I appreciate your post here, as well as the reasoned answers that you’ve offered in response to those that have chosen to criticize your position. In fact, from what I read, I respected THEIR reasoned criticism and responses as well! How often do you find that?? lol. Anyway, when I first heard about this law, I cringed. I know that my Criminal Law professor cited a study regarding laws such as this and the unintended consequences they produce. (In fact, I was searching for that study because I have 8 pages of argument due tomorrow for Appellate practice. lol) Anyway, I think it stands to reason that people want this law because they feel bad that this little girl suffered the way that she did, and the person most responsible for her seems to be the person least concerned. So, people feel like this is unjust and needs to be remedied. The only problem is that when laws are drafted on this type of reactionary basis, they often fail to do what they’re intended to do, and do what nobody envisioned them doing. And IMHO, you’ve hit the nail right on the head with your reasoning for why this law, at least in this form, is not good law. The problem is, that people that FEEL that way do, think someone like me is a monster for saying these kinds of things…even though I have three little girls of my own and I feel horrible just like they do. I wish people would just step back for a moment and think about times in their lives when they’ve FELT a certain way and responded to a reactionary impulse. For me, the list of forehead slapping memories that brings to mind is longer than I’d like. The problem here, is that when statutory legislation is imposed for reactionary reasons, people usually lose constitutional rights.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and leave comments. Except for you, Catherine Gregston. You can go to hell.

I think a law could be crafted that serves a just purpose– without sacrificing common sense and sanity as it relates to obvious exceptions. Yes, the details need to be fine-tuned. One, I’ve already acknowledged. 24 hours isn’t realistic or feasible. Another, I think an age limit would be appropriate.

Children are special when it comes to verification of existence. Let’s call it, well existence. Parents, often times, can be the only other people to see their children. Many children can go days and not see another person besides their parents. Adults most likely have other people that would (and do) realize when they go missing – coworkers for example. Because of this, as it relates to children, it would be much more difficult to conceal the murder of a teen than a toddler (hence, my age limit recommendation). A teen’s well existence is most likely known by friends and others.

Small children need special protection in this regard – and unfortunately, this is protection from their parents. This law wouldn’t necessarily be to punish parents that aren’t found guilty of murder, but it would allow investigators to begin an investigation in a timely manner if reported. If a parent reports their child missing, what are the odds they murdered their child? I’d say low. If not, the investigators at least can begin an appropriate investigation and perhaps recover a dead body sooner rather than later.

If this was law, and a parent concealed the evidence of a missing child, (it would most likely because something much worse has already happened) that parent would be creating circumstantial evidence that would work against them in court. This goes back to what I said originally, “no parent would conceal their missing child”. If a parent does so, they’re slapped with a felony.

So, if you have a parent willing to get slapped with a felony to conceal their “missing” child – what else could they have done?

This is valuable and should be pursued in some way by our lawmakers.

if your child is missing, arent you going to give 100% more effort into finding your child? my first gut reaction would be to call the other parent to make sure they didnt take the kid, if thats not the case, then call the police. its a no brainer.

In this case she not only didnt call police or emergency personnel, she in the days after with a dead child in her car, went dancing, drinking, and celebrating. Me? i would be having a nervous breakdown calling every monkey and his uncle to help me.

It’s already not a crime. Caylee’s Law is only a proposal, it is not the law of the land. You and the other supporters of this law are the ones who want a change, therefore you are the ones who should offer an explanation of how a law like this would help. I haven’t heard a good explanation yet.

I mean, what’s your theory here? Some psychopathic parent gets the urge to murder their child and dispose of the body, but they give up on the idea because they’d have to report her missing? Do you really think the kinds of people who murder their own children think that way? At best, this would only allow for punishment after the fact. It would slake the bloodlust of the mob. That’s not a great reason for a new law.

Look, I agree with you that there’s something wrong with a parent who doesn’t report a missing or dead child in a timely manner, but laws passed in the midst of emotional turmoil usually do not turn out well. In your posts here, you yourself have substituted a 31-day limit for the law’s 1-day limit, so even you must see that the law has problems. I’m just calling for cooler heads and a bit of thought before inventing a whole new way to send people to jail.

As I’ve already mentioned on this thread, those against any form of this law need to show why not reporting a missing child for 31 days should not be a crime. They need to show why any parent deserving of the title “mother” or “father” who would fail to report a missing child would do so for good reason.

#2) People could make mistakes (rarely, but not impossible) in their own assessment of deciding what conditions are beyond medical help. In 30+ years of working E.R, i’ve yet to meet the parents who did NOT want help immediately upon finding an unexpectedly dead or almost dead child. Not a one. Ever.
The fact that *you’d* report someone who appears freshly dead, may not extrapolate to others, which is *why* this law is needed. Innocent people all dial 911. Even strangers coming upon a long gone skeleton dial 911. *NOT* dialing 911 is so odd as to be undescribable and suspicious.

#3) I’ve yet to meet the parent who would call their priest *prior to* 911 upon finding a dead child. {Exceptions are caring for terminally ill dying child in the home, where death is expected, and i’m sure such a provision could easily be written into law. The law’s format is still a work in progress.}

I’d think the situations where the parent does NOT call for help, would be addressed on a case by case basis, don’t you? Just like any other law.

LIke i said, proof of innocence could be destroyed in the wait time. The mere fact the parent waits is so so so odd as to be investigated, as it should be. (again, i refer to UNexpected deaths only, not terminally ill hospice situations).

I think a law requiring all missing children to be immediately reported IS indeed, helping BOTH parents and children, very very much. The faster cops get on a missing child the better the chance of a successful outcome. The faster an unexpected death of a child is investigated, the better the chance of finding evidence of what occurred coming to light.

Some children *are* being raised by idiots, and such a law could protect them. Parents whose child is successfully recovered would also benefit. I disagree with your statement that neither parents nor children would benefit from investigating the exceptions that do NOT dial 911.

{i only included examples of how cops can be helpful at your insistance they would not be helpful, btw.}

I suspect, because i do deal with very low I.Q. patients on a daily basis, my view may vary significantly from yours. The average E.R. population is NOT the same as any other. Certainly not all our patients are less intelligent, but, besides actual emergencies——the E.R. is a magnet for the mentally ill, and those who lack the intelligence to make good decisions about their own self care.

Whereas you probably associate with intelligent people for the bulk of your days, and thus, might believe most people are both rational and intelligent. I can assure you, that is not the case, at all. Not everyone makes sensible decisions to protect their children.

I do not see the downside of this law, at all. At all. It is almost in place defacto anyway. If some odd odd odd one-in-a-million parent, who, upon finding their dead child does NOT call 911, that would be dealt with on a case by case basis, just like any other law.

The wall to wall coverage that the Caylee Anthony case rec’d, may even inspire some criminals to continue to hide the body, knowing evidence is being destroyed, and without this law—- there is no down side to doing so.
This law will only impact those criminals. LIke i said, all parents i’ve ever seen in 30+ years, have always called 911 for UNexpected deaths.
Always.
No exceptions.
Even very low I.Q. parents, even extremely religious parents, all dial 911 for THAT.
I have not ever heard of a parent,no matter how religious they are—– who upon finding an UNexpected death, —–called their minister first. It is almost reflex, in the shock and horror, to dial 911, not their priest. Even ministers themselves dial 911.

Berieved grieving parents, parents staggering in shock, are hard to miss, and will not end up in this dragnet of innocents that you imagine.
All laws we have, may have exceptions, which can be, and are, sorted out on case by case basis.

But, if the law does not even exist, there is no fear for criminal parents to be punished with in
continuing
to
hide
knowledge
of dead or missing children.

Guess we can agree to disagree. I think our perspectives are different.

If there’s a gap in the law here, I have no objection to filling it, but I’ve been around long enough to know that it’s easy to do more harm than good when passing laws for purposes of political grandstanding.

#1. I’m wary of making federal crimes of things that don’t really need federal involvement. The federal justice system was built to go after mobsters and terrorists. It’s overkill for negligent parents, especially since the reporting requirement for missing children is triggered even if no child is harmed.

#2. I was imagining a case where the child is beyond help, which is the situation contemplated by the proposed law. If we’re talking about a case where medical intervention could still prove effective, that’s a different story. I know that if I found someone who appeared freshly dead, I’d still report it to 911 as a medical emergency on the theory that I’m not qualified to recognize when someone is beyond medical help.

#3. Again, medical intervention is not what the law is talking about. People should certainly try to get help for those who can be saved. And I didn’t mean to imply that cops can’t help comfort people who’ve lost family members, but they’re not the only ones, and this law is not about mandatory grief counseling. I know people who, if they found a family member dead, they’d call a friend or a member of the clergy for comfort, not a cop.

You’re right, by the way, that I haven’t had experience helping parents of dead children, so my understanding of how they act is probably wrong. On the other hand, the law described in the petition would throw some of those parents in jail. I don’t have to be an expert to know that’s not going to help them. The law isn’t about helping parents or children. It’s about punishment and deterrence.

#4 It’s good that the wait is eliminated. I guess I should have known that, what with Amber alerts and all.

By the way, I get the impression from what you’ve written here that you’re concerned about cases where people discover someone in need of medical assistance but fail to recognize it, fail to act, or fail to act in a timely manner. If that’s the case, perhaps some sort of public education effort would be more helpful than an after-the-fact jail sentence.

As Judge Perry said, the Jury spoke loud and clear… and now, we the people that signed this petition, speak loud and clear that some measures need to be taken so “history” doesn’t repeat itself.

#1) Many states have crazy local rules/laws. Making it federal is great idea, covers ALL ppl everywhere, no matter what yahoo area you live in. More resources can be brought to bear for federal crimes.

#2) NO, i disagree. As ER doc, having held many many many parents as their children die/after they are found dead———>overwhelmingly, parents WANT help, WANT rescue attempts, and comfort/info/help/authorities, most DEFinitely. Some ‘apparent deaths’ can be revived, esp in drownings and hypothermia.

I suspect, that in case of someone who found dead baby, and sat there with it for extended time before calling for help, would be sorted out on case by case basis, just like any other law.

#3) True, but, evidence gets destroyed quickly to PROVE their innocence. See my reply to #2) above for rest of your remarks, and yes, cops do know CPR and CAN be very helpful to those suffering loss, i’ve seen cops be very compassionate and helpful, even pointing out resources the berieved can turn to for further help.
I get impression, that you have had very little, if any, experience helping out parents of dead children.

#4)No, the police will definitly begin searching immediately for a missing child, NO “24 hour wait” req’d. (but, you are right, that USED TO be the case).

and i agree, the law will be drafted/tweaked like all our laws are, as they go through legislative process.

Dr C.

You kind of contradict yourself here, but I think I know what you mean. You think that police abuse of Caylee’s Law would be rare, and therefore the possibility of such abuse is not a good reason to avoid passing the law. I think that, given the rarity of incidents like this one, abuses of the law will far outnumber the legitimate applications.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that failure to report a missing child shouldn’t be a crime. I’m saying that Caylee’s Law, as described in the petition, seems ill-advised. For example, you’re talking about a child missing for 31 days (I assume that’s the fact pattern from the trial) whereas the law as proposed says only 24 hours. And only 1 hour to report a death.

“Laws are made by human beings. That’s why we have trials etc., to sort through it all. Are there miscarriages of justice, yes. We still try to create good law and apply the law appropriately.”

You keep saying that laws are flawed, and then dismissing the problem as if it there’s nothing we can do about it. But we can do something about it. We can’t make every law perfect, and we can’t anticipate all possible scenarios in which it might apply, but the quality of our statutes is not totally beyond our control. We can make good laws.

But passing a federal law for a traditionally state-level matter in the heat of the moment after a high-profile trial is probably not the best way to do it.

No. What I think is going on here, is that a lot of people think that not reporting your missing child for 31 days amounts to endangering a child and should be classified as such under the law. I have seen no arguments for punishing people for not reporting a missing child as equivalent to murder. Or at least, I am not making that argument.

“I think we’re at an impass”.

I think so.