Casey Anothony was acquitted of murder. She may have actually done it, but there was insufficient evidence. (Even if she did do it, the State isn't a valid party to this dispute. Only the father or other relatives have standing. Casey Anthony was accused of "destroying State property".)
To close that loophole, State thugs are promoting "Caylee's Law". It will now be a felony, if parents don't contact police immediately when their child disappears.
Why not simplify the process? Why not say "Anybody acquitted by a jury is guilty of a felony!"? That would make the intent clear.
Prosecutors like to pile on lesser charges, and hope some stick. Whenever prosecutors don't like someone, they will charge you with as many crimes as possible. That's an incentive for a plea bargain. That also allows prosecutors to claim victory, when the jury acquits of the serious charges but convicts of lesser charges. (Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of "lying to the police", and was sentenced to time served.)
One rule of thumb is "It's a bad idea to pass a law, in reaction to one incident." Unfortunately, politicians love to pass new laws to fix fake emergencies.
Many people think "I would call the police if my child disappeared." It you *WANT* to call the police, you may do so now. You don't need a law to *FORCE* you to call the police. (I object to the State police monopoly. Given that it exists, you should ask them for help in a real emergency.)
How many parents are thinking "If my child disappeared, I wouldn't call the police. If only there was a law forcing me to call the police when my child mysteriously disappears!" That shows how stupid "Caylee's Law" is.
There are legitimate reasons you might not want to call the police. Maybe you didn't declare your child as State property (get a birth certificate)? Maybe you are homeschooling your child, without getting explicit permission from the State? Maybe you have a dispute with an ex-spouse, who is looking after the children without telling you?
There is another important point. The mainstream media and statists get angry, whenever someone is acquitted. Why is there no anger and outrage, over people who are wrongfully convicted? Why is there no anger and outrage, when prosecutors commit crimes in order to secure a conviction?
"Caylee's Law" is an excellent example of a stupid law. People are asking for a law, forcing them to do what they would do anyway.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Caylee's Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"It's a bad idea to pass a law, in reaction to one incident."
That's often not how it works in practice though. Laws which increase government and elite power are written up in advance and shelved until an appropriate shocking story appears, then presented as a solution. As Rahm Emanuel explained it, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” All crises should be used to advance government power and control. Those that don't are "wasted" opportunities.
Sometimes the shocking story can be generated, such as in this case of whipping the public into a frenzy on this missing child case while hundreds of other similar missing and dead child cases were ignored.
I shut off my satellite TV in 2009, now I am missing out on these types of stories. Believe it or not I never heard of this "Caylee" person you are talking about (until now).
Not watching TV has huge benefits, but I tend to lose touch with odd stories like this.
Post a Comment