Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty

[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