Fl. Rep. Scott Plakon introduces "Caylee's Law"
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Caylees-Law-0707.pdf
The law requires you to report a missing OR dead child.None of these laws would have applied to Anthony anyway. She didn't 'fail to report a missing baby'; the baby was dead.
The law requires you to report a missing OR dead child.
So it would have certainly gotten Casey because her daughter was either missing or dead and she failed to report either.
There are similar laws on the book for other crimes where they layer one charge after another in order to ensure that a person is found guilty of something.
So, what if someone kidnaps your child and says "you have 30 days to raise $10,000 cash. If you contact the authorities, I'll kill your child."
This. And Casey can't be charged with it due to ex-post-facto.Reactionary laws that have to be named after dead kids to gain popular appeal are usually not a good idea.
This is a bad law, but it's going to become a federal law. It's possible that Casey wasn't even the killer anyway or that she didn't even know what she was doing. Maybe she was having a seizure. The evidence for the guilt is there, but the evidence for her innocence is also there.
They also felt that she did it, but wouldn't convict due to lack of evidence.They did layer up charges and she was found guilty.
They also felt that she did it, but wouldn't convict due to lack of evidence.
This charge would have been a slam dunk and Casey would be looking at 10-20 years instead of walking free.
IMO the people opposing the law are saying "we have too many laws, I'd rather a killer walk free than pass another law"
It is really a stupid argument. The government passes laws like this all the time. Florida passed 274 new laws last year.
A lot of them are common sense laws that make things illegal that weren't but should have been before or stiffen the penalties for repeat offenses:
Underage drinking (HB 33):
Changes: Stiffens criminal penalties for anyone caught two or more times giving alcohol to underage drinkers. Anyone who facilitates underage drinking would be subject to a first-degree misdemeanor on the second offense.
They also felt that she did it, but wouldn't convict due to lack of evidence.
This charge would have been a slam dunk and Casey would be looking at 10-20 years instead of walking free.
IMO the people opposing the law are saying "we have too many laws, I'd rather a killer walk free than pass another law"
Okay, that's funny as hell.
I'm not sure that's a good litmus test. Had she been found guilty, few of us would think that NOT notifying authorities of a missing child is a problem, but now we see evidence that it is indeed a problem. I think a better (though much less clear-cut) litmus test would be does this solve any (admittedly statistically rare) problems without introducing significantly more new problems?Buying alcohol for minors happens all the time. Minors are accident prone to begin with, drunk minors even moreso...
Like I've said all along... My litmus test is as follows: Would anyone be talking about this law if she was found guilty?
This isn't a consistant problem. There aren't a glut of mothers burying their kids under suspicious circumstances. And no law you pass will put her in jail.
IMO the people in favor of this law are saying "OMG we need to prevent something that didn't even happen from happening again please save us guberment"
How is this 'big government' ??It's actually kind of funny that one of the top partisan posters, who totally supports small government, personal responsibility, anti-socialism, and all the other neocon talking points turns around and wants a "big government" law passed. Talk about 100% turnabout.
PJ, you are being blissfully naive in your projection of how this law would be used. I can imagine a host of scenarios wehrein a parent is vulnerable to prosecution when they are not guilty of violating the law simply because they cannot produce evidence that their child wasn't actually missing for the duration that the police suspect. Not to mention that after a few years of using this horrible law, when children actually do go missing, if it isn't reported almost instantly the police will start instantly suspecting the parents of falsifying the timeline so as not to appear guilty of failing to report in time. There will also be times when parents may, through no fault of their own, not have reported a dead or missing child in time* and have a very good reason for lying to the police. It could end up hurting a lot of missing children investigations.How is this 'big government' ??
I am opposed to murder too, is that a big government law??
The law is pretty simple and would only be applied in very few cases.
1. Your child is missing for 48 hours and you think their safety may be at risk then you must report it to the police.
2. Your child died in an accident then you must report it to the police within 24 hours.
Simple stuff. I don't think it imposing too much for people to report missing or dead children.
hmm there is NO evidence of her guilt. There was never enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt, but she was tried anyways, and people cast her guilty regardless of the complete and utter lack of evidence suggesting she did it.