Quote :

"Fueled by verdict anger, push for 'Caylee's Law' starts in Pa., N.J. By John Timpane, Maya Rao, and Amy Worden The national wildfire known as "Caylee's Law" has come to Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Legislators in both states are drafting proposed laws - in response to public uproar over the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial - that would oblige parents and guardians to promptly report the death or disappearance of a child. The overnight push for new laws has some lawmakers and legal experts cautioning against "knee-jerk" legislation. Anthony was acquitted in an Orlando, Fla., court Tuesday of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Caylee was missing for 31 days before her death was reported; her mother was found guilty of misleading investigators, a misdemeanor. The case attracted white-hot public interest, particularly on cable news and the Web. Outcry against the verdict was immediate. Social media and the blogosphere spearheaded outrage that soon went viral. On Twitter, all 10 "trending topics" Tuesday afternoon were Anthony-related; Casey-related tweets numbered 325,283. A Facebook page titled "RIP Caylee Marie Anthony (2005-2008)" attracted 542,678 "likes" by Thursday afternoon. Michelle Crowder of Oklahoma, inspired by a "Caylee's Law" proposal on Facebook, created a petition for a federal version of such a law on the website Change.org. Crowder wants to make it a felony for parents or caretakers not to report a child's death within one hour or a child's disappearance within 24 hours. The petition had attracted 443,707 supporting votes as of late Thursday afternoon. By then, versions of "Caylee's Law" were afoot in Congress and seven state capitals, including Trenton and Harrisburg. State Sen. Larry Farnese (D., Phila.) said he would introduce a bill to toughen penalties against those who conceal a child's death. It also would create a new offense of "neglecting to report a missing child." The Anthony case "riveted the nation and prompted me to take steps to protect Pennsylvania children from similar injustices," Farnese said. He said he was inspired by a slew of e-mails he received after the verdict. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Stewart Greenleaf (R., Montgomery), said he had not yet seen Farnese's proposal and would review it when it reached his committee. He cautioned against a rush to approve "headline-driven" legislation. "My first reaction is that too often we pass legislation that is knee-jerk, thinking we solve a problem, and we don't look at the consequences," said Greenleaf, admitting he, too, has been swept up by the pressure to respond to a particularly notorious crime. "That's not good legislation." Farnese said he didn't consider himself part of a rush to legislate. "Our job as legislators is to look at trends across the country," he said. "We need to be vigilant." He said his bill would change concealing the death of a child from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony, with a maximum sentence of seven years and a $15,000 fine. It also would create the offense of failure to report a child missing, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In New Jersey, three Assembly Republicans, Domenick DiCicco of Gloucester and Camden Counties, and John Amodeo and Vince Polistina of Atlantic County, said they, too, were at work on a version of "Caylee's Law." "Caylee Anthony may have been denied justice, but we can make sure New Jersey's laws reflect our commitment to keeping children safe," Amodeo said. "Caylee Anthony's death is an unthinkable tragedy that gripped our hearts," DiCicco said. "The jury couldn't agree with absolute certainty that her mother killed this precious child, but there's no doubt she did not want authorities to find Caylee." The "Caylee's Law" movement joins a number of laws named for victims. Perhaps best known is Megan's Law, enacted in 1994 in New Jersey after the rape and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street. Of the various "Caylee's Law," proposals, Perry Dane, professor of law at Rutgers University-Camden, said: "Unlike some of the other named laws that have come up in recent years that have seemed like overreactions or had unintended consequences, this one strikes me on its face as one of those perfectly sensible." Parents and guardians are required by law to provide for and protect children in their care, Dane said, but in the absence of laws specifically aimed at notifying authorities, a "Caylee's Law" may be worth a look. Rikki Klieman, a Los Angeles-based criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor, said that while she supports the Anthony verdict, she also finds it reasonable in some cases to elevate misdemeanors, such as failure to notify, to felonies. "But we have to have a debate about defining this," she said. "In some of the proposed laws I've seen, the times are very short. Yes, 31 days is too long, but I can think of many situations in which 48 hours would be too short. We can't put parents and caretakers in a situation that may not be their fault. We have to pay attention to reasonable complications and circumstances." Some, like Greenleaf, professed unease at laws made in the heat of public reaction to traumatic events or unpopular court decisions. Forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland, of DeSales University in Bethlehem, warned that "if the law and its support are a knee-jerk reaction, then . . . it's part of the spectator-sport aspect of crime coverage" in which people can overidentify, "feeling the win or loss personally." Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News host , said by e-mail that "99.9 percent of parents report missing children. I hate to think we have to legislate for the one-tenth of one percent who don't. Maybe we have to." Rutgers' Dane said, "The problem is that such laws can lead to a rush to judgment, and possibly overreaction. We have to look at a proposed statute on its merits, not according to its name.""

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/125199389.html

I know there's a whole thread in Chit Chat about the case - but this is now a law that is being taken up by states around the country.

While I agree that 31 days is WAY too long not to report a child missing, an hour is ridiculous. I remember being a kid and forgetting to tell my mom that I would go sleep at a friends house or something. If parents are required by law to report a child missing within an hour of them realizing they were "missing" can you even imagine the extra burden on law enforcement?

While I don't have kids - I'd be interested in hearing from tdubbers who do have children, what they think of this.

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM. Reason : link]

7/8/2011 10:18:30 AM

they have 24 hours for a child's disappearance

i think 24 hours is suitable for the death, give the family some time to grieve

my only question is if they can put an age limit on what consititutes a "child".

7/8/2011 10:22:07 AM

If my 2 year old daughter was missing for an hour I would be in a insane state of panic. 31 days is ridiculous and just plain sad.

7/8/2011 10:23:52 AM

my reading comprehension is severely lacking.

i read another article that was saying that one of the proposals is for reporting a child missing after 1 hour.

24 hours is much more reasonable

my bad

7/8/2011 10:23:59 AM

Unless I am missing something, the hour requirement is for death.

I think it's a good law. I have a baby girl. God forbid if she died, the last thing in the world I would do is hide it. I can't think of a good reason to do so - maybe there is one out there, but I can't think of it.

7/8/2011 10:24:42 AM

yea, i corrected myself - i misread the article.

i think the question would now be, what constitutes a child? is it 17 and under?

cause traditional missing persons cases you can't report until 48 hours.

7/8/2011 10:28:29 AM

^ Total misconception.

7/8/2011 10:30:54 AM

Quote :

"cause traditional missing persons cases you can't report until 48 hours."

This isn't true at all. Just ask Brad Cooper
But seriously, there is no time limit on when you can report a missing person in NC.

7/8/2011 10:32:59 AM

i know my coworker had some issues when her son went "missing" (he was 5 at the time and didn't tell her he was going over to a neighbor's house to play). her son has Aspergers Syndrome so when she called the police to report him missing, they said that even though he is considered to have a disability, they still were going to make her wait 24 hours until she could actually file a missing persons report.

it'll be interesting to see how Caylee's Law comes about. i definitely think that 31 days is WAY too long and parents at some point should be held responsible for not reporting their child missing (hello the case here in NC with the young girl who had overcome cancer - i believe her dad and stepmom waited like 2 weeks before reporting her missing) but this will probably play out like the Amber Alert law - start out small and eventually grow over time.

7/8/2011 10:33:03 AM

wait, you don't have to wait 48 hours to be able to report a missing person? i'm assuming that's state by state?

7/8/2011 10:34:48 AM

Yeah, it's state by state. But most wouldn't be 48 hours anyways, especially not for children. In NC, there's no time restraint placed on it, just an encouragement to call earlier for children or people will disabilities. Nancy Cooper was reported missing by a friend after 5 hours. Brad Cooper thought you had to wait 24, and it was used against him in the trial.

In fact, I think MOST states do not have a time limit, and you can do it as soon as they are missing.

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2011 10:37:11 AM

I'm not certain it's anyone's business if my child dies of natural causes. I probably would report it anyway to avoid suspicion at some point (you know when I'm fucking ready to talk to someone), but making it a law is stupid.

How will this prevent any unlawful deaths? What will it actually accomplish? Do we need a new law?

7/8/2011 10:37:17 AM

^ Good point... if my kid died from cancer or some other terrible illness, I'm not so sure my immediate thought would be CALL THE POLICE NOW

7/8/2011 10:38:45 AM

Nor should it be. What about injuries that could possibly be construed as assault? Should we let the government know my kid broke his arm? What is the point of this proposed law?

If someone murders their kid it's not like they're going to call the cops to avoid having another felony. This is Mickey Mouse bullshit and we have enough laws already.

7/8/2011 10:43:17 AM

i think it's completely a knee jerk reaction honestly.

7/8/2011 10:54:18 AM

The media-infused blood lust continues! One hour for reporting a dead child seems far too soon, for reasons above the grievance period. What if your child was out playing in the woods/neighborhood for a few hours, you find them dead in the woods, and call the cops? Do you get charged with a felony when science shows the kid was dead for over an hour before you called it in?

7/8/2011 10:58:55 AM

Just what we need -- more stupid laws.

7/8/2011 11:17:13 AM

Quote :

"Nor should it be. What about injuries that could possibly be construed as assault? Should we let the government know my kid broke his arm? What is the point of this proposed law? If someone murders their kid it's not like they're going to call the cops to avoid having another felony. This is Mickey Mouse bullshit and we have enough laws already. "

Agreed.

7/8/2011 11:26:56 AM

The only thing a law like this will do is give the courts another charge to send someone to prison on when the state can't prove murder. This is a totally un-enforceable law until after the fact, and would only be enforced if there were not enough evidence to convict on a higher charge and 'the public' did not like the defendant.

7/8/2011 11:29:34 AM

Would anything have changed if Caylee was reported dead after 1 day rather than 30 days?

7/8/2011 11:37:04 AM

Based on past history, virtually every law named after a person is a shit law. As Simone mentioned, this will only be used when an actual crime can't be proved.

7/8/2011 11:42:02 AM

Quote :

"Would anything have changed if Caylee was reported dead after 1 day rather than 30 days?"

Most likely you'd know cause and time of death. There would be evidence left on the body. If they had been honest, and it truly was a drowning, then there wouldn't be all this mess about duct taping, or covering up a murder. The law seems designed to assist the state in prosecuting a case, and not much else.

[Edited on July 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2011 11:52:15 AM

But if she's guilty is she going to contact the state? Of course not. And if they can't convict her with physical evidence, this law isn't going to help them convict her. It's just going to let them slap on another charge.

It's sour grapes that they didn't have physical evidence.

7/8/2011 12:03:41 PM

^I agree. And that's really how I feel about the charges for lying to the investigators too. I think that's a bogus law. If they're allowed to lie to us, why are we held to a higher standard than the cops themselves?

7/8/2011 12:05:11 PM

Why can't the government let people raise their kids the way they see fit? Our most valuable resource? Puh-leeze. Most turn out to be just normal, every day people.

7/8/2011 12:09:50 PM

Quote :

"Based on past history"

the department of redundancy department called and they have your tuna fish sandwich ready.

7/8/2011 12:13:23 PM

I mean...this law is built by and designed to appease people like this

7/8/2011 12:15:43 PM

this is why i love tdub

i originally read the law and thought hey-not a bad idea.
and i come in here and you guys have turned my views the other way.



i love ya'll.

7/8/2011 12:46:36 PM

It seems like it would make morse sense to criminalize the concealment of a death, and part of the definition of that crime could include not reporting it after a reasonable period of time under the circumstances. I'm surprised that this isn't already illegal though.

7/9/2011 4:37:27 AM

Quote :

"not reporting it after a reasonable period of time under the circumstances."

key

7/9/2011 6:21:37 AM

I agree with you in concept, but it would be nearly impossible to draft a law that fits that goal, and isn't too broad or too narrow. The thing about criminal laws, is they really have to be as black and white as they possibly can be. If there's room for gray area, it'll get overturned, because there will eventually be a case where it doesn't fit. And laws have to be predictable. There has to be a clear point where someone *knows* they are breaking the law.

7/9/2011 8:29:59 AM

I think it would possible for some fancy lawyer to do it, and it being too narrow wouldn't be a problem for me.

7/9/2011 1:07:32 PM

Another Tea Party type movement. Lame..



Of course, politician jump on it... to win votes..


Lame all around.

[Edited on July 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2011 1:19:02 PM

Quote :

"Caylee's Law"

has got it goin on

7/9/2011 3:24:35 PM

^It's all that I want, and I've waited for so long (31 days).

7/9/2011 10:33:02 PM

I agree with the reporting missing, not so much the reporting death.

31 days of partying like shit hasn't happened is retarded. Sure, Caylee was probably dead by then but evidence would have been fresh enough to convict someones ass....maybe

7/9/2011 10:43:07 PM

I still do not know how it is not "child abuse" to have no idea where your toddler is for an entire month.

7/10/2011 12:14:30 AM

I don't think that was the case here though. They said they knew she was dead. She lied to the detectives when she said she was missing. I think it just goes to show, in this case, she would have broken this potential new law either way, because she had no intention of alerting the police that Caylee died, whether by drowning accidentally, or murder. Those who are determined to break this law will do so (and are the reason it's being discussed). Tacking on an extra jail sentence is the only result. Those who are predisposed to obey this law don't need it to begin with, because they already comply with the spirit.

7/10/2011 9:18:10 AM

^ agreed

also, the caylee's law people want a FEDERAL law. which raises some constitutional issues.

7/10/2011 4:37:57 PM

^Yes. Definitely should be state by state.

7/10/2011 5:13:28 PM

The government already butts it's nose into too many private affairs, we don't need another BS knee jerk law.

7/10/2011 6:00:11 PM

The US was founded in over 200 years ago, this is the first time we have had a Casey Anthony.

Something tells me the country will survive without a special law just to deal with the next Casey Anthony.

7/11/2011 11:49:40 AM

Quote :

"He said his bill would change concealing the death of a child from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony, with a maximum sentence of seven years and a $15,000 fine. It also would create the offense of failure to report a child missing, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."

this part sounds perfectly reasonable, I mean if a kid is dead then you're attacking his/her right to justice by concealing which is all the victim would have

I would say those deadlines might be a bit too strict however

Quote :

"I don't think that was the case here though. They said they knew she was dead. She lied to the detectives when she said she was missing. I think it just goes to show, in this case, she would have broken this potential new law either way, because she had no intention of alerting the police that Caylee died, whether by drowning accidentally, or murder. Those who are determined to break this law will do so (and are the reason it's being discussed). Tacking on an extra jail sentence is the only result."

well I mean that's ok if she at least gets some punishment for what she did

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : k]

7/11/2011 4:32:35 PM

Why? If the purpose is to punish someone for murder they were acquitted for? I think that's the only reason the Judge tacked on all of her lying sentences consecutively, and I think he overstepped his bounds in doing so. Punish for the crime convicted, not the one you think should have been convicted.

7/11/2011 4:36:10 PM

I think both death and disappearance should be 24 hours. Or at least 12 hours for death. But other than that I think this is fine.

Quote :

"Those who are determined to break this law will do so (and are the reason it's being discussed)."

And they will go to jail for it.

Quote :

"Nor should it be. What about injuries that could possibly be construed as assault? Should we let the government know my kid broke his arm? "

I didn't see anything about injuries in there.

7/11/2011 6:28:21 PM

Quote :

"And they will go to jail for it."

Then what is a valid purpose of the law? Other than to just tack on a longer prison sentence? Shouldn't some social good come of it?

7/11/2011 6:30:22 PM

^^^ YES.

this huffington post article pointed out some other practical problems: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html?ref=fb&src=sp

legal issues aside, the proposed law has other mega problems

and all THOSE reasons aside, emotion and impulse are bad bad bad foundations for public policy decisions (duh)

not to mention the constitutional aspects of a federal law (which definitely won't happen, but it doesn't mean the state versions should either)

i mean this is how i see it: there are 2374920348723094723049823489023472398 reasons why the law is a terrible idea. the only reason it is a good idea is because it MIGHT have subjected casey anthony to additional prison time HAD it been around at the time. is there any reason or logic in passing a law like that. like at all? think about it. i feel as if any person thought about this rationally and practically (not even from a legal standpoint) they'd see that it is a bad, ill thought out, impulsive idea.

Quote :

"well I mean that's ok if she at least gets some punishment for what she did"

i'm sorry but this statement is ridiculous to me. i don't get how the people that think the outcome of her trial was such a great miscarriage of justice can then make statements like these that actually pervert the foundations of our justice system. the system worked. that is great if you don't like the outcome, but that doesn't really matter - the system did its job and that is that. either you are ok with the premises that our justice system was founded on OR you're not. if you make a statement like this it seems that you're not in which case you should probably be lobbying to change the standard of proof in these cases to something less than "beyond a reasonable doubt." i guess if this law gets passed on a state level all the ragers will finally feel like they got "justice" or something. really good reason to pass a shitty law.



[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2011 6:44:05 PM

The Tea Party will champion this law.

7/11/2011 7:02:42 PM

^^hmm not sure what you're implying, I wouldn't support the judge purposely finding her guilty of some lesser offense just because people felt she got off with something but she did commit the concealing crime pretty egregiously and I feel there should be a stiffer penalty for such

Quote :

"Then what is a valid purpose of the law? Other than to just tack on a longer prison sentence? Shouldn't some social good come of it?"

well you can make this argument for a lot of crimes, I assume it would be to keep a shitty/potentially dangerous person out of society longer, discourage people from destroying evidence /maybe committing the crime in the first place at least in theory, and make some attempt to get better justice for victims

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 7:34 PM. Reason : k]

7/11/2011 7:26:45 PM

Who all would this apply to? Anyone in the family that knew Caylee was dead? Or just missing? Or just the legal guardian? Too many variables.

7/11/2011 7:34:20 PM