Agreed. But the public loves its scoundrels and losers, which is why lurid tabloids and shows like Jerry Springer and Cops remain so popular. We have only ourselves to blame for encouraging such "entertainment."
This is why I keep what my Grandpa always called "the boob tube" off and a book close by at all times. If I'm not working I'm reading. I actually don't even know what's going on here because I watch so little tv.
Sorry, but turning off a source of information, even a heavily biased one, is not a solution. It's an ostrich respons. Better to tap into as many sources as possible, but filter them with critical thinking. Even a dead watch is right twice a day, and that is twice more than a watch that is two minutes slow. On the other hand, the slow watch is on average closer to the correct time. Even bad sources can contain truth, you just have to find ways to distinguish it from the crud.
I don't think there's anything wrong with reading tabloids. I read them sometimes purely for entertainment, not for news. It's a shame about people who do actually read them for total news, taking everything they say seriously. There's a reason why they're called the gutter press, and people should be acutely aware of their limitations
Alright, so you're saying that it shouldn't be a federal offense if someone's child went missing a year and the parent knew, but wouldnt report it anyway. I think it should because most of the time it's gonna have more than one crime to it, because usually, when People don't report their child missing and try to cover it up is due to the fact that The parent is trying to save their ass from the outside world because They 1) know why the child is missing (such cases as them helping someone murder the child) Or 2) they murdered the child themselves. It's really sad how some people in this world could care less about their children, beautiful children at that. Their human beings too and have emotions just like every one of us. Take it into this instance. Say you were 7, And these guys came up and snatched you, You got kidnapped and noone knew. You went missing for days and then weeks and months but noone reported it, In one day, You could've been saved IF someone reported it. It only takes one person to report a missing child.
Do you have any support for this claim at all, or is it just conjecture? Also, parents don't always knows when their children are missing; this is likely the case with an especially negligent mom like Casey, who probably went weeks at a time without seeing her child even before Caylee was killed. While I didn't follow the trial that closely, I am vehemently against trying to prove a case through ad hominem. If that's what this prosecution did, then I'm glad the jury didn't buy it. There's a reason it's considered a fallacy. Camus' The Stranger should be required reading for everyone ever.
The proposal has gained a lot of popularity and has around 1,000,000 signatures since I last heard this morning on the Today Show. I was in support of it at first, but after reading into what it truly hoped to accomplish, it seems like we already have laws in place that accomplish this sort of thing --things Casey Anthony was already accused of; child endangerment / neglect, falsifying information & lying to the police... This proposal is really only there because the public wants some sort of justice for Caylee. I don't support it anymore seeing as it is a waste of time and money. I think the only thing a law like that might accomplish is in another case, the law would just be a way to trip up absent parents if nothing else stuck. Of course I'm no legal expert though. Obviously. But all anyone here has said is that it's a sign of evil, lefty politics (thanks for deleting that post, mods) and that it's bad, period. I suppose I expected more discussion. Pfft. I guess I just don't understand why people seem to be so morally or politically against it. Hmm. Anyway, I think I'm done talking about Ms. Casey Anthony --she's gotten more than her fair share of the limelight. If she's innocent, she doesn't deserve such backlash, and if she's guilty, she isn't worth the time. Best thing for her to do would be to leave the country, in my opinion. She has no real family support anymore, as I understand it, after the whole thing with her father and brother, and at least in other countries the case is lesser known and people might not just recognize her on the street. I really hope there's no book deal or whatever to come of this. I think we could all agree that we could write better books than one like that would be worth.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not privy to all the facts of this trial because of hearsay - if you can call what you hear on TV "facts". And I was referring to your comments about "tabloid" type shows. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't waste my time watching that tripe. Besides, people got along without TV for a long time. I think if I miss who's cheating who or what some randy senator is doing - which I'm unfortunate enough to somehow hear about anyway - I'll probably not be missing much.
There is a woman in the news this week who believes her son was the father of Caylee Anthony. He died in a car accident in 2007.
No, nobody knows for sure who Caylee's father was. The guy Cogito is probably referring to above me is Eric Baker, the name Casey gave to Cindy (her mother) when they realized that Casey's then-boyfriend, Jesse Grund, wasn't the father. I thought Eric was just a name she made up to satisfy her parents, but someone is coming forward claiming to be his mother then maybe I was wrong.
Quick! Someone call Nancy Grace! I bet she'll find out how Casey Anthony is responsible for this guy's car accident!
I don't know anything about this case but have found that life becomes rather easier if you accept the Socratic notion that the guilty person suffers more by getting away with it than by being caught and punished.
No, it shouldn't be. It isn't an area of federal law, and we don't need to make it one. If a state wants to pass a law making it an offense in that state, then fine. The idea that we need federal legislation for every flavor-of-the-day issue that comes along is nonsense, and also not proper given the scopes of jurisdiction for federal v. state law.
Depending on the wording, "Caylee's Law" may be a disaster if applied indiscriminantly. For example, must a parent report a sixteen year old chronic runaway as missing every time that child follows his usual habit of disappearing for a week? Should a failure of the parent to report the thrid such tantrum in a year to the authorities be treated as a felony? Such laws made in haste are a legislative waste. (rhyme deliberate) They will be soon applied inappropriately and inevitably face judicial challenge and repeal (or a ton of add-on clauses).
I can understand where you're coming from with reporting a child missing (though I still think it should be reported every time, personally), but how about the part of the proposed law that says you have to report your child's DEATH? If Caylee had REALLY drowned in a pool, why wouldn't Casey have reported it right away? Under Caylee's law, failing to report a death in a timely fashion would be a crime, and I support that 100%. I do tend to agree with steerpike, however, that it should be a state law, not a federal law - and in fact, I believe many states are pushing to pass their own version of the law.
I believe "Caylee's Law" is needed, even more when it comes to teenagers rebelling. Why not call the police? So much can happen to a child of any age within minutes of not being with an adult, or with the wrong adult supervision. Why chance their safety?
We're talking about a federal law here. Maybe you can point out precisely where the federal government has the authority to pass such a law...
Can you show how they don't? I'm not saying your wrong but to me it should be a federal law for one reason and one only. It means evrey state gets it, not just the odd five that agree to it (and before you say it there are thousandths of laws like that that this sate gets but the other dose not when they really need it) This one makes sense do you want it to be perfectly legal not to report a child missing for a set time There is not any proof that ALL 50 states will pase shuch a law and even so that will take a lot longer then the fredeal one so i say go fot it since A. this is a law as you said all states should have B. it is a pretty big crime IMO C. waitng for all 50 states to MAYBE pass such a law will be another three or so years of hype for this and before you know it most pepole wont care either wya
That's not how the system works. For any law passed by the federal government, they have to have constitutional authority to pass it. Typically, this comes under the commerce clause. Most criminal law, particularly of the Casey Anthony sort, is within the jurisdiction of the states. The federal government can't just pass a law in that area because they feel like it. This is basic civics.
So how do you "know" this falls under one or the other? Whats kid napping? whats not reporting someone dead? Whats hidding the fact that someone kidnaped someone? Not 100% but very certin most of this are fedreal ofenses This should go right in with them as it tiers in just fine Not reporting someone missing with in a giving time should be a fedreal ofense, though i agree they need to make a lot of edits to the law Can you show me any other proof this is a state law other thing your Ophion? For exmsaple show me a wrritng part of what the Fedreal govemnt can make laws about and can not? Saying its basic stuff with out saying an exsample of the difirnces is not proving anything other then it makes it look like you know what your talking about when you may or may not Now if you where to post something that exspalins what Fedreal can deal in then it would be loads better and I'd even be willing to admit i was wrong
You don't know what you're talking about Wolfi. Let's look at your example of Kidnapping. Here's the federal statute: As you can clearly see, not ALL kidnapping is federal law. There has to be something to invoke federal jurisdiction, such as transport across state lines, or some act within federal jurisdiction (such as maritime jurisdiction) or the act has to be perpetrated against a public official in relation to their duties as a public official. It is unfortunate you don't understand the most basic principle underlying the U.S. system of government. Maybe you're not from the U.S., but if you are I'm not surprised. A lot of people don't understand it. Some of them even write petitions to get federal laws passed.
Did I ever say i did? All I said was show me proof other then syaing "its basic" I'm asking for proof cause obvusily I do not know myuch about the laws I also said i was no 100% sure on this so of couse i do not know fully know what I'm talking about i have not been to law school nor do i have any sort of law book And even said if you could show proof i would admit i was wrong so here I go I was worng that SOME kidnappings are not fedreal what i do know is that A kidnapping IS a fedreal ofense (did not know there where times when iot was not granted) B. you used one exsample are my others ones the same way? or are they dead on? Quick qurestion, dose that mean a state dose not need a law aginst kid knapping? or is it required law? also "most basic" comments there are undelines reclauses and excpetions to evrey rule and then you have laws changing all the time the U.S law is anything but basic.
States should definitely have kidnappings laws. The federal law didn't even come about until the famous Lindberg baby kidnapping, which was a huge media circus and made people decide they needed a federal law too. It gets complicated, Wolfi. When the country was founded, the States were almost like little countries themselves. What's more, they distrusted any central federal government. The Constitution was then written giving certain limited powers to the federal government. You can even look at the U.S. Constitution and see that it specifically states and the powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remain with the states or the people. For the federal government to pass any law at all, they have to have authority in the Constitution for it. This is why the Obama health care law is going through the courts - because some do not believe that the federal commerce power extends far enough to, for example, impose a health insurance mandate on people. A State could pass that law with no problem. Things like marriage, most criminal law, tort law, contracts, etc. are traditionally state law. In most of these cases, the federal government isn't going to be able to regulate, though if they can find a justification in granted Constitutional powers (usually the Commerce Clause) they can pass a law. Most of that state law started as common law (law made through judicial decisions), though more and more of it has been codified over time. There is also federal common law, which is not codified but comes about as a result of court decisions. To even get into federal court you have to have some valid federal question at issue. In cases where state and federal issues are both at stake, the federal courts still apply the pertinent state law to the issues that fall under state law. The issues can get complex, as I said, and there is plenty of debate as to where things like the Commerce Clause begin and end. But one thing that is absolutely clear is that the federal government cannot act unless it has authority in the Constitution to do so. There have been federal laws struck down by the Supreme Court for this very reason - the federal government passed a law that it didn't have the power to pass. In the 1990s, for example, a case called Lopez came before the Supreme Court. The law passed by the feds made it a crime to have a gun within so many feet of a school. The Supreme Court struck it down (and rightly so) because the Commerce Clause didn't stretch to allow the federal government to regulate something like that wholly within the confines of a state (i.e. the area immediately around a school). States can pass those laws, but the federal government cannot. So any time the federal government passes a law, they have to point to authority in the Constitution to do so. Congress will often cite such authority directly (by mentioning the Commerce Clause, for example). The laws are often worded so that they cover specific instances (like the Kidnapping law I cited) where federal authority comes into play. But just because a law like the one we're discussing here (Caylee's law) might sound like a good idea does not mean the federal government can pass it. They have to be able to demonstrate that it somehow falls under federal jurisdiction. That's almost always the Commerce Clause, so you'd have to show how the reporting of the missing or dead child has some relation to interstate commerce. Generally, it is not going to. States can pass the law. And that makes sense. State governments are in a better position to deal with local issues and what is good for their state. They are also generally seen as more responsive to local issues. If people in Florida think such a law is good and want it, then they can pass it. If people in Iowa don't want it, then they don't have to pass it, etc. That's the way the system is supposed to work, and it was set up that way purposefully both to reflect the sovereignty of the States themselves (who were granting limited power to the federal government) and because of the idea that state and local governments are better suited to legislate for their respective areas. It is a complex issue and much has happened in both statutory law and common law over the years since the founding of the country. You can find some very good texts on the issue. Any general treatise on Constitutional Law is probably a good starting point.
