Casey Anthony case inspires Maryland Legislation

[Cereal Kyller]

Source: Washington Post

Stunned by the not-guilty verdicts this week in Florida's Casey Anthony murder case, Maryland Sen. Nancy Jacobs wants to make it a felony for a parent not to report the death of a child.

Jacobs said dozens of outraged constituents have contacted her and asked her to do something. The Senate minority leader said she is drafting a bill to present in the next legislative session.

She's now examining criminalizing the failure of a parent, guardian or legal caretaker to inform authorities that a child has gone missing or has died -- new crime categories that several local top prosecutors said could prove helpful to them.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/casey-anthony-case-inspires-md-legislation/2011/07/08/gIQANctP3H_blog.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Of course

You don't like a jury verdict, so one way to vent and score cheap political points is to say there outta be a law.

[ChrisBorg]

4. Yes, there outta be a law that if you don't know where your child is for over 24 hours

you should report that to the authorities. You should also report the death within 24 hours.

This, of course, doesn't include remarkable circumstances. Including, thinking the child is with someone(non-imaginary), you can't reach the authorities or you are incapacitated.

[naaman fletcher]

5. So, you think people should have to give evidence against themselves?

There is something called the constitution.

[ChrisBorg]

6. No, you can commit any crime you like. This would simply be another one.

24 hour reporting will only be giving evidence against themselves if they have already committed another crime. If they lost their child in a store and didn't report that for over 24 hours, I consider that child abuse.

Don't you?

[naaman fletcher]

12. Yes

But, if I kill me kid, you are telling me I have to help incriminate myself by reporting there is something wrong. Leaving all that aside, however I am almost always against mob justice laws like this. One case doesn't meant society needs another law.

[ChrisBorg]

15. Again, no, No, you can commit any crime you like.

If you don't think it should be a crime to not know where your child is for over 24 hours, I hope you have no kids.

[naaman fletcher]

16. Somehow

The world has survived not having this law. If it's so apparent to you that it is needed, why were you not out pushing for such a law last week? Last month? Last year? Law by emotion is not good for democracy.

[ChrisBorg]

20. As it survived without a sex offender registry? Megan's law?

I wonder why you are so adamantly against this law? Are you against any new laws or just this one? Interesting.

[naaman fletcher]

21. I'm against

People who get emotionally involved in things on TV and respond to emotional disappointment by trying to take legislating away from rationality in order to fill the void they created with their misplaced priorities. I am sure if it when upon being challenged they resort to innuendo about the person who questioned them. Maybe a law is needed. It can wait. It can wAit until people like you get emotionally involved in some other tabloid story and this can be discussed rationally.

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. You didn't answer the poster's query.

You think Megan's law should be disbanded and each state's site taken offline as it was "reactionary"?

This law will fill an priorly unimaginable gap - the gap that someone would not report the disappearance of a 2 year old for over a month (noting that she never reported it - her mother finally did). This gives the state more ammunition to prosecute child abusers (or neglectors - take yer pick) that they don't currently have.

[naaman fletcher]

31. I didn't say it should or should not be

I think legislation is serious business and should not be done to fill an emotional void caused by watching too much tabloid tv.

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. Just how do you think Megan's Law got enacted and adopted by all 50 states?

[naaman fletcher]

42. Perhaps it would have been better if less emotion was involved

There are lots of problems with the sex offender lists. 18 year olds who have had sex with 16 year olds have ended up on these lists next to guys who have raped 4 year olds. Guys who plead to minor crimes in order to get the case behind them found out many years later that they ended up on these lists. That is, the law was applied retroactively to hit many innocent people who would not have accepted plea's ha they known they would end up on these lists.

All i am saying is everyone chill out and let your emotional wounds heal before you start legislating.

[Ruby the Liberal]

46. Your problem isn't with the lists then, it is with the definition of sex offender

I do not disagree. A 19 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old (4 year difference) and they are labeled for life. Yeah, I take issue with that.

That, however, has nothing to do with the completely unemotional, sane, rational decision to say that someone not reporting the disappearance of a minor in their care within X hours is negligent.

Examples of where I am wrong on that?

[naaman fletcher]

17. Also, why 24 hours?

Why not 15 minutes? You think it's ok for kids to be missing at all? Don't you love children? Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. Notifying authorities is equivalent to "giving evidence against onesself"?

Are you serious?

To not be required to notify authorities after a minor under one's care disappears? Seriously?

Not that I agree with the timeline as such (should be age banded), but damn. Example - 2/3/4 year old is missing for weeks on end and it isn't against the law to not report that - and you are FOR that in keeping with the caregiver's rights to the 5th? You are one cold hearted SOB.

[naaman fletcher]

23. I'm for

The constitution, and against "law by emotional void due to tabloid story going the wrong way". Are you against a law requiring murders to allow police in without a warrant? Wow you must be one cold hearted SOB.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. What does child endangerment/protection legislation have to do with

warrentless search and seizure?

Please, give me an example of how this law would be bad.

[naaman fletcher]

37. It has to do with the constitution

And weather or not one should have to gv evidence against oneself. You think yes, I think no.

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. Um, how is reporting a missing child automatically "giving evidence against oneself"?

You are for the full protection of child abuse?

Interesting position.

[naaman fletcher]

44. Apparently you are for child abuse

As you think it's ok not to report a missing 24 hours. Now, why don't you drop the spineless personal attacks. It's further proof that this is am emotional issue for you.

[Ruby the Liberal]

49. How on planet Mars did you extrapolate that from my post(s)?

I am not making personal attacks and apologize to you if that is the perception. I am rather enjoying the debate as to whether this is a good idea or not. I *want* to hear the downside so that I have a complete understanding of the ramifications.

You seem to be hung up on timing as the only issue as you have yet to show an example of where this could be a bad idea.

I care not about timing, I am more concerned that our legal system has a gap you could drive a semi through when it comes to child protection.

[kenny blankenship]

36. You may decide to cheat on your taxes, but you're still required to file them regardless.

Your false statements may be used in evidence against you later if they are detected, but there is no Constitutional violation in requiring you to file your tax return.

"Giving evidence" is being called on the witness stand in a court and having to answer yes or no, etc., to questions. A law requiring you to report a missing minor child within a certain time is not requiring you to "give evidence" against yourself. After you kill your kid, and don't report it to the cops, you cannot be compelled to take the stand and testify about either killing your kid or failing to report your child as dead or missing. So relax.

[naaman fletcher]

45. Yes

That is a good point.

[Hepburn]

2. This is utter bullshit...

...gmab.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Good luck with this topic

I would have thought that the additional option given to the state to bring charges when warranted (and provable as an offense) would be welcomed here.

Got my ass handed to me over it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1432760

I thought I had wandered into LibertarianUnderground.com for a while there.

[ChrisBorg]

8. I saw that. There were plenty of irrational excuses for not wanting this.

A few crazy scenarios does not negate the fact that not reporting a child lost for over 24 hours is child abuse.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. I was appalled by the resistance to that as well

as the objection to naming it for a victim. Screw the emotional (this will get votes) angle, does anyone in this country not know what Megan's Law is?

For those who don't, it is also known as the Sex Offender Registry...

[naaman fletcher]

24. Why 24 hours? Why not 1?

Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Fine - so make it 36 or 48.

What kind of person wouldn't notify authorities about a missing child in their care?

Please give examples.

[naaman fletcher]

28. 36 or 48?

Don't you love your children? Why not five minutes?


Don't ask me about acceptable actions. I have never had one of my krs missing for more than two minutes. However we are talking here about giving the power of government to take away people's freedoms. This should be considered much more carefully than as a way to fill an emotional void caused by getting too involved in a tabloid tv story.

[ChrisBorg]

32. Yes. I don't think a person should have the freedom to ignore the loss

of their child for over 24 hours. Do you?

[naaman fletcher]

34. But you think 23 is ok?

Won't someday think of the children?

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. Thanks for the examples. LOL!

Apparently you have nothing to justify why this shouldn't be law other than the 5th.

Your child abusers are free to plead the 5th, but if enacted, this is exempt from it.

Won't you please think of the children?

[Cereal Kyller]

29. What is your problem with this law???

nf??? :shrug:

[naaman fletcher]

33. It's emotional inspired mob rule

The nation can survive another year without it. Go get emotionally involved in some other tabloid news story and then let's reconsider this when it can be looked at rationally.

[Ruby the Liberal]

43. How is it irrational?

Still waiting on those examples of how not reporting a missing child is a good thing...

[naaman fletcher]

48. Why would I answer that question?

I never made such an assertion, therefore I cannot give examples. It is obviously emotional based on all the people suggesting I am for child abuse just because I did better things for the last month then watch Nancy grace every night and my daily life has gone on despite the verdict. Now, on that note my 15 minutes of interacting with the mob about tabloid laws is over as I have a life outside of tabloid tv and it is Saturday night. Have a good night everyone except to those worms who suggested i support child molesters.

[Ruby the Liberal]

55. I don't even know who employs Nancy Grace and no one here is suggesting you are "for child abuse"

What you are being asked is the reason for your opposition to this legislation and the only responses you have offered to date have vbeen the protection of the 5th (self incrimination) and the timing (its too soon).

State legislators are working to close a huge hole in our legal system in regards to child protection laws. Can you not at least give the forum one example of why this is a bad idea?

[ChrisBorg]

30. I guess because 24 hrs would include overnight.

I can see you have some other agenda for opposing this but I can't for the life of me understand what that is.

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. I am still waiting to hear from someone/anyone who can give a good explanation

as to why we should oppose this. I am open to conviction. DU has changed my mind/stance on a lot of issues and I welcome the debate.

[Pithlet]

59. I'll give it a try.

What happens if a child's death really wasn't due to a parent's negligence at all, but because rather than these things being determined on a case by case basis, as they were before such a law was enacted, they ran afoul of this law, and now a DA can charge them with it? This is the problem with giving DAs more teeth. They will use them. Don't think for a moment that scenarios like this couldn't possibly happen. I'm sorry, but being unhappy with a jury's verdict isn't a reason to pass new laws. I believe the DA should have slapped her with a neglect charge. They didn't. That was their mistake. We shouldn't have to pay for that with more unnecessary laws that have a huge potential to cast way too large of a net that snares innocent victims. No thanks.

[krabigirl]

7. Lol, yeah, like a parent who murdered their kid would even report it anyway.

This will just make criminals out of innocent people, just like so many other laws. I am sure there are times when people are so worked up with grief or whatever that they may not report until after the 24 hour window. Most people would I am sure, but there are always exceptions, and the people who actually will murder, well, yeah, I don't think they follow laws anyway.

[ChrisBorg]

9. So, without extraordinary circumstances, you lose your child for over 24 hours

and don't report it? That is child abuse in my book and should be a crime.

[Butch350]

11. Your definately missing the point.

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. "make criminals out of innocent people"

When your example is a parent who murdered their child?

People so worked up with grief over a missing child that they 'may not report it'?

Sorry - but the kind of callous parent who would not think to alert for assistance with a missing child for >24 (or however many) hours is exactly the kind of parent that the authorities need to know about.

I welcome your examples of how I am wrong on this.

[Butch350]

10. That's just ridculous...

How dare them create another silly law just because a little sweet baby girl was killed and buried
by her bar hopping mom who failed to report it.

How dare them.

[saras]

13. There IS a law already - a bunch of them

If the prosecutor didn't want to use them, that's the prosecutor's prerogative. Not sure why a bunch of screaming reactionaries with no connection to the case should be whooped up about stopping a one-in-a-million symptom of mental illness with a punitive law.

[woo me with science]

19. Didn't you know? It's a law:

Every time something bad happens, we have to have a new law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Everytime people are angry-sad

It's an awesome way to run a government.

:rofl:

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. Because our society has sunk to a such new selfish low

that things once imaginable are now in the courtrooms.

What kind of parent doesn't notify authorities about a missing child? For weeks? And then has to finally be confronted with it because her mother finally makes the call to law enforcement?

Christ Almighty - it is because of these actions that the state NEEDS these kinds of laws.

The selfish behavior of our society (profits, 'me' time, fuck-you-I-got-mine) is what is lending to the government stepping in and creating these laws. If only they were half as concerned about the royal screwing the nation is getting from the Ayn Randians and Wall Street as they are about a little white girl in Florida...

[Number23]

47. Rec'd. This is kind of a no-brainer

Any parent that would not report the death of their own child ain't on the up and up.
Why would anyone want to protect someone who doesn't report the death and/or missing status of their own child? :wtf:

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. It is sad that we as a society even need to go there. nt

[WolverineDG]

50. never mind that's already against the law---child abuse &/or neglect

I see the *OUTRAGED* monkeys still haven't quite grasped that it was the prosecution that failed to prove intent (necessary when seeking the death penalty).

dg

[Ruby the Liberal]

52. This isn't about a failed DP prosecution

It is about giving the state teeth for going after people who are so damn selfish that they don't report a missing child within a reasonable amount of time.

[WolverineDG]

57. Yes it is

and it's already been explained to you ad infinitum that the knee-jerk reaction law you want is actually already on the books.

dg

[Danger Mouse]

54. Completely pointless political posturing.

[Ruby the Liberal]

56. DM - what do you see as the downside to this passing?

Apparently more than a dozen states have similar legislation in play. What is the concern that those of us currently in favor should be cautious about?

I am MORE than willing to reverse my position (wouldn't be the first time) and write my state rep with concerns, but no one seems to be able to tell me why this is a bad thing?

[Pithlet]

58. It's already against the law to neglect your kids.

Passing laws in response to emotional outrage always makes me weary and for good reason. There is the huge potential for unintentional consequences when kneejerk laws like this are passed. I don't see the need for these laws, quite frankly.

[Danger Mouse]

60. I don't know if it's a downside, but...

...it's already a crime to abuse or neglect your child. There are laws on the books already. Creating more laws creates more opportunities for innocent parents to be screwed over by the system. I honestly don't see how this law is needed in addition to laws that are already in place, and how it will serve as a deterrent to bad parents.