OT- Casey Anthony Trial in FL

SRSDDS wrote:

So Well wrote: No, libertarians place great value on the law and want a country that is ruled by law and not by the whims of governmental agencies and bureaucrats.

I'm glad you agree that the citizenry needs to be protected by the rule of law. Since there is no law currently protecting some of our most vulnerable citizens, children, from a parent who is negligent or evil enough to not report that they are missing for 30 days, then you really should have no disagreement at all concerning Caylee's Law.

Stephen

I agree with So Well's reasoning on the prior page as to why this law is a bad idea. We can't respond to every issue that doesn't feel good or that we don't like with a new law. Liberals do this every time there is a new shooting...they want some kind of new gun law or make some other area a 'gun free' zone. Those laws don't do actually do anything useful, it's just a feel-good response to make anti-gun people feel like they're doing something good after something bad happens. But those laws don't actually stop anyone from getting shot.

What would be a reasonable punishment for failing to report? Taking the child away? Putting mom in jail for a few months?

If that law was in effect today, do you think Casey would have said "Gee, now that I killed my daughter and buried her, I should call 911, otherwise they might charge me for not reporting my child missing." And the jury verdict would have been the same...no charges for killing Caylee, but maybe a little more time for not reporting (like the lying to police charges).

No, just like guns laws, this law won't do a damned thing. Responsible parents will always call 911 to report their child missing, and irresponsible parents won't report them missing, regardless of whether or not there is a new law.

ameriken wrote:

SRSDDS wrote:

So Well wrote: No, libertarians place great value on the law and want a country that is ruled by law and not by the whims of governmental agencies and bureaucrats.

I'm glad you agree that the citizenry needs to be protected by the rule of law. Since there is no law currently protecting some of our most vulnerable citizens, children, from a parent who is negligent or evil enough to not report that they are missing for 30 days, then you really should have no disagreement at all concerning Caylee's Law.

Stephen

I agree with So Well's reasoning on the prior page as to why this law is a bad idea. We can't respond to every issue that doesn't feel good or that we don't like with a new law. Liberals do this every time there is a new shooting...they want some kind of new gun law or make some other area a 'gun free' zone. Those laws don't do actually do anything useful, it's just a feel-good response to make anti-gun people feel like they're doing something good after something bad happens. But those laws don't actually stop anyone from getting shot.

What would be a reasonable punishment for failing to report? Taking the child away? Putting mom in jail for a few months?

If that law was in effect today, do you think Casey would have said "Gee, now that I killed my daughter and buried her, I should call 911, otherwise they might charge me for not reporting my child missing." And the jury verdict would have been the same...no charges for killing Caylee, but maybe a little more time for not reporting (like the lying to police charges).

No, just like guns laws, this law won't do a damned thing. Responsible parents will always call 911 to report their child missing, and irresponsible parents won't report them missing, regardless of whether or not there is a new law.

There is a Constitutional Amendment protecting gun ownership, so that is an apples and oranges argument. Further gun laws, for the most part, are not necessary and just serve to erode the second Amendment. Caylee's Law would not prevent a neglectful or evil parent from not abusing or killing their child, just like murder laws do not stop evil people from committing murder. I do not look at laws like this as being preventive, I look at them as punitive.

Stephen

SRSDDS wrote:

So Well wrote:

Vader wrote:

SRDDS wrote:
Gary Johnson cannot be mistaken for a Conservative in any way, shape or form.

He is a Libertarian plain and simple.

As a real Conservative, I do share many values with Gary Johnson, but our ideologies are miles apart.

Stephen

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Bush grew the government, ran up the debt, failed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and violated many other conservative principles. These so-called conservative politicians along with their fellow liberal politicians will continue to run this great country into the ground if you keep voting for them.

Georg W. Bush, although a very fine and admirable person, is in no way a Conservative. Unfortunately, a lot of Republican politicians try to claim the mantle of Conservatism while acting like Progressives. Fortunately, the number of Conservatives in the Republican party is growing and will hopefully soon neutralize the Progressive wing of the party.

Stephen

I don't think a new law would really be necessary, in regard to Caylee Anthony, but I do wholeheartedly agree with SRSDDS's statement on President GW Bush, and the state of the Conservative factor of the Republican party.
And also,while not relevant to this discussion (if any of this discussion is indeed relative to topic), my strongest, and unalterable opposition to the Libertarian party, is their position on abortion, as this among other things draws much comparison to liberals.

Let's continue to keep it friendly!

ameriken wrote:

I agree with So Well's reasoning on the prior page as to why this law is a bad idea. We can't respond to every issue that doesn't feel good or that we don't like with a new law. Liberals do this every time there is a new shooting...they want some kind of new gun law or make some other area a 'gun free' zone. Those laws don't do actually do anything useful, it's just a feel-good response to make anti-gun people feel like they're doing something good after something bad happens. But those laws don't actually stop anyone from getting shot.

What would be a reasonable punishment for failing to report? Taking the child away? Putting mom in jail for a few months?

If that law was in effect today, do you think Casey would have said "Gee, now that I killed my daughter and buried her, I should call 911, otherwise they might charge me for not reporting my child missing." And the jury verdict would have been the same...no charges for killing Caylee, but maybe a little more time for not reporting (like the lying to police charges).

No, just like guns laws, this law won't do a damned thing. Responsible parents will always call 911 to report their child missing, and irresponsible parents won't report them missing, regardless of whether or not there is a new law.

You seem to be a thinking man with a love for freedom and I bet you are a very responsible citizen. You are the kind of voter that Gary Johnson wants to reach. The more you learn about him the more you will like him. Sure you will strongly object to some of his positions, but this is true with any candidate. Gary Johnson will put the interest of individual freedom before his own aspirations.

You can find the info on his website, but something like 4% of New Mexican knew who he was six months before the gubernatorial election. But then they got to know him and he won running as a Republican in a state that is 2 to 1 Democrat. They liked him so much that he became the first governor in New Mexico's history to be reelected.

He has 8 years executive experience as governor and built a successful company of over 1000 employees from his one-man startup company. Gary is a guy with proven executive capability.

If the election were tomorrow I would vote for him - nobody else close. But there is plenty of time left so I will continue to evaluate the candidates including Gary Johnson.

Ya'll have a good week. I will.

Vader wrote: And also,while not relevant to this discussion (if any of this discussion is indeed relative to topic), my strongest, and unalterable opposition to the Libertarian party, is their position on abortion, as this among other things draws much comparison to liberals.

Let's continue to keep it friendly!

I have heard Gary state that he believes abortion is wrong (except in special cases like health of the mother), but he supports current law which allows abortion up to week 20.

I believe any candidate who claims they will outlaw elective abortions will be unsuccessful in getting such legislation passed.

So my question is would you vote for someone who promises, but cannot change the abortion decision, over someone like Gary who makes no promises on abortion, but will be successful on many other issues having to do with personal freedom, budget balancing, debt reduction, the insane war on drugs, limiting government, etc.?

I don't see the abortion laws being changed no matter who is President. But I do see many other great improvements if Gary becomes President.

Just food for thought. Keep your eyes and ears on the candidates and those they associate with.

SRSDDS wrote: There is a Constitutional Amendment protecting gun ownership, so that is an apples and oranges argument. Further gun laws, for the most part, are not necessary and just serve to erode the second Amendment. Caylee's Law would not prevent a neglectful or evil parent from not abusing or killing their child, just like murder laws do not stop evil people from committing murder. I do not look at laws like this as being preventive, I look at them as punitive.
Stephen

Even from a punitive standpoint, Caylee's law would like only add another year or two to her sentence. You admit the law won't prevent anything, so I am correct in my assertion that it is only to make people feel good because someone will get a year in jail for not making a 911 call.

If it doesn't do anything to make society safer, then it is worthless and therefore an apples to apples comparison to gun laws.

So Well wrote:You seem to be a thinking man with a love for freedom and I bet you are a very responsible citizen. You are the kind of voter that Gary Johnson wants to reach. The more you learn about him the more you will like him. Sure you will strongly object to some of his positions, but this is true with any candidate. Gary Johnson will put the interest of individual freedom before his own aspirations.

You can find the info on his website, but something like 4% of New Mexican knew who he was six months before the gubernatorial election. But then they got to know him and he won running as a Republican in a state that is 2 to 1 Democrat. They liked him so much that he became the first governor in New Mexico's history to be reelected.

He has 8 years executive experience as governor and built a successful company of over 1000 employees from his one-man startup company. Gary is a guy with proven executive capability.

If the election were tomorrow I would vote for him - nobody else close. But there is plenty of time left so I will continue to evaluate the candidates including Gary Johnson.

Ya'll have a good week. I will.

I like the libertarian platform, over the years I grew weary of the RNC. I'd go for RJ or RP any day, the rest of them are all ideologues. The Libertarian platform has something for both liberals and conservatives to bite into. However, neither liberals nor conservatives would put a libertarian in office simply because of the points they all disagree with.

So Well wrote:

Vader wrote: And also,while not relevant to this discussion (if any of this discussion is indeed relative to topic), my strongest, and unalterable opposition to the Libertarian party, is their position on abortion, as this among other things draws much comparison to liberals.

Let's continue to keep it friendly!

I have heard Gary state that he believes abortion is wrong (except in special cases like health of the mother), but he supports current law which allows abortion up to week 20.
I believe any candidate who claims they will outlaw elective abortions will be unsuccessful in getting such legislation passed.
So my question is would you vote for someone who promises, but cannot change the abortion decision, over someone like Gary who makes no promises on abortion, but will be successful on many other issues having to do with personal freedom, budget balancing, debt reduction, the insane war on drugs, limiting government, etc.?
I don't see the abortion laws being changed no matter who is President. But I do see many other great improvements if Gary becomes President.
Just food for thought. Keep your eyes and ears on the candidates and those they associate with.

I agree nobody is going to change abortion laws.

I would vote for ANYONE who ISN'T Obama. Although hopefully not Romney.(but will vote for if forced to)
Rick Perry "would be" great.
I love Newt and Herman Cain, but I think they both have zero chance.
Still haven't formed an opinion on Bachmann (sp?)
Rick Santorum? Um, NO.
Ron Paul is kind of a nutjob IMHO.
Sarah Palin?, hope she ain't running.
Gary Johnson...hasn't impressed me thus far, along with the *others*

ameriken wrote:
Even from a punitive standpoint, Caylee's law would like only add another year or two to her sentence. You admit the law won't prevent anything, so I am correct in my assertion that it is only to make people feel good because someone will get a year in jail for not making a 911 call.

If it doesn't do anything to make society safer, then it is worthless and therefore an apples to apples comparison to gun laws.

Do murder and rape laws make society safer? If so, why are there so many rapes and murders? So let's just get rid of the rape and murder laws because they don't make society any safer. I would much prefer to punish those who violate these laws, even though the laws did not prevent their crimes. Also, if a law's validity is only tied to whether or not it makes society a safer place, then by all means let's pass every nanny state law Michelle Obama can come up with.

Don't you agree, that in deference to our duty to protect children, that a missing child should be reported (via 911, a call to the police station, an express mail letter) within 30 days? Isn't not making that report gross negligence? Child abuse laws do not cover this type of negligence, as evidenced by the Anthony jury not returning a guilty verdict on the child abuse charges despite the defense admitting and the prosecution continually pointing out that she did not report the child missing for 31 days.

The knee jerk Libertarian viewpoint that laws inherently limit reasonable freedom is untenable in this case.

Stephen

SRSDDS wrote:

ameriken wrote:
Even from a punitive standpoint, Caylee's law would like only add another year or two to her sentence. You admit the law won't prevent anything, so I am correct in my assertion that it is only to make people feel good because someone will get a year in jail for not making a 911 call.

If it doesn't do anything to make society safer, then it is worthless and therefore an apples to apples comparison to gun laws.

Do murder and rape laws make society safer? If so, why are there so many rapes and murders? So let's just get rid of the rape and murder laws because they don't make society any safer. I would much prefer to punish those who violate these laws, even though the laws did not prevent their crimes. Also, if a law's validity is only tied to whether or not it makes society a safer place, then by all means let's pass every nanny state law Michelle Obama can come up with.

Don't you agree, that in deference to our duty to protect children, that a missing child should be reported (via 911, a call to the police station, an express mail letter) within 30 days? Isn't not making that report gross negligence? Child abuse laws do not cover this type of negligence, as evidenced by the Anthony jury not returning a guilty verdict on the child abuse charges despite the defense admitting and the prosecution continually pointing out that she did not report the child missing for 31 days.

The knee jerk Libertarian viewpoint that laws inherently limit reasonable freedom is untenable in this case.

Stephen

Uh, what kneejerk libertarian viewpoint are you referring to? I've seen nor heard anything of the sort from any libertarian, and I specifically related to So Wells comments several posts back. You are ignoring what actually is being said and are arguing things that aren't said, implied, nor even believed.

SRSDDS wrote:
.... But laws, contrary to what some Libertarians preach, are not all bad or unneeded.

... So let's just get rid of the rape and murder laws because they don't make society any safer. ...

... The knee jerk Libertarian viewpoint that laws inherently limit reasonable freedom is untenable in this case.

When one is having difficulty refuting the argument of his opponents, he can switch tactics. One tactic that is popular is to attribute positions to the opponent that the opponent never takes. Of course one only attributes to the opponent positions that can easily be attacked. Then one begins to attack these positions and after repeating the attacks a few times many will start to believe them including the attacker.

In reference to your three points above:

- As I pointed out in an earlier post, no libertarian preaches that all laws are bad or unneeded. Libertarians support rule of law very ardently.

- Libertarians would be appalled at the thought of eliminating rape and murder laws. Does it say something nefarious about your position that you would even think of this and then post it?

- Knee jerk or not, libertarians do not think that "laws inherently limit reasonable freedom". As I said before more than once, libertarians believe the rule of law protects individual freedom. Without government by rule of law individual freedom will be rare.

Are you imaginatively building a "strawman" libertarian to attack? Or do you actually believe what you are saying because you have never been exposed to libertarian writings and discussions and have them confused with anarchists?

Georg W. Bush, although a very fine and admirable person, is in no way a Conservative.

Now the concept of "a very fine and admirable person" who is "in no way a Conservative", is a concept I will have to think about this week. I always thought the two phrases were mutually exclusive.

SRSDDS wrote:

Don't you agree, that in deference to our duty to protect children, that a missing child should be reported (via 911, a call to the police station, an express mail letter) within 30 days?

Why do you say 30 days? The proposed law says 24 hours.

Has anyone in favor of this law put aside their well-intentioned motives for one minute and used some logic?

The law would only protect those who are negligent and abusive with their children.

This law could and would be used by defense attorneys to get acquittals for their abusive clients. It would give murderous parents 24 hours to file a missing child report. 24 hours is plenty of time to stash a child's body (perish the thought) at night in a swamp in another state and drive home and report the child missing.

24 hours???? I don't have kids but if I did and one went missing it would take me about 3 minutes to call the police!

(But no, I am not proposing a 3-minute law.)

Where are these legions of missing children who went unreported? Is this really an epidemic that requires new legislation?

I'm with Linc.......if you as a parent found your child missing after an hour or two, would you not be frantic. You would be out beating the bushes, calling everyone you know, looking everywhere...and that's just in a few hours. There's something drastically wrong with you if you don't go looking for your child prior to 24 hours. Is there an epidemic of missing children?? Where I live the police will issue an "Amber Alert" for a missing child, with all the pertinent data, within a few hours. I'm sure there are laws on the books in every state and province in North America to start a police searth prior to 24 hours...................let alone 30 days. Could YOU as a parent not know where your child was for 30 days without being a stark raving lunatic. I know I would be absolutely starkers if one of my kids or grandkids was missing for 24 hours.

LinkC wrote:Where are these legions of missing children who went unreported? Is this really an epidemic that requires new legislation?

I agree, this is really a kneejerk reaction to an unexpected verdict.

If this was truly a major issue and concern, the law should have and would have been put in place long before the Casey Anthony trial. I think people (with good intentions) are just mad at the verdict and trying to find a way to deal with it, and that is the reason for the law.

If the verdict was 'guilty', no one would have started the petition.