why 'Càyléê's Law' is a bad idea

[chiver78]

why 'Caylee's Law' is a bad idea
First Posted: 7/11/11 09:49 AM ET Updated: 7/13/11 12:20 PM ET

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to change the jury system entirely.

Even as DNA testing continues to exonerate wrongly convicted people, including people who were nearly executed, it's this rare case -- in which a jury recognized that there was no physical evidence linking Anthony to her daughter's murder -- that has America questioning its justice system.

High-profile trials are anomalies. They're about as far from the day-to-day goings on in police precincts, courtrooms, and prisons as your typical TV crime drama (the other place Americans get most of their (bad) information about the criminal justice system). Despite what much of the public seems to have taken away from these sorts of trials in recent years, the average person wrongly accused of a crime isn't a wealthy college lacrosse player with top-notch legal representation. Prosecutors who wrongly charge people aren't usually stripped of their law license or criminally sanctioned. (In fact, they're rarely sanctioned at all.) Black men accused of murder aren't typically represented by "dream teams" of the country's best defense attorneys. And, believe it or not, if there's a problem in the criminal justice system when it comes to children, it's that parents and caretakers are too often overcharged in accidental deaths or as a result of bogus allegations, not that they regularly get away with murder.

Even more regrettable is that every time a Casey Anthony-type trial captures the public's attention, someone gets the idea that we need a new law in response to the completely unrepresentative case, a law that presumably would have prevented that particularly travesty from happening. The problem, of course, is that the new law -- usually poorly written and passed in a fit of hysteria -- is too late to apply to the case it was designed for. But it does then apply to everyone else.
**********************************************************************************

click the header for the full story.

[billisonboard]

I agree it is a bad idea.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Bad idea. That's like when Nebraska made its safe haven law, it looked good on paper but then all hell broke loose once it was in effect.

The jury did it's job and I'd rather have our system of justice than any other even though sometimes it fails.

[chiver78]

I found myself nodding as I read the whole article. reactionary laws don't help anyone. what's proposed here will totally handcuff prosecutors in the future, if it passes. it's similar to that other thread I started about the drunk passenger in Indiana that got charged with public intoxication. that's a law that needs to go, this is one that needs to not be passed.

[maui1]

just because the prosecutor over charged casey, and then spent all their time, effort, and money trying to prove a capital case, that just was not there, the country should not compound the stupidness by carrying this stupidness over to law.

[djAdvocate]

wow. everyone so far agrees?

[pepper112765]

I definitely agree.

[mmhmm]

I think most thinking people would agree. This seems to be an effort to enact a law based on emotional reaction, which is pretty darned silly. The prosecution didn't prove its case to the satisfaction of a jury of twelve. That's the way our legal system works.

[pepper112765]

mmhmm,

that's what most rational people believe. The amount of threats and vitriol spewed toward the jurors is ridiculous. What was most shocking to me about the verdict were that they were able to get 12 people to put their personal beliefs and biases aside (as they should) to render a verdict and now they are being threatened, going into hiding, etc. It's a shame. Any of those making the threats would hope that if they were in a position where their fate rests upon a jury, that they would get one like that in the Anthony case.

[Abby Normal]

a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour.

I think it's a sad commentary when society gets to the point where some think a law is needed to report a child missing or dead. I mean seriously- you have to make it a law???

[swamp]

Jul 14, 2011 9:22:36 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I found myself nodding as I read the whole article. reactionary laws don't help anyone. what's proposed here will totally handcuff prosecutors in the future, if it passes. it's similar to that other thread I started about the drunk passenger in Indiana that got charged with public intoxication. that's a law that needs to go, this is one that needs to not be passed.

I spend my day dealing with the ramifications of stupid reactionary laws. It's maddening.

[handyman2]

I understand why they would want such a law but it does need to be thought out. Basically the law is saying that missing children must be reported within 24 hours. That is a good thing from the law enforcement standpoint of getting people on the search.
Remember there was a long period of time before law enforcement was notified in this case. Several things were impacted by this. Of course the mothers lies did not help but they could have been checking them out.
But in this case and others if the body could have been found earlier before much crime scene information may have been lost, it may have assisted the pathologists to better identify the manner of death and maybe the culprit. Of course there are no guarantees.
Had this law been in place before this tragedy and Anthony played her crazy game of lies she would have spent time in prison for her actions at least.

[billisonboard]

Jul 14, 2011 11:55:45 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

... Basically the law is saying that missing children must be reported within 24 hours. ...

The article does an excellent job of discussing the problem of "within 24 hours" of when. I encourage all to go to the link in the OP and read it.

[swamp]

Jul 14, 2011 11:55:45 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

I understand why they would want such a law but it does need to be thought out. Basically the law is saying that missing children must be reported within 24 hours. That is a good thing from the law enforcement standpoint of getting people on the search.
Remember there was a long period of time before law enforcement was notified in this case. Several things were impacted by this. Of course the mothers lies did not help but they could have been checking them out.
But in this case and others if the body could have been found earlier before much crime scene information may have been lost, it may have assisted the pathologists to better identify the manner of death and maybe the culprit. Of course there are no guarantees.
Had this law been in place before this tragedy and Anthony played her crazy game of lies she would have spent time in prison for her actions at least.

You don't know that.

[mmhmm]

Personally, I'd want to see the wording of any proposed law regarding this issue. Too many times, while the intent is good, the laws are not well-written and end up causing more problems than they solve.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Well, once again I find myself in agreement. I'm usually in agreement with the basic premise that a new law is a bad idea. The system worked in the Anthony case. It worked damn near perfectly, in fact. In a case where the defendant is almost certainly guilty, almost wasn't enough. The jury did the right thing- they believed she was guilty, but demanded the evidence. Absent the evidence, in spite of their beliefs- they had no choice but to acquit.

IMHO, this is a classic case of an over-zealous prosecution over-charging the defendant. By insisting on first degree, pre-meditated murder-- they left the jury no choice.

[swamp]

Jul 14, 2011 12:05:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Personally, I'd want to see the wording of any proposed law regarding this issue. Too many times, while the intent is good, the laws are not well-written and end up causing more problems than they solve.

Bingo.

[fairlycrazy23]

Yes, it doesn't appear we need a new law, unless it is a law that prosecutors will always charge appropriately.
I didn't follow the case to closely , what little of the circumstantial evidence I heard led me to believe she directly caused Caylees death, but it may not have been on purpose, so I likely would have agreed with the jury.

However, I have been on several jury's where some of the members do confuse reasonable doubt with no doubt; and I have been in a jury on a civil case where everybody agreed that a company proved there affirmative defense but still wanted to give the plaintiff money just because they felt sorry for her and the "company could afford it"

[floridayankee]

Jul 15, 2011 6:34:23 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

And, the juror leaving town, sorry, i think that was bit of an overreaction .The jurors did their duty and the best they could within their understanding of what was expected and the law. Nobody blames them. But, the sad thing is there is still a dead little child with no justice.

Sorry snerd, but you obviously don't live anywhere in central FL and have no clue what you're talking about. In fact, some people do blame the jury. <...GULITY, eh?>

[maui1]

IMHO, this is a classic case of an over-zealous prosecution over-charging the defendant. By insisting on first degree, pre-meditated murder-- they left the jury no choice.

two things..........the jury was stupid.......the charge that fit the crime was in the lesser included offenses read to them by the judge......but who knows.....maybe they were to tired to go thru all the lesser included charges.

but the real issue.......was the prosecution.......and that.... if they would have targeted the right charge for the crime that was committed, the trial would not have taken place at all (plea agreement), or if it did, it would have taken 3 days, not 3 years and 33 days in court, and it would have ended with a guilty charge on aggravated manslaughter, of which she was guilty.

the whole case for the capital charge rested on the fact that casey used 3 strips of duct tape, instead of only using one strip of duct tape.........i mean REALLY!

the prosecution, targeted a charge that could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and because they did, they spent all their time, money, and effort, tiring to prove something that was not 'provable'.

if anyone should be mad at anyone.......the public should be mad at the county prosecutors office for over charging, and BTW......the police for not finding the body the 1st time it was reported by kronk (5 months earlier than was the case, when he made his 4th report), when there might have still been some physical evidence.

[maui1]

i forgot.........they can be mad at casey as well, but not for the court case outcome........she did cause the death of her child, but had almost nothing to do with the state's case against her.

[pepper112765]

Jul 15, 2011 6:34:23 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

I don't think that outrage over the death of a child is a "mob and pitchfork". I am getting a bit tired of peaceful assemblies being denoted a "mob" or that somehow every group of protesters is on the verge of burning down the city. That is BS and a way subtle way that is used to try to prevent the very right of assembly and protest we have.
Also, what would it say about our culture if we weren't outraged? That we didn't care? That Caylee's death is a big so what? I am glad to see people even take the time to protest and remember her. And, people have a right to be outraged over a miscarriage of justice.
As for vigilante justice, those who are interested in fairness and justice in the first place are not going to be the people taking the law into their own hands. And, if they do, the full weight of the law should apply to them.
And, the juror leaving town, sorry, i think that was bit of an overreaction .The jurors did their duty and the best they could within their understanding of what was expected and the law. Nobody blames them. But, the sad thing is there is still a dead little child with no justice.

There is a man named Casey Anthony in Pennsylvania that was getting harrassed. He is black and male. Go figure. There are plenty of ignorant people in this world and you really don't know what someone will do, which is why the Judge in the Casey Anthony case has withheld the names of the jurors until the furor dies down a bit.

My opinion is this, those jurors were picked to do a hard job, they did it and just because everyone doesn't agree with it does not give them the right to harass and threaten them for doing the job they were selected to do. For the juror that left, she did what felt she needed to do and it is not up to anyone to decide whether she was "overreacting." Her feelings and fears are hers and hers alone.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I am not in favor of any new, reactionary laws.