Casey Anthony - guilty, or not?

JustJo · 07-11-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

She was charged with it, but not convicted.

UofMfan · 07-11-2011, 04:07 PM

I am posting this great article here.

I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around.

Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions.

My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs.

I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets:

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 do away with juries altogether.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," 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. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

Heart · 07-11-2011, 04:33 PM

By and large, I agree.

I just wish people would stop and think for a minute what it could mean to THEM to be a parent wrongly accused. Parents have brought their children to emergency rooms only to be reported and arrested for abuse and neglect because a doctor or nurse misinterpreted/misdiagnosed. I'm no fan of our criminal justice system or of juries, given that they tend to be as racist and sexist as the society they reflect, BUT I wouldn't want to be tried in the court of public opinion either.

Heart

girl_dee · 07-11-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I am posting this great article here.

I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around.

Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions.

My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs.

I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets:

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 do away with juries altogether.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," 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. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

I bolded the part I mostly agree with. I also feel if a toddler is missing within ONE hour the police should be called.. they could have left the state within a few....

NJFemmie · 07-11-2011, 04:57 PM

No, anyone who is going to kill their child would more than likely not report it. It isn't made for the majority of people in the world, and it was duly stated in that way -- but for the smaller percentage that it would more than likely affect - it acts as a deterrent - and perhaps an added sentence. It was already stated that if this law was to be in effect while Casey Anthony was on trial - she would have been sentenced 15 years in prison (at the very least) for not reporting her child missing.

Perhaps there is little consideration for the consequences of killing anyone in the heat of a moment - but it certainly doesn't justify the action. There should always be a consequence outside of self defense.

Not every state agrees with the time limitations - which is why they are creating their own version of the law.

girl_dee · 07-11-2011, 05:03 PM

I do agree NJFemmie that anything is better than nothing, and this was a highly emotional case, so something HAD to be done.

It's better than nothing, at least this bitch would be in jail for SOMETHING right now.

Sometimes you have to take what you can get, until things can get better. Bad breath is better than no breath at all.....

NJFemmie · 07-11-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassy_girl

Sometimes you have to take what you can get, until things can get better. Bad breath is better than no breath at all.....

LOL ... I'll have to remember that ....

UofMfan · 07-11-2011, 05:42 PM

Yes, the nice people of Arizona thought it a good idea and better than nothing to pass a law that would use racial profiling to get rid of undocumented immigrants. A deterrent. To them, it was a good law.

The death penalty, another deterrent, has been proven to be ineffective.

The 1996 immigration and terrorist law was supposed to deter terrorism. Then we had 9/11.

What these laws have done is tear families apart and executed hundreds of innocent people.

Patriot Act, that seemed like a good idea too.

I could go on and on.

07-11-2011, 04:57 PM	#5
NJFemmie Senior Member How Do You Identify?: The original lime-twisted femme Preferred Pronoun?: I answer to most things, especially lesbian. Relationship Status: Still loving my Mare ;) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 4,683 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,343 Thanked 11,419 Times in 2,976 Posts Rep Power: 21474855	No, anyone who is going to kill their child would more than likely not report it. It isn't made for the majority of people in the world, and it was duly stated in that way -- but for the smaller percentage that it would more than likely affect - it acts as a deterrent - and perhaps an added sentence. It was already stated that if this law was to be in effect while Casey Anthony was on trial - she would have been sentenced 15 years in prison (at the very least) for not reporting her child missing. Perhaps there is little consideration for the consequences of killing anyone in the heat of a moment - but it certainly doesn't justify the action. There should always be a consequence outside of self defense. Not every state agrees with the time limitations - which is why they are creating their own version of the law. __________________

07-11-2011, 04:07 PM	#2
UofMfan Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Relationship Status: A very happy Mr. Grumpy Cat Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Neither here or there Posts: 7,987 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 27,733 Thanked 18,936 Times in 4,705 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	I am posting this great article here. I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around. Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions. My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs. I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets: 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 do away with juries altogether. Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," 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. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling. This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues? While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

07-11-2011, 04:33 PM	#3
Heart Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Relationship Status: rainbows! Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: NY Posts: 466 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 303 Thanked 2,522 Times in 409 Posts Rep Power: 12032610	By and large, I agree. I just wish people would stop and think for a minute what it could mean to THEM to be a parent wrongly accused. Parents have brought their children to emergency rooms only to be reported and arrested for abuse and neglect because a doctor or nurse misinterpreted/misdiagnosed. I'm no fan of our criminal justice system or of juries, given that they tend to be as racist and sexist as the society they reflect, BUT I wouldn't want to be tried in the court of public opinion either. Heart

07-11-2011, 05:03 PM	#6
girl_dee Practically Lives Here How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: dee Relationship Status: Hitched up Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Livin’ the Dream Posts: 24,079 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,560 Thanked 54,829 Times in 13,908 Posts Rep Power: 21474873	I do agree NJFemmie that anything is better than nothing, and this was a highly emotional case, so something HAD to be done. It's better than nothing, at least this bitch would be in jail for SOMETHING right now. Sometimes you have to take what you can get, until things can get better. Bad breath is better than no breath at all.....

07-11-2011, 05:42 PM	#8
UofMfan Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Relationship Status: A very happy Mr. Grumpy Cat Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Neither here or there Posts: 7,987 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 27,733 Thanked 18,936 Times in 4,705 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	Yes, the nice people of Arizona thought it a good idea and better than nothing to pass a law that would use racial profiling to get rid of undocumented immigrants. A deterrent. To them, it was a good law. The death penalty, another deterrent, has been proven to be ineffective. The 1996 immigration and terrorist law was supposed to deter terrorism. Then we had 9/11. What these laws have done is tear families apart and executed hundreds of innocent people. Patriot Act, that seemed like a good idea too. I could go on and on.