Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it sounds like even shep thinks casey murdered caylee. at least the judge had the common sense to give her the maximum possible that he could, under the law.
it should be a felony to not report a missing child. too bad it is even needed, with parents doing such a lousy job that they don't even report their children gone.
maybe laws can do what random jurors won't.
after today, i hope we don't have to hear any more about casey or her dysfunctional family.
Sounds reasonable to me for most situations but I can think of a few scenarios where an overzealous prosecutor might use it punish innocent parents. Having said that I don't see it preventing such cases like this, it would just be something else they could be charged for.
I think Shep Smith put the moron in his place shooting down yet another emotional, knee-jerk bill.
Regardless of the reasons for introducing this legislation, the legislation itself is sound.
Failure to report a missing child is gross neglect, an absolute abrogation of parental responsibilities. Not all parents take care of their children. That state has an interest in assuring the welfare of children.
So, what is the downside? How is it onerous to require this of parents? How does it infringe on parental rights to demand that missing children, under certain circumstances (spelled out in said bill) to be reported?
There is no downside. Case closed. It's a good bill.
Sounds reasonable to me for most situations but I can think of a few scenarios where an overzealous prosecutor might use it punish innocent parents. Having said that I don't see it preventing such cases like this, it would just be something else they could be charged for.
I can think of such scenarios for every law requiring certain expectations of parental care. Such possibilities do not make for bad law.
I can think of such scenarios for every law requiring certain expectations of parental care. Such possibilities do not make for bad law.
Sorry, but the government does not have the responsibility to ensure the welfare of a child. That's parental responsibility. The only responsibility that he state has to ensure that the parents haven't committed a crime. This is all nanny-statism. And the Republican named it Caylee's Law to evoke an emotional vote from the Congresspeople like other countless laws named after people. Knee-jerkism is always bad when it comes to legislation
Ugg. I am automatically against any "law" named after a victim. They are usually not well thought out and narrowly focused.
It's all security theater. Anything to make the sheep "feel" safe. This law is along the lines of the Patriot Act, the TSA, etc. It's all theater designed to take our freedoms away under the guise of safety
Theater indeed. Why was that not proposed 3 years ago instead immediately following the trial? It reeks of publicity stunt.
Why is new legislation even necessary? I suspect FL has some laws in regard to child endangerment, just tack on an amendment.
That's what I suspect too. There's laws and procedures already on the books. This is clearly a fail-safe just in case a future prosecutor fails to convince a jury, using emotion instead of physical evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
