It Was Inevitable
Yep. "Caylee's Law."
Scott Greenfield blogs at Simple Justice:
Via Josh Blackmon, it appears that the genius of crowdsource is pushing at Change.org for, ta da, a new law named after Caylee Anthony. Because bizarre, outlier events demand a new law? Nah, because every time a child dies, no matter how bizarre the circumstance, society must prevent it from ever happening again. Because no new bizarre event will take the life of another child if we pass a law named after the last one.
The law makes it a felony "for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered. This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice."
Naive.
The law also makes it "a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late."
Josh notes some faults, observes Scott:
1 Hour! And if someone tells the police on the 61st minute, they go to jail. 24 hours! What about a sleepover in the woods?
Scott adds:
On a more serious note, if a parent was inclined to murder her child, would fear of a prosecution under this law stop her? Would the sentence be death plus a year?
Note "The Ted Frank Rule." In Ted's words:
"My rule of thumb is a strong presumption that any law named after a victim is poor public policy enacted by legislators who confuse voting against a law with voting against an innocent person."
via @WalterOlson
I want to make this crystal clear: I am against child murder, against sex-slave trafficking, and totally against terrorists having nukes.
BOTU at July 7, 2011 3:46 PM
Obviously the 24 hrs/60 minutes is extreme, but a more reasonable would help close the loophole that enabled Casey Anthony to walk free. Pretty much everyone recognized that heading off to party while your kid is missing or dead is egregious behavior, if not evidence of guilt, but if law isn't on the books then there's nothing you can do about it. Not that this would stop a parent intent on murdering their child, but at least it would give the prosecution something to work with
Shannon at July 7, 2011 4:54 PM
Balko
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2011 4:56 PM
Did the announcement of this possible law come with the statement, "Because now, more than ever..."? It seems like movements like this are almost always punctuated with "now, more than ever..." to make sure you know it's REALLY important.
JonnyT at July 7, 2011 7:10 PM
How about a "Nancy Grace" law? If Nancy Grace puts your story front and center, you don't get convicted.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 7, 2011 7:25 PM
Well, it makes a tiny bit of sense in a case like this, or any other in which a child's body is too badly decomposed to determine cause of death, or even before. The jury would've had to convict Anthony for not reporting Caylee's death, so she would at least be a convicted felon right now, if there had been such a law. And I can think of another half-dozen cases of the top of my head where it might've been useful. It's not as crazy as, say, Megan's Law, even if the 24 hours ought to be stretched.
But, really, 24 hours seems to be about right as long as they define "disappearance" right. Obviously if I expect my son home from a camping trip with friends at 4 PM Sunday, that's when the 24 hours should start, not when I last saw him at 10 AM Saturday. I can't imagine a reason to not report a kid missing before 4 PM Monday if he was meant to be home at 4 PM Sunday. Can anyone think of a situation in which a non-guilty parent would have a reason to wait 24 hours plus one minute from the time you expect your kid to be at home, school, or wherever before reporting him missing? It's not a crime to be a runaway, so it's not a matter of protecting the kid from prosecution in the case of teenagers.
Jenny Had A Chance at July 7, 2011 7:37 PM
And what happens when you have a runaway 14 year old that plays the game -- I'm staying at Dad's/ friends/camping with the family X for a few weeks.
There was a period in my life that I and my friends did the cross calling to go out partying. I probably could have pulled off a week before any questions were asked. And even then -- it would have been a question of when we would show up where. Granted this was pre-cell, but...
If the parents don't want the police involved from the CPS angle, then the kid turns up dead -- what parent expects that. And this is saying how to parent kids by the state.
I grant a difference between a 2 year old and 14 year old, but how is the law written?
Add in what happened in the David/Sean Goldman parental kidnapping could fall under this.
Jim P. at July 7, 2011 7:39 PM
@Jim, that's the thing...if you really do believe your kid is at the mall, or at Dad's or at Bobby's, he's not missing. The law makes it illegal to not have any clue where your kid is for more than 24 hours without calling police...not to be wrong about where your kid is, as your parents and your friends' parents' were, but to plain not even have a clue and "search independently" as Casey did. For your parents to have had any trouble, here, you and all the friends you were using to cross call---"Okay, Bob call and say you're with Jim. Jim call and say you're with Pete. Pete call and say you're with Tom..."---and convince your parents you were camping while you were partying would've had to disappear. If just you disappeared, Bob, Tom and Pete could all vouch for the fact that your parents thought you were at the lake with Pete and his folks.
One hour from time of discovering death seems fishy...that should be 24 hours, too, I think. I could see the one-hour thing really hurting parents of babies who die unexpectedly, if a prosecutor sees an easy win.
Jenny Had A Chance at July 7, 2011 7:54 PM
The law makes it a felony "for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered. This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice."
What about the guilty children? We always hear about the innocent children, but never the guilty ones.
Sorry; tired of the treacle that's been poured all over this horrible but hardly unique or unusual incident.
Kevin at July 7, 2011 8:28 PM
"The law makes it illegal to not have any clue where your kid is for more than 24 hours without calling police...not to be wrong about where your kid is, as your parents and your friends' parents' were, but to plain not even have a clue and "search independently" as Casey did."
Posts like this make me despair of anyone learning about law.
Please tell us all how to tell the difference between those two cases.
A law is a definition, and everything beyond that definition is NOT a violation of that law.
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 8:29 PM
"I want to make this crystal clear: I am against child murder, against sex-slave trafficking, and totally against terrorists having nukes."
You left off the part where you support the authorities' assuming you guilty of all those things and patting you down... "because it will make you safer".
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 8:35 PM
How is it not already illegal to fail to report a death?? Or a missing child? This really seems like it has to be covered somewhere already.
A child on a a sleepover or campout is, by definition, not missing. So nice try with that alarmism.
And obviously this law isn't meant to disuade anyone, it's to make it possible to convict future CA's on SOMETHING.
But like I said, it seems like this has to be covered already.
momof4 at July 7, 2011 8:48 PM
I get to be first to say ...
It is for the children!
LauraGr at July 7, 2011 8:50 PM
My rule of thumb for scrutinizing new or prospective laws is to ask myself "How can this law be applied to cause the most harm? What is the worst that can happen?"
It seems to me that punishing parents that have a child missing is not really beneficial UNLESS the parent is the reason why the child is missing.
I think there needs to be some scrutiny of the loopholes Caylee's mom jumped through. She should have been convicted of something that would keep her behind bars.
I feel like she got rewarded for lying and doing a sidestep. That doesn't sit right with me.
LauraGr at July 7, 2011 8:56 PM
Man, oh man. Legislate in haste, repent in leisure.
This is a really, really crappy law. Epically crappy. I can think of a whole bunch of scenarios in which this law goes awry, especially the 24-hour disappearance law. For shared custody arrangements that would be a particular nightmare - if you don't have the kid on one weekend, how are you supposed to know that they're missing? It makes no sense.
Anthony's trial is over, no matter what you think of the verdict. It's done. This law isn't going to change that.
Choika at July 8, 2011 9:36 AM
Oh, have a heart. Your poor politicians need timely *issues* to run on that won't piss people off, like proposing to cut programs.
Everyone loves the anti-abuser platform.
jeanne at July 8, 2011 9:43 AM
I'm uncomfortable requiring grieving parents to report their dead child in an hour. In would be especially cumbersome and unreasonable for the ones that do actually die in accidents, and why would we want to put more strain on people already strained enough.
People grieving react differently and some react strangely. What part of regulating people into all the same person sounds enjoyable for anyone?
Cat at July 8, 2011 1:11 PM
"I'm uncomfortable requiring grieving parents to report their dead child in an hour."
I guess I can't understand what else they would be doing. I mean, if you find your kid dead, aren't you going to call 911? Seems like that would cover the reporting of it. Now, if the reporting is going in to the station and filling out forms in triplicate, then I'm with you. But letting SOMEONE know? Yeah, an hour from discovery seems plenty of time.
momof4 at July 8, 2011 3:16 PM
A child on a a sleepover or campout is, by definition, not missing. So nice try with that alarmism. -momof4
and a 8 year old boy molested by his female teenage baysiter isnt a child molester - but he was charged as one anyway
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CBS_8_year_old_boy_sexual_conduct_sitter.aspx
SO heed well the alrmists
lujlp at July 8, 2011 3:17 PM
One more time: Please tell me how to hold a parent liable for not knowing where her child is.
The bereaved parent was adamant at her arraignment. "She's at her aunt's house," Crystal stated confidently. "Nothing bad has ever happened there before."
Tell me what the penalty is when there is no bad outcome.
Crystal's son, Mark, 14, was taken by Child Protective Services upon his return - from a multistate road trip with older friends - because his mother had been jailed. A spokeswoman for the Center said Mark would be released to a responsible relative when and if such a person could be located.
THINK!
Radwaste at July 9, 2011 7:07 AM
What if a parent is hiding a child from an abusive spouse? With Caylee's law, the abusive spouse could falsely accuse the protector of not reporting the child missing and thus get him/her thrown in prison while regaining access to her/his little victim.
One of my state Senators in Maryland, Nancy Jacobs, has proposed Caylee's law up here. I normally like her, but I think she's an imbecile on this issue.
mpetrie98 at July 9, 2011 10:29 PM
Leave a comment