~*~ Caylee's Law ~*~

[Rail_Tracer]

Originally Posted by CathyR

Yes the child dies of SIDS but the 1 hour window of death report was violated. The photo is to prove the States side of "knowledge of death" but the death is not reported in a "timely" manner according to Casey's law. What about a death in a remote area where there are no cell phones etc? A tragic camping accident. What about people who live in rural areas without a telephone? They hiked to the nearest phone but that took more than the allotted time.
Honestly do the research, how many childrens deaths are not reported within this time frame anyway?

The missing part, reporting the disappearance, I agree with but there should be a clause for special circumstances such as those I outlined above.

BTW I think the young (9 years old) Jewish boy who was recently murdered-his parents didn't call the police right away. They turned to a local group to look for their son and it was longer than an hour before they called in the police. Under Casey's law those parents are going to jail.

People so want to DO SOMETHING about Caylee's death are willing to throw away logic and common sense for a sense of accomplishment. Would they be pushing for this law had she been convicted? I think not. So this is a law born out of blood lust and not a true NEED.

Just because a lot of people want the law doesn't make it correct or mean that lots of people are going to suffer needlessly if it passes.

All the laws that I have seen actually being drafted range between 24 to 48 hours (nothing even close to an hour. I agree- that would be placing a ridiculous burden on a parent.)

Many children's deaths are never reported- it's just not older children usually. (Those happen, too, though. I have an older post on this thread that gives a few links if you're interested.)

Normally, it's infants. They're easy to kill and to hide. People notice when an older child goes missing. A pregnancy is easier to conceal or explain away. Newborns get dumped all the time and no one reports those babies as missing within an hour or twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours of death because the only one who knows that child exists doesn't want them found.

And, quite honestly, even if the Casey Anthony trial had never existed- even if I had never heard of Caylee.... I would still support legislation like Caylee's law.

[Rail_Tracer]

And CathyR,

To address your other concern:

Absolutely- there needs to be something in the legislation to address special circumstances (such as a natural disaster, inability to communicate, etc.)

Also, I think something should be in there to address mental illness, dementia, etc. Unfortunately, someone with one of these conditions may not respond correctly to the presence of a body. And sometimes people with these illnesses are parents or caretakers. I don't know if it would be right to make them a felon, though, simply because they responded inappropriately to a tragic situation (such as a SIDS case- as in your example). This needs to be thought about carefully and discussed.

But I still think a law ought to be made.

[Omachka]

Originally Posted by Rail_Tracer

And CathyR,

To address your other concern:

Absolutely- there needs to be something in the legislation to address special circumstances (such as a natural disaster, inability to communicate, etc.)

Also, I think something should be in there to address mental illness, dementia, etc. Unfortunately, someone with one of these conditions may not respond correctly to the presence of a body. And sometimes people with these illnesses are parents or caretakers. I don't know if it would be right to make them a felon, though, simply because they responded inappropriately to a tragic situation (such as a SIDS case- as in your example). This needs to be thought about carefully and discussed.

But I still think a law ought to be made.

I know, I know I said I wouldn't be posting in this thread again but I just can't help myself.

I can't remember any law or statute for felonies that contain these sorts of special circumstance but I obviously haven't read all the laws there are. Do you mean if they have dementia and they lie about the whereabouts of their under the age of 12 child it should be a misdemeanor or that they are exempt? How many people with dementia are caretakers of children under 12? Maybe they should just exempt everyone who shouldn't be in charge of a young child... or charge the person who put someone with dementia or who is too mentally ill to answer to the law in charge of their child to begin with?

I would think that special circumstances would be the job of the courts or grand juries to decide when considering an indictment and not the legislatures. I could be wrong about that but wouldn't our laws be pages and pages long each if they all picked apart every possible special circumstance... and then what happens when something comes up that they couldn't imagine and it's not included? Who decides what to do then? Every single situation is different so I would think it would have be up to the courts or grand juries to decide if the circumstances warrant special treatment. Just making a law such as the proposed Caylee's Law allows grand juries and judges to consider those circumstances in each case to begin with and I think that's where the legislature's job ends. It wouldn't be good to let any one of the branches of government overreach.

If anyone can find a link that answers these questions, I'd appreciate the research. I will try and find something on it myself too... maybe one of the lawyers on board can answer some of this for us.

While I'm here I just want to say that I've heard back from all the reps I wrote to about Caylee's law and also about juror reform and both bills are up for our next session. If these bills (one in the house... actually 2 versions of Caylee's Law are in our house right now but will likely get combined... and one for juror reform in the senate) pass they will be law by next summer. I wrote to reps from other districts as well and all I contacted are for both these pieces of legislation. Go Florida!!

[Rail_Tracer]

Originally Posted by Omachka

I can't remember any law or statute for felonies that contain these sorts of special circumstance but I obviously haven't read all the laws there are. Do you mean if they have dementia and they lie about the whereabouts of their under the age of 12 child it should be a misdemeanor or that they are exempt? How many people with dementia are caretakers of children under 12? Maybe they should just exempt everyone who shouldn't be in charge of a young child... or charge the person who put someone with dementia or who is too mentally ill to answer to the law in charge of their child to begin with?

I would think that special circumstances would be the job of the courts or grand juries to decide when considering an indictment and not the legislatures. I could be wrong about that but wouldn't our laws be pages and pages long each if they all picked apart every possible special circumstance... and then what happens when something comes up that they couldn't imagine and it's not included? Who decides what to do then? Every single situation is different so I would think it would have be up to the courts or grand juries to decide if the circumstances warrant special treatment. Just making a law such as the proposed Caylee's Law allows grand juries and judges to consider those circumstances in each case to begin with and I think that's where the legislature's job ends. It wouldn't be good to let any one of the branches of government overreach.

If anyone can find a link that answers these questions, I'd appreciate the research. I will try and find something on it myself too... maybe one of the lawyers on board can answer some of this for us.

Oh, I understand your point. I'm just stating I feel it needs to be thought about and discussed (whether anything actually is put into the bill or not).

It's a very difficult subject matter and I can't tell you how I feel about it, truly. Only, that I don't feel comfortable putting a grieving mentally ill mother in prison as a felon if she has a history of mental illness and a laundry list of psychiatrists to prove it. In a hypothetical example, a mother with a long history of mental illness has a baby girl that dies in her sleep (SIDS). Say, the mother has a psychotic break and is convinced that Jesus will perform a miracle and resurrect the child in seven days. So, she bathes the child and dresses her. Puts the child on the bed and sings hymns to her and waits. Someone finds out what's happening (a mentally ill person often makes no attempt to hide their actions) and calls the police. I don't feel comfortable lumping this woman with a long history of mental illness whose child died through no negligence or act of mistreatment in with the likes of a woman who kills her child because she doesn't want her by duct taping her mouth shut and throws her in a swamp and then lies about the whereabouts of her child when people inquire about her.

Granted, the law may not differ between these two cases. I would hope common sense would. It's a very difficult and complex thing to judge how mental illness would affect a case.

It's just like when a mentally ill person kills a child. It's really difficult to say what should happen to that person. Do you remember the case of Otty Sanchez? I'll leave a link...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32185637...tilation-case/

She killed her newborn and ate parts of her baby. I would say she was mentally ill. Should a court treat someone like her the same as a person who is not mentally ill and simply chooses to kill their child because they don't want them?

Then, what of a mentally ill person who knows they have a mental illness that can cause them to act irrationally, knows that medication can help them, but chooses not to take it. Should that person be treated differently by the courts than either a non-mentally ill person accused of a crime or a person who is found to be mentally ill but who was either not aware that they had a mental illness or for whom medications were ineffective. There's really a lot of shades of gray out there.

[Omachka]

Originally Posted by Rail_Tracer

Oh, I understand your point. I'm just stating I feel it needs to be thought about and discussed (whether anything actually is put into the bill or not).

It's a very difficult subject matter and I can't tell you how I feel about it, truly. Only, that I don't feel comfortable putting a grieving mentally ill mother in prison as a felon if she has a history of mental illness and a laundry list of psychiatrists to prove it. In a hypothetical example, a mother with a long history of mental illness has a baby girl that dies in her sleep (SIDS). Say, the mother has a psychotic break and is convinced that Jesus will perform a miracle and resurrect the child in seven days. So, she bathes the child and dresses her. Puts the child on the bed and sings hymns to her and waits. Someone finds out what's happening (a mentally ill person often makes no attempt to hide their actions) and calls the police. I don't feel comfortable lumping this woman with a long history of mental illness whose child died through no negligence or act of mistreatment in with the likes of a woman who kills her child because she doesn't want her by duct taping her mouth shut and throws her in a swamp and then lies about the whereabouts of her child when people inquire about her.

Granted, the law may not differ between these two cases. I would hope common sense would. It's a very difficult and complex thing to judge how mental illness would affect a case.

It's just like when a mentally ill person kills a child. It's really difficult to say what should happen to that person. Do you remember the case of Otty Sanchez? I'll leave a link...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32185637...tilation-case/

She killed her newborn and ate parts of her baby. I would say she was mentally ill. Should a court treat someone like her the same as a person who is not mentally ill and simply chooses to kill their child because they don't want them?

Then, what of a mentally ill person who knows they have a mental illness that can cause them to act irrationally, knows that medication can help them, but chooses not to take it. Should that person be treated differently by the courts than either a non-mentally ill person accused of a crime or a person who is found to be mentally ill but who was either not aware that they had a mental illness or for whom medications were ineffective. There's really a lot of shades of gray out there.

I understand why that case bothers you and how it could make you worry about gray areas. That's why our system of checks and balances is a good thing though. It takes all those shades of gray into account without giving all the power to just one part of the government. The story at that link is horrific. It's horrible that things like that happen but they do and for various reasons. Now that poor child's father has to second guess himself and will live with guilt that he didn't see it coming in time to stop it. I didn't follow that case but I'm sure she was arrested. What happens next is usually a grand jury hearing. That's where a jury of regular people decide whether to indict or what charges to indict on. Say Caylee's law was in effect and she was arrested and charged with it. A grand jury might then be convened to decide whether to charge her with that as a felony or whether she was too mentally ill and should be charged with something less. Then, say she were indicted with failure to report the death pursuant to Caylee's law and it was a felony. It would be assigned to a trial court. A defense attorney would either be retained by the mother or by the court for her if she were declared indigent. That defense attorney would most likely do his job properly and ask for her to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to see if she were mentally able to stand trial. That's checks and balances all the way through. It doesn't completely rely on the legislature, the police, or the court system. It's a combination with regular citizens also included in the mix. Our system is built that way. It's supposed to catch those gray areas. Our system isn't perfect but I think it's a good system. Even after this mess of a verdict, I still believe in it. In Caylee's case, Casey got away with murder and was only given misdemeanor charges. I think the law should have been there and she should have at least been given felony charges and prison time (not just the county jail). Since Casey was indicted by a grand jury and passed not one but 4 psychological exams, I'd say she didn't fall into a gray area. I truly believe there are others who wouldn't fall into those gray areas either and with the law in place law enforcement and prosecutors would at least have some tools to put those who deserve to be punished in prison.

All that being said, it's just my opinion but I stand strongly and firmly behind having this legislation in place. In Florida, the bill pending is what I feel would be good and I have let all my representatives, senators and the governor know it (always the optimist that it will pass the house). Each state that decides to go for this will have it's own and it's up to everyone in each state to read and decide if it's good as written and then let their representatives know one way or the other. Honestly though, it doesn't have to be in the legislation. Someone who commits a crime that falls under any law still has to pass many tests before it gets down to punishment and all those different sets of circumstances will be taken into account then. It truly is the way the whole system is built and it's built that way to make sure no citizen gets trampled under it's power.

[MissJames]

Originally Posted by snowdaze

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s_n.htm?csp=hf When I read that George Anthony was supporting this law, I was on the fence about it. I am on the "Anything Anthony" boycott train. Just to make it clear to everyone, there is no need to donate to their new "foundation" to get this law passed. I am actually sickened that they are tying Caylee's Law to their foundation and money donations. Nobody, IMO, should be making any money on the death of this child.

ITA . Regardless of where they stand,they have broken the public's trust in anything associated with them.The very last thing they should be doing is taking donations ,IMO.

[luckyme]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=8241442

nc will probally pass the law.

[SurfieTX]

http://www.oaoa.com/opinion/general-68795-rule-law.html

CHAPMAN: The dangers of 'Caylee's Law'


Already kids are reported missing at the rate of more than half a million a year, usually because they run away or neglect to tell parents where they are.

A 2002 Justice Department study noted that "all but a very small percentage are recovered fairly quickly."

But a mother whose son has a habit of absconding and reappearing could go to prison for exercising sensible patience. A divorced dad whose ex-wife gets angry when he’s tardy returning the kids from a weekend outing could give new meaning to "custodial parent."
Cops, meanwhile, would be swamped with cases that are beyond their capacity to investigate and don’t need investigating.

[snowdaze]

Originally Posted by MissJames

ITA . Regardless of where they stand,they have broken the public's trust in anything associated with them.The very last thing they should be doing is taking donations ,IMO.

Not only donations, but they are allowed to take a salary. To me, trying to make a living off this whole tragedy is just wrong on all levels. Now adding Caylee's Law to their new "foundation" and ask for donations is just not necessary. It was already well on it's way before they joined in. Maybe I'd feel they were more "genuine" about it if they had started this petition, IMO. You are right, the trust just isn't there.

[Omachka]

Originally Posted by snowdaze

Not only donations, but they are allowed to take a salary. To me, trying to make a living off this whole tragedy is just wrong on all levels. Now adding Caylee's Law to their new "foundation" and ask for donations is just not necessary. It was already well on it's way before they joined in. Maybe I'd feel they were more "genuine" about it if they had started this petition, IMO. You are right, the trust just isn't there.

The A's have yanked my sympathies all over the place. I know what they are doing is legal but it just seems wrong to try and earn a living off a dead grandchild. It feels like they are just trying to get something for nothing. I guess it remains to be seen if they actually help anyone with their foundation. If they do, then I'll be ok with it I guess. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this foundation will only help the A's. It would be so much better if they'd get regular jobs to live on and donate their time to the foundation. Wonder when was the last time GA actually tried to find work instead of just saying how impossible it is.

[MissJames]

1,261,7633:55pm EST Tues. July 19

[snowdaze]

Originally Posted by Omachka

The A's have yanked my sympathies all over the place. I know what they are doing is legal but it just seems wrong to try and earn a living off a dead grandchild. It feels like they are just trying to get something for nothing. I guess it remains to be seen if they actually help anyone with their foundation. If they do, then I'll be ok with it I guess. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this foundation will only help the A's. It would be so much better if they'd get regular jobs to live on and donate their time to the foundation. Wonder when was the last time GA actually tried to find work instead of just saying how impossible it is.

ITA. Their past behavior has me completely jaded. I can't see people buying into what they're selling. But donations have nothing to do with Caylee's Law getting passed and I believe it's misleading to use this hand in hand with their "foundation".

[SkeeterWI]

Caylee's Law WILL pass WITHOUT their help!

[sirensong]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is a link to sign a petition asking CA be charged with federal crimes. If it hasn't been mentioned, I would like to start a thread so everyone could sign it! Please delete if this is not appropriate here.

http://www.change.org/petitions/lets...-federal-court

[sirensong]

I also found this one, with only 20 signatures!

http://www.change.org/petitions/gove...ury-misconduct

[snowdaze]

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/crime/M...till-no-arrest I believe this story, local to my area, could fall under Caylee's Law. This poor little girl was found dead by her grandmother. She was in the care of her mother on a visit. When police arrived they found her mother incoherent from drugs in a shed in the backyard. Never reported missing or dead. And still no justice. Poor thing.

[MissJames]

1,266,929 12:39 am EST Thurs. July 21

[essies]

Caylee's Law: Closing the Loopholes in Florida Law

Senator Mike Fasano (R), New Port Richey, has draft legislation for the 2012 legislative session after the Casey Anthony verdict came down
snip-
“Over and over, from the beginning of this, Sen. Fasano kept asking about the 31 days: why is it that this child was missing for 31 days and no one reported it?” said Greg Giordano, Fasano's chief legislative aide.

"As we know now, there is no law in Florida that requires that missing children be reported to law enforcement within a certain time-frame. If there had been such a law on the books this case may have turned out quite differently."
I asked about the criticism in the media that says Caylee's Law is a political knee-jerk reaction for personal gain of elected officials:

"Fasano’s response to those critics is simple: If the life of one child can be saved by the threat of prison time for someone who fails to report the child’s absence than the law will have the desired effect," Giordano said. "Nothing can be done to bring Caylee back. However, if future children who may one day be in the same situation as Caylee was, then the work done to pass such a law would be worth the effort."
http://clearwater.patch.com/articles...-florida-law-2

[MissJames]

1,270,207:sunshine: 12:40pm EST Friday July 22

[MissJames]

1,272,016 2:00 pm EST Sat July 23

[MissJames]

1,275,521

[Omachka]

New song by City Boi featuring Shawn Isaac written for Caylee's Law. This was posted on Facebook by Clint House for RideforCaylee.org

Caylee Anthony:"Caylee's Law"_City Boi ft Shawn Isaac - YouTube

Caylee Anthony:"Caylee's Law"_City Boi ft Shawn Isaac - YouTube

[MissJames]

1,280,204

[Tiki]

Received from
JAMES S. ALESI
New York State Senator


Thank you for contacting me in support of creating “Caylee’s Law”.

Like you, I was shocked and outraged by the acquittal of Casey Anthony and
the tragic death of Caylee Anthony. This case clearly pointed to the need
for stiffer penalties for the failure to report a child’s disappearance.

I sponsor, along with my Senate colleagues, a new bill called “Protect Our
Children Act” (S.5862). This comprehensive legislation makes sweeping
changes to the state’s child protection laws, fixes the shortcomings of
state law to protect the children and that perpetrators are appropriately
punished.

This legislation not only makes it a felony for not reporting a child’s
disappearance within 24 hours but there are more than two dozen provisions
in this legislation, many which ensure harsher felony penalties and does
create the new crime of aggravated murder of a child with a sentence of
life without parole.

We owe it to our children to strengthen the laws to better protect them
before abuse turns fatal and to provide better tools to help law
enforcement obtain justice should such a tragedy occur.


Again, thank you for contacting me about this emotional and important
issue.


JAMES S. ALESI
New York State Senator

.

[PassTheMotrin]

I received a thank-you letter from my state representative, as well.