to argue you will have to put your full name in your sig line...nothing personal...thanks

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's so ignorant about a law that would require a parent/caregiver to report a missing child within 48 hours, or a dead child within 2 hours? I think you're missing the point of the law. It's not to punish good people, it's to prevent cover ups. Again, whether you believe Caylee's death was a homicide or some tragic accident, it was definitely covered up. Caylee's Law is gaining a lot of momentum and will be passed whether you think it is ignorant or not. I suppose you also think Jessica's Law (another Florida law) is ignorant too?

Isn't it 1 hour and 24 hours?

I never said that it was to punish good people.

My whole view on this is that there are already laws preventing cover ups. A stricter law is not needed.

I'd rather just keep my full name off the forum, so I won't be continuing this argument.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

Isn't it 1 hour and 24 hours?

I never said that it was to punish good people.

My whole view on this is that there are already laws preventing cover ups. Another law is not needed.

I'd rather just keep my full name off the forum, so I won't be continuing this argument.

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

Please refer back to my original post. I didn't say the law was ignorant. Who knows, maybe the law will be passed. With just about anything, there will be people that agree and people who disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

I agree, I don't want to see the Caylee's mother profit. But non-fictional tragedies are often written about and profited from; and sometimes the profit is put to good use. While the other part of the proposal is well-intended, I'm just not sure how the law would be written to state what is good vs bad use of profit.

Rob

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

Rob,

This is your third “What if…” example regarding this law. We can “What if…” any law till we’re blue in the face. The bottom line is, the law is intended to protect children that are victims of neglect, abuse or death by a family member or caregiver, and to keep family members or caregivers from profiting from it. If you dislike or don’t agree with laws that are intended to protect children, so be it. I really don’t know why you continue to push it with “What ifs..”

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

Please refer back to my original post. I didn't say the law was ignorant.

You're right. My mistake. You said it was a "bunch of crap." So, let me rephrase my question. Is a law that is intended to protect children by requiring that their parent / caregiver notify the authorities of a child’s death or disappearance in a timely manner really a bunch of crap? Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're right. My mistake. You said it was a "bunch of crap." So, let me rephrase my question. Is a law that is intended to protect children by requiring that their parent / caregiver notify the authorities of a child’s death or disappearance in a timely manner really a bunch of crap? Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

Nice

Maybe I spend too much time reading comments on Yahoo News. That's the first place I heard about it, so it was only natural.

Whatever, I said I wouldn't argue. At least in my opinion, the law has been propelled by people who do not agree with the verdict. My point is that there are already laws for this. They may not be as to the point or as strict, but they are laws. So if I disagree with the law, the only possible opinion I can have is it's a "bunch of crap" from people who are....

Originally Posted by Brendan

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

We're entitled to our opinions. I may think it's a "bunch of crap" and you may agree with it. Is this a problem?

If it is a problem, then you win the argument, okay? I said I'd stop so that's what I will do.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

My point is that there are already laws for this.

Ummm, no there isn't. Current Florida law makes it a misdemeanor for failing to report a child’s death. The proposed law would change it from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, there is no law against not reporting a missing child. This new law would change that. Still not sure how that's a "bunch of crap."

Originally Posted by Brendan

We're entitled to our opinions.

Yes, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but you don't seem to really know much about the things you are commenting on.

Edited to add: You still didn't answer my question. Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?